Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 223 to 226, and your Lordships’ House will remember that we debated the issue in these amendments in June of last year. The amendments have two aims: to provide parents with an effective means of escalating a formal complaint about a school when they are not satisfied with the school’s response, and to introduce a mechanism for better enforcing the legal duties of schools in the provision of education, for example over political impartiality. Proposing these amendments allows for a debate that draws attention to breaches of education law, the failure of the DfE to enforce it or to support concerned parents and the disempowering of parents in the education of their children.

At present, there is little or no enforcement of significant parts of education law: first, because the school inspector at Ofsted does not consider compliance with education law per se. When challenged about rating schools hitherto as outstanding when they were clearly in breach of their legal duties, Ofsted has stated that there are many different obligations and that it is not a compliance-driven inspectorate. Inspectors are teachers by profession, so they may not always be equipped to make judgments over legal compliance.

Secondly, parents could, in theory, launch a judicial review against their child’s school, but the significant costs of such legal action and the damage it could do to the parents’ relationships with their child’s school are significant factors. Parents can use the school’s internal complaints process, and, at a state-funded school, if they remain dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to the DfE. However, there are examples of extremely poor handling of complaints by the department. The department occasionally appears to go to considerable lengths to evade making any decision and parents can literally be waiting years after they first submitted their complaint to the school before they receive a response, by which time their child may well have moved on to another school.

Consequently, failure to comply with some education laws is widespread and schools do not always take them seriously. It is common for teachers and governors not to know what education law requires, demonstrating that it is largely irrelevant in practice. There are exceptions; for example, inspectors will consider aspects of a school’s work on safeguarding, and schools are consequently more likely to closely follow the statutory safeguarding guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education—although even here there have been concerns about schools’ practice.

The amendments would introduce a right for parents to appeal complaints to the First-tier Tribunal, rather than to the DfE, if they have completed the internal school process and remain dissatisfied. The internal school process usually has at least two formal stages. Parents would retain their ability to escalate a complaint to the DfE. The amendments would work by inserting new clauses into existing education Acts: the Education Act 2002, for local-authority maintained schools; the Education and Skills Act 2008, for independent educational institutions, including academies; and the Education Act 1996, for non-maintained special schools. Finally, Amendment 226 would allow for consequential amendments to be made.

As the hour is late, I will not go into detail on the amendments, but I will finish by explaining their impact. To make use of these provisions, parents would need to specify in their complaint the duty that they are concerned the school is breaching. There would also be some costs involved. Not all parents and complaints will be able to make use of these provisions. However, in those situations, parents would be no worse off, as they would still have their current ability to escalate to the DfE. The general effect, however, would be to increase awareness, among both parents and schools, of the school’s legal obligations. An increasingly clear focus on schools’ obligations may lead to greater objectivity in parental complaints and help reduce spurious complaints.

Whereas in the past schools have sometimes withheld information from parents on what they teach, the duty of disclosure would compel them to provide this information if an appeal to the tribunal was pursued, preventing secretive approaches to what children are taught about sometimes sensitive subjects. As tribunal judgments start to be issued, teachers and governors would become more aware of the legal requirements that they are under and take them more seriously, improving compliance and potentially reducing parental complaints in the long run. Politically sensitive judgments —for example, on whether particular teaching about gender identity is a breach of schools’ duty of political impartiality—would pass from the Secretary of State and the department to the tribunal, which would have a greater ability to prioritise a dispassionate consideration of the legal questions over political considerations. The Secretary of State and the department would also benefit, in that their policy decisions that lead to changes in schools’ legal obligations, or changes in statutory guidance to which those schools are legally required to have regard, would be given better effect in schools.

Although judgments of the tribunal at first tier do not set a binding precedent, unlike the decisions at upper tier, they would nevertheless build up a body of legal opinion on the application of education law that would be a valuable reference for governors, teachers and parents. If tribunal decisions repeatedly support bad practice, this would provide clear evidence to Parliament of the need for changes to education law. This may help cut through the claims and counterclaims about whether there are problems in schools’ teaching in areas such as RSE, providing a more objective basis for debate and evidence-based policy. For those reasons, I am happy to commend the four amendments tabled in my name.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 191 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I declare my interest as honorary president of COBIS. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is unable to be here today, but I am grateful to him for sharing recent correspondence he has had with the Minister on this matter.

It is critical that we act to improve the safeguarding arrangements between schools here in England and international schools overseas. The Safeguarding Alliance has supplied a couple of very concerning examples of recent cases where the system has clearly failed. In one international school, sexually explicit material was discovered on a school-owned computer during recent IT maintenance. A subsequent investigation identified multiple videos showing a member of staff livestreaming and recording explicit content which was stored within their user account. The content was assessed as being of such an extreme nature that the local UK embassy declined to view or handle the material. A referral was made to the Teaching Regulation Agency, but the TRA confirmed that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction. The member of staff is now working in another country and able to return to teach here undetected.

In a second example, a nursery teacher was discovered by a parent in the act of sexually abusing a child within the school setting. The parent immediately reported the incident to the school’s senior leadership team. The school made an immediate referral to the relevant local authorities and attempted to report the incident to the TRA, but as the school was based overseas, the TRA was unable to accept or process the referral. The school had no clear alternative reporting or regulatory pathway for international safeguarding concerns involving a UK-regulated teacher. The alleged perpetrator subsequently left the setting, and their current whereabouts remain unknown.

For this reason, Clause 46 is very welcome, in that it extends the jurisdiction of the TRA to those who have previously worked in England. It will give much-needed assurance to employers as teachers return from overseas. However, there remains a narrow but significant gap: where an individual who is qualified to teach in England through IQTS has completed induction in a British school overseas but has never taught in England, there is currently no route for serious misconduct overseas to be reported to the TRA. As the Minister has agreed in correspondence, this covers a very small number of teachers, but this loophole remains a risk to children if it is not closed.

The substantive reason for the Government resisting this amendment was set out in a letter which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, received last night. In essence, it argued that the TRA cannot practically be expected to investigate such incidents overseas. Yet this is precisely what it will have to do with incidents in relation to Clause 46. I want to stress on behalf of both me and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that this amendment does not seek to turn the TRA into a global regulator or require the Secretary of State to investigate all misconduct overseas. It is tightly drawn, applying only to those who are qualified to teach in England and who may in due course seek employment in our schools.

Once Clause 47 requires all schools to employ qualified teachers and Clause 46 brings those who have previously worked in England within scope, this group is all that remains. It is a small cohort, but without this change, an individual who commits serious misconduct overseas may move on, secure a fresh reference and subsequently take up a post in England.

Safeguarding training reminds us that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility; it does not stop at national borders and concerns must be reported wherever there is a risk to children. This amendment is pursued in exactly that spirit, and I hope that the Minister will once again reflect on whether this narrow extension could be accommodated to deliver the outcome that I know we all seek.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Yes indeed, comrade.

I suppose the significant point I am making is that not enough credence has been given to the efforts, which were very well enunciated by my noble friend Lady Brady, of the Premier League through very difficult times, economic downturns and, of course, Covid. At the moment we have that self-correcting economic mechanism to prevent smaller clubs making calamitous economic decisions that may end up with them closing, going into administration, et cetera—although of course, as we have seen from the figures, a relatively small number of clubs have been in that position.

Conversely, we are being asked to formalise in primary legislation a situation where we are putting in the hands of the IFR, along with very significant enabling powers, including Henry VIII powers, the right to redistribute wealth. It may be a simplistic argument but, as my noble friend Lord Markham said, it would be an unprecedented situation for a regulator to redistribute capital between entities. In other words, there will be no internal mechanism or sanction to prevent inordinate amounts of risk being taken. It would be a market distortion and there would be no disincentive for those clubs to make those decisions, as there is now.

That is the philosophical underpinning of why we support these clauses not standing part of the Bill. It does not mean that we do not care about community football clubs. We are being asked to vote not on a perfect piece primary legislation but on the Bill with 100 clauses that is in front of us today. For that reason, I support my noble friend’s contention that Clause 61 and others should not stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 302 and 304.

As I said in previous debates on the backstop, I have real concerns about the resolution process, and in particular the binding final offer arbitration model included. The Minister has repeatedly claimed, and said again today, that these powers are to be used only as a last resort, but we have heard from noble Lords across the House that this does not feel like the situation in which we find ourselves today. As has been identified by other noble Lords, the approach being legislated for in the Bill is unduly adversarial and pits two sides against one another rather than encouraging comprise and dialogue. As we have heard, the very existence of the proposed mechanism set out seems to have played a role in the breakdown of the latest round of financial negotiations, which is concerning and does not bode well for the future.

The Government would be unwise to dismiss and ignore this chilling effect, as the current backstop proposal threatens to undermine and damage relations across the football pyramid. The model just does not make sense. In any deal negotiation, if both sides are disappointed at the outcome reached, it is more likely that it has been fair and balances the two sides’ competing proposals. Yet, as we have heard, under the process set out in the Bill, rather than consider each proposal and determine the best approach—which may very well be a compromise between the two—the expert panel formed by the regulator must instead choose one of the proposals.

Amendment 304 gives the expert panel set up by the regulator to oversee the process the ability to combine elements of the proposals

“where it considers that this will result in an order which is most consistent with the principles in subsection (2)”.

This is a far more sensible approach. It does not mean that the regulator or its expert panel would be forcing a proposal on the two leagues involved. Rather, they can play a constructive role in facilitation and mediation to help achieve an outcome that both parties can agree with.

I really hope that the Minister will use the time between the end of Committee and the beginning of Report to discuss further some of the ideas that have been brought forward in this and, as I said in the previous debate, consult with the leagues and individual clubs again. A number of them have expressed concerns publicly about the process. I hope that she will think about tabling amendments that will be supported across the House at our next stage.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and I commend him on his comprehensive demolition of the Government’s case. I have fundamental problems with this clause, as it stands, in respect of ownership. As my noble friend rightly says, it goes way beyond the admonitions and existing legislation of, say, the various Companies Acts. It is much more draconian and prescriptive than anything we have seen in company law. It is quite sensible, and not ignoble, for all Governments to take a value judgment on who is a fit and appropriate person to be a company director and to trade and take part in commerce. We all understand and support that, but what we see here is very oddly drafted legislation. It seems to me that it may be a reaction to the trade policy clause that existed in the original Bill, which was withdrawn.

At the same time, the Bill is extremely opaque, permissive and open-ended in the power that is bestowed on the Secretary of State. Looking at the schedule, I am very uncomfortable about giving those sweeping powers, not least because there is a differential between the “significant influence”, as contained in the schedule, that a director or a person involved in a football club may have and what we read in Clause 3, which is just “a degree of influence”. What does a degree of influence mean?

It is not all a case of the Saudi royal family and Newcastle United. We are talking about 116 clubs. Is “influence” popping into the dressing room at half-time and saying, “Great match, guys; here’s a beer”? Is it saying, “If you play better next year, my company might sponsor you more favourably”? It may seem ridiculous to use those examples, but this wording is so unclear—so opaque and permissive—in asking to give Ministers very significant powers that we need to think carefully, again, about whether it is appropriate to let it remain in the Bill.

For that reason, I strongly support the eloquent and comprehensive case made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and, in passing, of course I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Markham. This is a bad clause. It will give rise to very big risks of litigation. Ministers should think carefully about whether it remains in the Bill and we should think again, perhaps on Report.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, Norwich City were very fortunate to have Michael Wynn-Jones and Delia Smith as majority shareholders for the past 26 years. They have been fantastic custodians of the club. They joined the board when Norwich were in a perilous financial position and helped steward the club through the highs and lows of six promotions, six relegations, two play-off finals and 15 managers. Of course, Delia was not averse to some direct fan engagement with her “Let’s be ’avin’ you” rallying cry, which we all know and love.

In October, Norfolk Holdings, a group led by the principal owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, assumed majority control of the club, so a new chapter has begun. While Michael and Delia have relinquished control, they remain committed fans, as they always have been. I know that all Canaries are extremely grateful for their unwavering commitment to the club.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 12 in my noble friend’s name and have added my name to it. As he rightly said, this amendment aims to broaden the definition of the sustainability of English football for the purposes of the new regulator, to ensure that it has a duty to consider a much more extensive list of factors that are important for the continued success and growth of the game—obviously, issues that we discussed at length last week—in deciding its approach and exercising its powers. If the Minister will not look at expanding the purpose of the regulator to include growth, for instance, as I set out last week, this is an important amendment to ensure that we expand the definition of sustainability and create a balanced framework within the regulation to provide protections while enabling growth.

A framework that provides sustainability while encouraging investment and maintaining stability will preserve the success of English football and ensure the continuation of innovation and investor confidence. As my noble friend said, we cannot take the success of the English game for granted, so it is important that the Bill ensures that successful elements of the current model are given due prominence—perhaps we are being a bit blasé in thinking they will just continue, no matter what—in the concerns of the regulator going forward.

English football’s depth and current comparative advantages come from achieving the right balance of oversight with competition, aspiration and financial support—a combination of elements that the regulator must be mindful of when considering the sustainability of football over the longer term. I really hope that in the light of our discussions last week, and the concerns we are raising again today, the Minister can see and accept that a narrow set of sustainability metrics could, inadvertently, be very damaging. If she will not look at changing the purpose of the Bill, I very much hope that she will look at expanding the definition of sustainability in this clause, so that we can cover all the elements that we are all, I believe, in support of saying are important in today’s game but simply do not appear in the Bill as it stands.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for the simple reason that it is very helpful to the Government. We had the good fortune to meet the shadow regulator last week; it was a very informative and interesting meeting and, clearly, it is starting from scratch.

Given that the Bill has many wide-ranging and permissive powers that are given via statutory instrument to Ministers, it is important that on its face—in primary legislation—there are proper framework guidelines for the regulatory and legislative regimes for the regulator to go forward with. Given that last week the Government were quite firm in setting their face against growth parameters, which are pretty important, given that the Premier League is one of the most successful business outfits in the whole world—in fact, the most successful sports league in the world—I cannot really understand why the Government believe that this is mutually exclusive to supporting fans and putting into the Bill a commitment to fans, even though they are, as we learned previously, not defined.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister to follow up on something she said in her wind-up speech at Second Reading. She said that, that week,

“the Minister for Sport had a productive discussion with UEFA and they committed to continuing to work together”.—[Official Report, 13/11/24; col. 1908.]

Obviously, it was just a reference, but I wonder whether she might be in a position to give more detail about that conversation, whether some issues raised in the letter have now been dealt with, and what continuing conversations might entail. As she mentioned it quite briefly at Second Reading, it would be great to get a bit more information if she can provide it to us. If she cannot do it now, could she perhaps write to all noble Lords to give us the latest on the discussions that have been ongoing?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Moynihan, Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park. The important thing we are missing is the sweeping enabling powers in the Bill; I think there are 42 powers and a number of Henry VIII powers.

The Prime Minister said on 17 September in response to UEFA:

“I don’t think there’s any problem with the rules, because this is a truly independent regulator. But as you’d expect, we’re talking to UEFA, and I’m sure we’ll find a way through this”.


I reiterate the view of my noble friend Lady Evans and ask for an update from the Minister.

I am not sure if the Prime Minister has actually read the Bill. If he did, he would surely concede that particularly in Clause 11, “Football governance statement”, there are very wide-ranging powers. For instance, Clause 11(3) states:

“The Secretary of State may revise any football governance statement”,


while Clause 11(1) states:

“The Secretary of State may prepare a statement”.


In paragraph 28 of the Explanatory Notes, there are significant powers that are open to future interpretation in a court of law. This is an unprecedented situation, but the notes state that

“guidance is intended to aid the IFR in interpreting the intention of legislation and to inform the detailed development and implementation of its regime. IFR guidance to the industry should give clubs greater information about the specific requirements of the regime, including how the IFR will operate and what is expected of clubs”.

With the best will in the world, that is a very pervasive, far-reaching, enabling power for the Secretary of State and Ministers in the department to exercise. If I can beg the forgiveness of noble Lords, I am slightly sceptical. I am not quite taking the side of FIFA and UEFA, but I have some empathy with the concerns they have about mission creep and a movement from financial issues into the minutiae and technical, granular operation of different football clubs. That is why my noble friends and I are raising this issue. I hope and expect the Minister to address those concerns.