Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I support Clause 31 and government Amendment 120. I also support Amendment 121A, which would extend the scope of what Clause 31 seeks to achieve, which is to prevent concealment of the real reasons for attempts to withdraw children from school, in particular by parents or a parent with something to hide. The clause provides that the consent of the local authority is required if there is a Section 47 inquiry under way or there has been such an inquiry. Amendment 121A would extend the scope of the need for the local authority’s consent, which I support. However, if we are talking about cracks, I suggest that it could go further. The need for consent should also be triggered if the family court, in private law proceedings, has directed a report and investigation under Section 37 of the Children Act or has directed a local authority to report under Section 7. Experience shows, and certainly my experience is, that it is often in private law proceedings that alarm bells first ring. That is the first opportunity to investigate what really might be happening in the family home.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s sensible proposals in Amendment 121A—they obviously have cross-party support. The Bill proposes a power for local authorities to withhold consent to a child being removed from school in certain circumstances and my noble friend’s amendment would strengthen that principle by giving a local authority the power to refuse consent if a child has ever been subject to a child protection plan or if they are currently defined as a Section 17 child in need because of abuse or neglect.

It is important to remember that although education in this country is compulsory, schooling is not. For some parents this is a very important principle, which is why I support other amendments supported by my noble friend to require a local authority to give its reasons for withholding consent and, importantly, to simplify the huge amount of information a parent choosing to educate their child at home currently has to provide.

My noble friend Lord Lucas, who is in his place, asked an apposite question in Committee:

“What is the Government’s purpose in seeking to be … so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education”—[Official Report, 20/5/25; col. 173.]


in this Bill? The vast majority of parents do not choose home schooling for their children, but for those who do, it is an important freedom. I say to the Minister that I am flagging up a possible situation beyond this Bill. Although parents may choose home schooling, for some it is becoming not a principle but a necessity. I am looking at the parents of children with special needs who are forced into home schooling because the local authority cannot afford to provide for their child, or offers unacceptable alternatives, such as return journeys of 90 miles to a school every day or private tutoring in a public place. Of course this is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is a warning note because we may find that there then is established another category of home schooling for parents who have been offered an unacceptable solution to their problem.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I will be very brief. It is an old, apparently African, adage that it takes a village to raise a child, but it is no less true for that. What that captures in a few words is that raising a child is a balance: a partnership between the parents on the one hand and the wider community on the other. I think that is what we are trying to get at in this group of amendments: what are the appropriate powers for the state to have and what should be simply left to parents?

It is a long-standing principle in this country that parents have the right to home-educate their children, but where that becomes a proxy for hiding the children from the state and putting them in a place where they are potentially at risk and at danger then clearly concerns must be raised. Having listened carefully to this debate, I will, if they are pressed to Divisions, support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in Amendment 121A and maybe later in Amendment 131A. They are probably as nuanced as we are going to get in a complex situation where we can all find bad balls for which we should not be setting the field.

Schools and Universities: Language Learning

Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Baroness, Lady Coussins, on introducing this debate and also on her outstanding and continuing work on the importance of modern languages.

The well-known actor Larry Lamb, who is fronting the British Council’s new festival of languages this summer in London, recently said:

“English is the language of business but children and young people should understand the level of respect that comes when you attempt to speak the language of the people with whom you’re working”.


Mr Lamb criticised a 2004 decision by Charles Clarke, the then Education Secretary, to drop compulsory language learning from the age of 14. Mr Lamb also added, somewhat provocatively:

“I feel disappointed that the education system has allowed this to happen. I bet there aren’t many private schools where taking languages is a choice, particularly at the top end”.


It is true that the prospects for modern language learning are currently not good, but that is the responsibility of successive Governments and most certainly not the responsibility of Charles Clarke alone. Successive Governments have allowed this situation to develop.

GCSE entries in modern languages decreased from over 500,000 in 2004 to just over 330,000 in 2025. The proposed abolition of the EBacc does not help much, because languages will have to compete even more with other subjects when pupils are making choices. The DfE, over many years, has missed its targets for modern language trainee teachers. In 2025, only 42% of the target was reached.

A most shocking thing, which I had not realised, is that over half of all universities have ceased to offer modern language degrees altogether. Currently, only 48 do, compared to 108 in 2000. The consequence is obviously a strong decline in the number of qualified modern language teachers. As is always the case in education matters, without qualified and well-trained teachers, there is quite simply no education. My eye is upon the noble Baroness, Lady Blower.

Many years ago, in an earlier career, I set up a number of projects to teach French in primary schools, with tight and co-operative links to the appropriate secondary schools. We trained teachers and hired peripatetic staff and French assistants. Our strong in-service training included what became known locally, rather unfortunately, as “French weekends”. In this residential training, French was spoken throughout, French food was served and there were obviously quite a number of wine tastings. The whole scheme brought together primary and secondary teachers with the Alliance Française. It was a true languages pipeline, with stellar O-level and A-level results in languages as a consequence. This was one way of achieving that improvement.

More recently, a solution to the falling numbers of modern language teachers has been recruitment from overseas, as we have said. Precisely the issues involved with that approach are at the heart of this debate: 50% of trainees are recruited internationally; they get bursaries, but the cost of employing them and visa difficulties have presented other problems, not least that apparently, half the trainees go home when they cannot find a job here. Another stupid complication is that the duration of the graduate visa scheme has been reduced to 18 months, while the induction period for newly qualified teachers lasts for two years. That is not good co-ordination.

However, there are plenty of practical solutions, some of which will emerge from this debate. The idea that there should be a national languages strategy has already been mentioned. It is backed by the British Academy, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Association of School and College Leaders, the British Council and Universities UK, which is quite a line-up. Another practical idea would be for the DfE or local authorities to set up local regional conferences where heads and teachers could share solutions, such as helplines and guidance on the visa system. I feel compelled to say that that is what we used to do.

There is strong consensus worldwide that effective communication between nations is more valuable and relevant now than it has ever been. The DfE itself said:

“Learning a language empowers young people to engage with the world, think critically and understand new perspectives”.


That is true, so I hope the Minister takes careful note not only of the excellent evidence provided by this debate but of the realistic and practical solutions that have already been proposed, when we are nowhere near the end of the debate.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am very sorry to intervene again but, if every noble Lord and noble Baroness takes an extra minute, we are not going to get through this debate in time.