Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak briefly to the procedural Amendment 2. It is a pleasure to present the amended Bill to this House. The passage of the Bill has benefited from scrutiny from your Lordships and from the other place. I am heartened to have seen the clear commitment to addressing the challenges of our current skills system. By paving the way for Skills England and empowering it with the functions currently exercised by IfATE, the Bill will ensure that Skills England is the single authoritative voice in the skills landscape. The changes the Bill makes will enable Skills England to identify and help address the skills gaps that hamper growth and opportunity in this country.
Skills England is not just ready but raring to go. That is why the substantive change made to the Bill in the other place was to remove the amendment that would have delayed the commencement of provisions in the Bill for a year after the creation of Skills England. The Skills England leadership is in place, the work is already ongoing and staff are ready to transfer. Delay to the commencement of the provisions in the Bill would not have been needed or helpful.
In addition to the substantive amendment on commencement, a procedural amendment was made in the other place to remove the Lords privilege amendment, in line with convention. This amendment makes no substantive change to the Bill. I am grateful to noble Lords for all their energy and collaboration as this House has considered the Bill and I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have no intention of opposing the amendments sent to us by the House of Commons. I regret the removal of the sole amendment passed by this House, which would, in my view, have given more time for Skills England to get its strategic work fully up and running before taking on the functions to be transferred from IfATE. Having said that, I greatly welcome the establishment of Skills England. I am impressed by the leadership appointments that have been made, with Phil Smith as chair and Sir David Bell as vice-chair. This body has a vital role in meeting the UK’s skills needs, which are fundamental to virtually every objective we and the Government have set for ourselves, and I wish it every success.
I would like to restate my two major concerns, and I will be more than happy if they prove unfounded in the fullness of time. First, will Skills England be able to effectively co-ordinate the work of all the different bodies that need to be involved if we are to deliver a successful skills system overall? That is across government departments, across regions and nations, across industries and sectors and across education and training institutions. Skills England will have to be a pretty effective and tough body with some teeth to make sure that all those bodies fulfil their particular roles in the overall system. My second, more specific question is, how will that successful skills system be defined, measured, monitored and assessed? What will the Government come back to tell us in a few years’ time to demonstrate that it has been successful?
I welcome the Bill as an important first step towards a successful skills system, and I very much hope that the concerns I have expressed will indeed prove to have been unfounded.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have been involved in the passage of the Bill. His Majesty’s Official Opposition remain concerned that the Government have removed the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Other noble Lords also expressed concerns that Skills England will be overly focused on administration, resulting in it being unable to prioritise its central strategic tasks. By allowing a year to pass between the creation of Skills England and the abolition of IfATE, we would create sufficient time for the effective transfer of functions and ensure that Skills England could take on its role successfully.
We would suggest that it is a mistake for the Government to ignore these concerns. In both your Lordships’ House and the other place, there has been cross-party support on this issue, and we cannot hide our disappointment that the Government remain unconvinced on this focal point. We on these Benches are worried that the transition period as planned will have a damaging impact on apprentices.
At the same time, we recognise that this is a manifesto commitment. We will, of course, while challenging constructively, work with His Majesty’s Government to progress their skills programme, and we do not intend to push this issue any further. We will continue to remain vigilant on the transition to Skills England and ensure that it is working for the very people it aims to help. Should our concerns increase, we will endeavour to raise them in your Lordships’ House. It is now up to the Government to ensure that Skills England is able to run effectively and does not become overwhelmed with the weight of the accreditation and assurance process.
We are indeed grateful that His Majesty’s Government have listened to some of the key points that have been raised across your Lordships’ House, and the Bill has been strengthened accordingly. A report on the exercise of functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State has now been included, which is important for accountability. The Government have listened to the concerns about the Secretary of State preparing apprenticeship plans and assessments, and will, as such, publish information about the relevant matters that have been taken into account.
We thank the Minister for her engagement throughout consideration of the Bill, and we thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions and worked constructively on its scrutiny.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of noble Lords and the continued challenge of those who have made the Bill better during its passage through this House.
On whether Skills England is ready, I reassure noble Lords that it is ready to take on the functions currently exercised by IfATE, where appropriate. Detailed transition plans are in place to ensure continuity throughout the transition. There will be continuity in staff and team structures, which will ensure a smooth operational transition and maintain vital links to employers. Staff are eager to contribute their expertise and valuable insights, to feed into Skills England’s broader purpose from day one.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Moved by
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
“For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Statement, which we have not had the privilege of listening to in this House today, said that the ruling was not a zero-sum game. That is a phrase I have been using for quite a long time in this context, and I totally agree, but the practical repercussions of the ruling have been left to others to sort out—for women, trans people, non-binary, intersex and anyone else who may not pass muster through no fault of their own.
We need guidelines, as the noble Baroness has just mentioned, for the management of single-sex spaces and for institutions such as hospitals, the police, operators of gyms and so on. Then there are everyone else’s human rights, such as the right to privacy and to safety—if you are a trans woman being forced to use men’s toilets, for example—and not to be subjected to degrading treatment. How will the Government organise these guidelines? Can the Minister say what the timescale is? In the meantime, what is the advice to those who are now not allowed to use single-sex facilities? Are they to lose their right to public life, including as advisers to this House?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this ruling brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and service providers. Throughout my life, not just as a Minister, I have campaigned and worked for women’s rights and for the need for single-sex spaces, including, given my great age, when it was not the mainstream concern that it has become now. Like many of my sisters on these Benches, some of my earliest political campaigning was for the single-sex spaces necessary in refuges and rape crisis services to protect and support women.
The Government will therefore continue as before, working to protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex, now with the added clarity of this ruling. We will continue our wider work with commitment and compassion to protect all those who need it, right across society.
This is a Government who will support the rights of women and trans people, now and always. We will support the rights of our most vulnerable, now and always, and on that there is no change.
However, this is an important judgment, long in the making. It began in 2018 when Scottish Ministers issued guidance on the definition of a “woman” in the eyes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. That guidance stated that a “woman” in that Act bears the same meaning as in the Equality Act 2010 and included trans women with a gender recognition certificate. For Women Scotland challenged that guidance, saying that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, so that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is a man for the purposes of the Act. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and last week the court ruled that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. This means that a person will be considered as their biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.
As both noble Baronesses have identified, there is now a need to ensure that this ruling is clear across a range of settings, from healthcare and prisons to sport and single-sex support groups. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Britain’s equality regulator, is working quickly to issue an updated statutory code of practice to reflect this judgment, and we look forward to reviewing that code of practice in due course. It will, of course, be laid in front of Parliament for approval.
On some of the other issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, on the Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education and Gender Questioning Children guidance that I think she was referring to, that draft was produced just before last July’s general election and before the response to the Cass Review recommendations. We are considering that carefully—including with stakeholders and in the light of the Cass Review—with the interests of children absolutely at the heart, and we will publish that guidance soon.
On the noble Baroness’s points about the data Bill, I know that those issues have been discussed at length in this House and in the other place. The data Bill does not change the nature of sex or gender reporting in the way in which she implied.
On hospital wards, given that the last Government presided over a 2,000% increase in mixed-sex wards, the noble Baroness is right that there is a problem with the dignity available to patients in single-sex wards. Given the clarity in this guidance, NHS England is now reviewing the guidance and working quickly to make sure that that is communicated properly to the health service. This Government’s investment in the NHS will help practically to ensure that all people can have the dignity and care that they need in the NHS.
Referring to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, I also know and have heard from trans people, their families and friends who are worried in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, so I want to provide reassurance here and now that trans people will continue to be protected. As a Government, we will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We will work to equalise all existing strands of hate crime and review adult gender identity services, so that all trans people get the high-quality care they deserve. The laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place, and trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic written into Labour’s Equality Act.
The Supreme Court verdict is about clarity and coherence in the eyes of the law, but along with that verdict the judges delivered a vital reminder. This is not about the triumph of one group at the expense of another. It is not about winners or losers, and it is not about us or them. Everybody in our society deserves dignity and respect. Those are the values that define a modern and compassionate society and the values that this Government will uphold.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we are now moving on to 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions on the Statement. I remind all noble Lords about language and that the House expects the usual courtesies to be respected. This is Back-Bench questions, not speeches. If our questions are short, succinct and to the point, I hope we will get in at least 16 contributions from Back-Bench Members. To assist noble Lords, the first question will be from the Conservative Benches, and I will then go to the Labour Benches, then to the Liberal Democrat Benches and then to the Cross Benches. At that point, I will see where we go next.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her statement of acceptance of the Supreme Court’s judgment and thank the Supreme Court for its courage. This issue has always been about the safety of women and girls in their single-sex spaces for which women, including the Minister, have fought long and hard for. Many of us have been involved in those campaigns over the years. Of course, compassion for all must be at the heart of it, but a significant level of violence has been displayed towards women and girls in the last few days, including violent statements sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, in her capacity as chair of the EHRC. I invite the Minister now to join with me in condemning all gestures and statements of violence that we have seen against women and girls and to have the government support to stand against this.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The violence and abuse received by those women who took forward this action and by others who have taken this position is wholly unacceptable, as is the vandalism of statues that we saw over the weekend. We have already condemned that in the strongest possible terms, and we support action being taken by the Metropolitan Police on that. This is a debate that has not always been carried out in the spirit of respect, recognising the enormously sensitive and difficult issues, and I hope that from now on we will be able to do that.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, once again I declare my interest as the parent of a trans child. As a matter of law, the Supreme Court’s decision does not require the exclusion of trans people from all single-sex spaces; rather, it declares that, provided an organisation makes a proportionate decision, then that will not be unlawful. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that these are complicated issues, which involve balancing rights and risks? Does she also agree that what is needed now is calm consideration, on a case-by-case basis, so as to ensure that all our fellow citizens feel safe and are protected?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is clear in the Supreme Court’s judgment that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, where single-sex spaces are being provided, they will be provided on the basis of biological sex. That does not, of course, prevent the provision of inclusive services where there is clarity that those services are being provided on that basis.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that all the main party leaders have accepted the Supreme Court judgment, including my own leader on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think it would be better if all leaders could express a welcome for the judgment itself, not just for the clarity it brings. I have two questions. How will the Government ensure not only that those single-sex facilities provided are kept single sex but also that service providers do not sidestep the provision of single-sex facilities by defaulting all the time to unisex provision? Secondly, do the Government agree that lessons need to be learned across the political spectrum about the need to safeguard all protected characteristics? If that of women—the majority of the population—can have been eroded in this way, what about all the other protected characteristics, including gender reassignment and sexual orientation, of course? How will all those be safeguarded?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s final point, as I outlined at the beginning, protecting the most vulnerable people and protecting people on the basis of their protected characteristics remain an important element of the Equality Act and an important element of this Government’s programme and ambitions.
On how the clarity that this ruling brings will be communicated to and represented by providers, this is where the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission—in particular, the updated statutory code of practice—will be enormously important. It will spell out the practical implications to ensure that the meaning and clarity of this judgment are delivered in practice, particularly, as the noble Baroness outlined, in relation to single-sex spaces and their protection. This does provide more clarity now on the provision of those single-sex spaces.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, as we watch Governments around the world roll back on their commitment to the rights of people who choose to live life differently, and to do so freely, safely and with dignity, I very much welcome the comments the Minister has repeated about the rights of everyone in our society to have dignity and respect.
My question is a very specific one about provisions in hospitals. I hear what the Minister says, but there are surely some spaces where there will always be a joint provision, particularly intensive care units, where it does not make sense to provide specific spaces. Could the Minister clarify that there will be nuance in how the ruling is interpreted?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that there are technicalities and complications about the way healthcare is provided. There is, however, now clarity through this ruling about where the intention is that spaces should be single sex—as is the case with provisions in wards in hospitals. That should be clear.
The NHS England guidance, supported by colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, will want to look in detail at the very sensible point she made about the practicalities of how healthcare is provided. The important point is that people’s dignity, at a time when they are probably feeling at their most vulnerable, needs to be protected. There is more clarity that has been provided post this ruling.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, in December Dr Eleanor Frances reached a significant settlement of over £116,000 with a no-confidentiality clause after constructive dismissal from the Civil Service based on her gender-critical beliefs. As a result, the Civil Service committed to revise its guidelines. In the light of the Supreme Court ruling, can the Minister update the House on how this work is going and how soon the new guidelines might be introduced?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Gender-critical beliefs are of course protected under the provisions of the Equality Act. I do not know where that particular guidance or those changes have got to, but I will come back to the noble Baroness with progress on that.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement but advise her not to take any advice from the party opposite. When they were in government, as this House knows, I raised again and again the question of the GMC registering doctors by their preferred gender and not by sex. This makes it very difficult for a woman to give informed consent if she does not know whether the doctor is a woman or not. Similarly, where chaperones are requested by a woman patient, they can be offered someone who is not a biological woman when clearly they want a woman. The old Government did nothing about this, so could the new Government please talk to the NHS to make sure that the sex of the doctor or the chaperone is quite clear, particularly, I am afraid, for women patients?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is of course right. I think we should be judged on this on the basis of our action to protect women and girls, our action to protect the most vulnerable in our society and our action to ensure that trans rights are upheld, rather than our rhetoric. That will be the way that we will want to go forward.
My noble friend raised the very important point, as I suggested earlier, about the need for dignity and clarity for people receiving healthcare. That is the reason the NHS will now look carefully at the implications of this ruling and will update its guidance where necessary to ensure that that protection and that dignity are safeguarded.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that everyone in this House wants trans girls and trans women to feel welcome here, so what changes will happen to toilet facilities in the Lords? I have only been able to find one sex-neutral toilet. It is a single stall and it is inconveniently placed. Will neutral facilities, open to all, of every sex, be made available and located in places convenient for Members, staff and visitors?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The facilities of the House of Lords are not something for which I have responsibility. I am sure, like all other providers of services, the House will be considering carefully both this ruling and the requirement to ensure that people are able to access services that respect their dignity.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have a very technical legal question. Some of the commentary I have heard on the ruling suggests that, if an organisation decides to use biological sex as a basis, it may do so, but not that it must do so. Is that correct?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My understanding of the ruling is that, where single-sex spaces are provided, they should be provided on the basis of biological sex. It is not, of course, the case that every service needs to be provided on the basis of single sex, but, where they are provided on that basis, it should be done on the basis of biological sex.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, next and then the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I very much hope that trans people will still believe that this is a country where they are welcome and where their rights and dignity are upheld; that is certainly the position in law. My noble friend raises an important point around hate crime. We are working with the Home Office to equalise the approach taken to hate crime to ensure that all of it, including that against trans people, is manifested as an aggravated offence in the way in which he is asking.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is not party political: Front-Benchers on all sides shunned across Benches. We were shamed, shunned and shushed for simply asserting women as adult human females. But can the Minister clarify and reassure that not one trans person’s rights have been removed by the Supreme Court? Does she agree that the problem is that, as legislators, we misled trans people and institutions about the law by encouraging the myths of gender ideology or gender identity being the same as biological sex? Will she ensure that the Civil Service is now properly informed so that we, as lawmakers, no longer peddle mistruths—and, in fact, misinformation—as we have been for some time?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure that the Civil Service, we as lawmakers and all public bodies will look carefully at this ruling and the statutory code of practice that will be brought forward by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I add that, the last time I was asked, I referred to a woman as an adult female from this Dispatch Box—that was before the ruling.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, if noble Lords read the whole document, they will see that the judge recognised the sensitivity of his judgment. My noble friend the Minister has also recognised the need for compassion, respect and dignity, so I ask her whether the Government can ensure that the EHRC, in producing guidance, will give the trans communities their right to be consulted in the creation of the new guidance and information shared with the public. Can the Government ensure that the EHRC will look at this very carefully before it is announced?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
One of the important things about the EHRC’s production of the statutory code of practice, and other forms of guidance, is that it consults as widely as possible, as my noble friend outlined. That is one of the ways that everybody will be able to be confident about their rights and the rights for trans people that remain in the law now.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, this welcome decision has long-overdue implications for competition in sport, both nationally and internationally. Will the Minister agree that national governing bodies of sport, particularly for football and cricket, along with organisers of events such as the London Marathon events, should now revise their rules? Will she agree that Sport England should publish its advice and oversee implementation of that advice as soon as possible—certainly before the Summer Recess?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The integrity and fairness of sport are obviously crucial. The Equality Act actually always allowed sporting bodies, for example, to exclude trans people from gender-affected sporting competitions if necessary to secure fair competition or for the safety of their competitors. I am sure that sporting bodies will now look carefully at this ruling as they consider how to maintain that integrity and fairness.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a Government Minister said this week that everyone should use toilets according to their sex recorded at birth. I think the Minister has said similar things this morning, in terms of single-sex spaces and biological sex. With trans men, some of whom look more of a man than I do, being told to use women’s facilities, how does this make women safer or less fearful, when a predatory male could simply claim to be a trans man?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It was the Supreme Court that was clear that single-sex spaces, including toilets, should be offered on the basis of biological sex, and Ministers were reflecting that ruling. This is a difficult issue, and I am sure that it will be considered by the EHRC during the production of its code of practice. Increasingly, in very many public places we see unisex toilets, which are available to everybody.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister give an absolute commitment that the Supreme Court judgment will apply to Northern Ireland in full, like the rest of the United Kingdom, despite Northern Ireland being left under EU equality laws?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Baroness about that. There are elements of this ruling and the scope of the Equality Act that we need to look at carefully, but I will come back to her.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was in your Lordships’ House when the Equality Act was debated for a number of days. Lord Lester of Herne Hill and I were sparring partners, but we were very clear then that, as the Supreme Court has said, when you talk about a woman you mean this. That is very clear in the debates in this House. Now that the ruling has been clarified, there is a question that people wanted to ask, and the judges have said that this not a winning position for one group or another. How will the Government ensure that anybody who wants to comment reads that judgment clearly so that they know where it is going, and that trans people’s rights have not been taken away but remain? What will the Government do to help trans people who now feel as if they have become second-class citizens?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I hope I provided some reassurance in my opening comments. The noble and right reverend Lord is right that this does not remove legal protections for trans people.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Section 2 of the Gender Recognition Act requires somebody applying for a gender recognition certificate to have lived in the acquired gender for at least the preceding two years. In the light of this judgment, how is somebody to fulfil that statutory requirement if they are not permitted to use common public facilities that are designed for people of their acquired gender? If possessing a certificate no longer entitles them to use them, what does the Minister say are the material advantages of obtaining a gender recognition certificate at all?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, many of the elements of obtaining a gender recognition certificate remain in place, with the exception that is now applied by this ruling to the definition of “women” in the Equality Act. We do not believe that this undermines the rights or processes involved in the Gender Recognition Act.
Free School Meals
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make it more straightforward for parents to check their children’s eligibility for free school meals.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we want to ensure that all families who need it get the support they are entitled to, which is why we make claiming free school meals simple through the provision of an eligibility checking system to local authorities to assess claims for meals. This system is being improved to allow parents to check their own eligibility for free meals, which has the potential to support more families in taking up their entitlement.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer, but the bureaucracy involved in registering is proving a barrier for many families. As a result, a considerable number of children are losing out on the free school meals to which they are entitled; the current estimate is about a quarter of a million across England. Does my noble friend agree that this is not just about the children? Local authorities are losing out on the pupil premium that is triggered as soon as registration takes place, and these are vital funds for many schools. I am not asking for more money: the money is already in the system. Rather, I invite my noble friend to suggest how that money can be released as fully as it has been in the local authorities that have introduced automatic enrolment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about how we can smooth the process to ensure that people are able to gain their entitlement. We recognise—as my noble friend does—the vital role played by free school meals both in supporting individual children and identifying where additional support needs to be provided to schools.
To reiterate what I said previously, we are working to improve the eligibility checking system, making it available to parents, for example. We are also working with stakeholders to better understand some of the barriers to the take-up of free school meals. The improvement of data sharing could also help to ensure that local authorities have the information they need to work more closely with the families who could, and should, be entitled to free school meals. That is why we are working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore legal gateways that could enable data sharing to improve that ability, giving local authorities access to that data and enabling them to take action to ensure that more families who are entitled are getting their free school meals.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, there is a history of underclaiming of benefits running through the whole system. It is not to do with this Government or even the last one; it has been there for a long time. Will the Government look at how to increase the number of people who claim what they are entitled to in the new Bill that is coming before us on 1 May, as that would seem to be a good opportunity?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We are already taking action, as I suggested, through widening the ability of people to use the eligibility checker, by ensuring that there is better sharing of data with local authorities. On the point about reducing the friction in the application process, we are working with DWP to consider how we can more closely link applying for universal credit with entitlement to free school meals. There is a variety of activity that the Government are already undertaking. I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss that in more detail and length when we bring forward the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to the House.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure we all agree that we want our children to be well fed at school. Hungry children cannot learn. Picking up on the comments, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, there is still a lot of stigma around enrolling for this. Could AI not help local authorities and others to identify families who could qualify for free school meals and auto-enrol them?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I suspect that there are ways in which AI could help. As we talk to stakeholders and others who are involved in trying to encourage the full take-up of free school meal entitlement, there are also some less technological ways in which, for example, those who work closely with families, let us say in local authorities, on other areas of their benefits—housing benefit, for example—can be facilitated through the sharing of data that I have talked about to make the links for those families to the sharing of free school meals. There is a whole range of other areas of stigma, as my noble friend outlined, where sometimes work, both in schools and at a local level, can help to overcome those barriers and make sure that children and their families are getting what they are entitled to.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned DWP. She will be aware of the concerns about the loss of entitlement to free school meals when those on legacy benefits migrate to universal credit. The estimates I have seen are as high as 1 million children. Could she say what assessment the department has made of this? If she does not have the figures, perhaps she could write to me and put a copy in the Library.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is talking about the changes to the transitional protections: as she knows, phase one has now come to an end. To reassure families, no pupil will feel any change as a result of the move to phase two of the protections until after the summer. I can assure the noble Baroness that, as with all government policy, we will keep our approach to free school meals under review. I am happy to write to her with the figures for those who have had transitional protections and how they will be supported until the end of this school year. Then, we will bring forward more information about what will happen at that particular point.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I was told before the election that this was a GDPR issue, but it became very clear that it is not. Now that that is clear, every single one of the 23 local authorities in the north-east is now engaged in auto-enrolling every eligible child for free school meals. In Newcastle alone, within the last year, that is over 2,000 additional children, and of course the schools also benefit. Will my noble friend join me in congratulating every one of those 23 authorities, but also really push to make sure that other local authorities just get on with it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point, and makes the case that I was trying to outline about the way in which local authorities are often very well placed to ensure that children are getting what they are entitled to, but often need the data and the information to be shared with them in order to be able to do that—although I know my noble friend thinks that they could have done it more easily. But we will facilitate the sharing of that data and I share her view that, where some local authorities have already made enormous progress in enrolling more children in free school meals, others should look to their example and ensure that they do that as well.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, will the Minister consider the scheme funded by the Mayor of London, by which all state primary school children receive free school meals, with the undoubted benefits that brings, and will she consider extending that nationally?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
One of the things about devolving responsibilities is that it enables in this case mayors to make decisions about how they want to spend their resources. As I said, at the moment we are focused on ensuring that all those who are entitled to free school meals under the current criteria are able to get them. Decisions about how and whether to extend that entitlement more broadly will of course be dependent on much wider decisions about the resources that are available and where as a Government we think we need to focus them to get the best possible results for children.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, unlike other young students from poor backgrounds in further education who can qualify for a free meal, apprentices from poor backgrounds do not. Given that we want to encourage every young person from every background to go for an apprenticeship, will my noble friend the Minister consider looking again at the eligibility criteria for further education institutions to allow more young people from poor backgrounds to get and stay in apprenticeships?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I certainly want to ensure that we right the decline in young people starting apprenticeships that has happened over the last few years. As my noble friend knows, if you are in an apprenticeship, you are essentially in a job with training, spending perhaps one day a week in a further education college, so I am not sure that free school meals would be the best way of encouraging people on to those apprenticeships. But I certainly want to consider how we can enable more young people to get the benefits of an apprenticeship, particularly at that early age, where we have seen such a fall-off in the numbers.
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this last-minute announcement of the renewal of the fund, while welcome in itself, feels extraordinary, as it came after weeks of obfuscation and a day after the previous fund had expired. Will the Minister explain what happened, what went wrong, when applications will open and what the Government are doing to make sure that the most urgent cases are fast-tracked for support?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise the very important role played by the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provides valuable therapeutic support to adopted children and special guardianship children who were previously in care. I very much appreciate that the delay in confirming the continuation of this fund has been a very difficult time for many people. In relation to individual arrangements, we put in place transitional funding arrangements ahead of the full 2025-26 budget announcements that we were able to make yesterday. This means that therapy that started in the last financial year has continued into this financial year, so most children who are in the middle of their therapy have not missed out. I am pleased that the Government were able yesterday to confirm that £50 million has been allocated for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We will be announcing further details in coming days and opening applications to families and children across the country as soon as we can.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is nice to hear that we have actually got round to finding some solution here, but will the Minister give us an assurance that we will not have this stop-start approach to something which needs continuation? If we want people to become guardians or to take on these adoptions of very difficult cases, they need to have some continuation and support. Effectively, this delay, this potential trouble, was something that would discourage people. What are the Government going to do to make sure that this never happens again and to undo the damage they have done to the image here?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I pointed out, for individual children there was transitional support for therapy that they had got permission to receive from last year into this year. However, I concede that this has been a difficult time for both the children and families that receive support through the fund and for therapists who supply support as part of that funding. We will work as hard as we can to make sure that we provide consistency and early indication of budgeting in future years.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it seems clear that this support is critical for many children, and I am thinking in particular of children in kinship care. The problem is that at the moment the criteria restrict the fund to those who have previously been in the care system. When kinship care really works well is when the case conference enables the wider family to step in immediately, but the child may still be traumatised and indeed other members of the family may need support too. Will the Minister commit to looking at this so that, when the Government are thinking about the criteria for the now very welcome money, they think about those who are not just coming through the care system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the adoption and special guardianship support fund is specifically aimed at recognising the state’s role in having previously cared for the child at the point at which they are adopted or go into special guardianship. She is also right about the enormously important role that kinship care plays in our system. That is why the Government have made a series of announcements about how we can support the important role of kinship care: the appointment of the first national kinship care ambassador; the new kinship care statutory guidance for local authorities; the delivery of over 140 peer support groups across England, available for all kinship carers to access; and, of course, the recently announced £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance, to test whether paying an allowance to cover the additional costs of supporting the child can help to increase the number of children taken in by family members and friends, with all the benefits that my noble friend has identified.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we need to do all that we can to demonstrate that we value enormously people who are willing to adopt a child who has had a very unfortunate start to their young lives? That includes the excellent foster carers who would like to go forward to adoption but who may have difficulty reconciling the financial issues that that raises. Could the Minister assure the House that everything will be done to promote adoption as a positive, creative and enabling way of protecting children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. As I say, I do regret the concern that there has been among adoptive parents and those with special guardianship orders about the certainty of the support that we were able to announce yesterday. I assure noble Lords that this does not show a lack of support from the Government for adopted children or adopters, who, as the noble Lord says, play an enormously important and positive role. Today, the Government have been able to confirm funding of £8.8 million for Adoption England to improve the recruitment of adopters and the matching of children and family support during this financial year.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, with regard to the delay in funding, I welcome the Minister’s point about transition funding being arranged for existing families, but because of the delay there will be a backlog of kinship families and local authorities that want to proceed with new applications for therapeutic assessments and support. What steps are the Government going to take to ensure that processing can be done at speed for these new applications?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We want to come forward quickly with information about how new applications can be made, and I will be happy to share details of that with the House. I understand that, when applications are made, they are dealt with quickly through the system, but we need to be clear with people about how to go about making those applications, and that is something that we are working on at this moment.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the funding that has been announced for the next financial year is welcome, and I know that the Government have said that funding going forward will be subject to the spending review. Is it anticipated that there will be an announcement that this fund will be secured over more than one year?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness answered the question in her question. We have announced £50 million for this financial year and, as part of the coming spending review, we will look to consider the position over a longer period. That is not only in respect of this particular fund but is the case with a lot of the expenditure we currently have and would have been the case under the previous Government as well in the run-up to a three-year spending review, which is the period we are in now.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for having widened the crack she opened about a week ago when this matter was first raised in this House? That was welcome. I also thank her for the very whole-hearted way in which she endorsed kinship care in her responses just now. Does she recognise that in the education Bill, whose Second Reading will be on 1 May, which deals with some aspects of kinship care, there are obscurities and weaknesses in that? I hope that, between now and 1 May, she can give some very careful thought as to how that could be made more precise in the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am looking forward to 1 May, when we can start the adventure of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I am undertaking to continue my learning about the provisions within that Bill over the Easter Recess and, as I have learnt in this House, I have no doubt that we will both get into the detail and be informed by considerable experts on all parts of that legislation. I look forward to explaining more about how that Bill will support kinship care and to learning more about the challenge and what more this Government need to be able to do to put that into operation.
Universities: Free Speech
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to universities following the fine imposed by the Office for Students on Sussex University for breach of free speech obligations.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the regulatory case report to which the noble Baroness referred underlines the importance of good governance and academic freedom in higher education. The Office for Students will shortly be writing to relevant providers on this important issue and offering support and advice. It will be publishing updated guidance for the higher education sector to support it to understand how to comply with its duties in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the robust backing that the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has given to the Office for Students’ insistence, via a hefty fine, on respect for free speech at Sussex University—including for academics such as Kathleen Stock, whose expression of a revolutionary belief about the reality of biological sex got them hounded and abused. I note, though, that Sussex University is indicating defiance of the OfS ruling. Will Education Ministers, not just the OfS, ensure that universities are persuaded not only of their intellectual duty to respect free debate but of their obligation not to waste taxpayers’ money, especially when they are complaining about a shortage of funds?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that we have robustly defended academic freedom. We believe that universities are places where academics need to be able to express and research contested ideas, where individuals need to be able to express lawful speech, and where that freedom of speech needs to be respected. We will continue to ensure that that is the case. Universities are autonomous organisations, but I am sure that they will have heard the point made by the noble Baroness about spending their money.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a parent of a trans child. Does the Minister agree that, in the exercise of everybody’s inalienable right to lawful free speech, it is in the interests of all concerned that publicly stated views about these matters are given in a measured way that enables mature and informed discussion about a challenging issue?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is exactly right: it is wholly possible to carry out the sort of important research that the noble Baroness referenced, including in the area of gender-critical research, and to treat trans people with the respect that they deserve and ensure that they are able to play their full role in our society.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in the light of the Office for Students’ finding that Sussex University’s trans and non-binary equality policy is incompatible with the registration conditions imposed by the Office for Students on all English universities, which require them to uphold free speech and academic freedom, would the Minister advise all universities to review their EDI policies to ensure that they do not chill lawful speech and are not incompatible with their regulatory compliance requirements?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that part of the ruling was about the specifics of the University of Sussex’s trans and non-binary policy and its failure to recognise the requirements on the university to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom. I hope that all universities will look carefully at this ruling and will note its second element, which was around the governance to consider issues such as this. All universities need to be clear that these important decisions, and sometimes these challenging conflicts, need to be considered at the highest possible level and with the strongest possible governance.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson, to share with her a letter that was sent on 20 March by 10 of us, including Professor Steve Tsang, Charles Parton and Professor Michelle Shipworth—who was banned from teaching a course at University College London, after complaints from students from the People’s Republic of China that she had shown slides detailing slave labour in Xinjiang? Has the university sector become too reliant on funds from the PRC? Will the Minister read the warnings in the 2023 Intelligence and Security Committee report and agree to meet with the signatories of that letter?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have met with some of the signatories of that letter. The measures we are implementing as part of the wider freedom of speech Act will further strengthen protections from overseas interference in academic freedom, with the new complaints scheme offering focused routes for concerns to be raised. The Government expect universities to be alert to a range of risks when collaborating with international partners, for example, and to conduct appropriate due diligence to comply with legislation and regulatory requirements, including potential threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom. We will keep all our protections under review, including confirming final decisions on the provisions relating to the overseas funding measures in the freedom of speech Act. It is enormously important that that type of academic freedom and research is facilitated and promoted in our world-class universities.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my entry in the register. Will my noble friend the Minister join me in celebrating the fact that the vast majority of academic scholars and students recognise that freedom of speech is the lifeblood of our universities? I do not expect my noble friend to comment, but I reflect on conversations I had last week with academics in Texas, Washington and New York. They do not have freedom of speech; they live in fear.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The reason we have a world-leading higher education sector in this country is the excellence of the academic research and teaching that is carried out in the sector. It is important that we do everything that we can to safeguard that, for the good of our academics, individual students and our country as a whole.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Office for Students has acted in a quasi- judicial capacity in this case and yet is also expected to work with universities to find evolving solutions to increasingly complex cases? Could the Minister advise how the Office for Students might balance its enforcement responsibilities with its advisory role to support the sector to navigate these and other issues?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The relationship between the functions that the noble Baroness outlines is not necessarily unusual for regulatory bodies. I am sure that the Office for Students in particular thinks carefully about it. Obviously, there has been a lot of thought on the role of the Office for Students with respect to freedom of speech, and I am sure that it is continuing to consider that.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government have rightly acknowledged the importance of increased defence spending. Given media reports of intimidation towards defence industries and the Armed Forces at higher education recruitment events, we must ask the Minister this: what steps are the Government taking to ensure that such events take place without issue?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is wholly wrong if those events are not able to take place on our campuses or if there is interference in the very important research that our universities are taking part in. That is primarily the responsibility of the higher education institutions themselves, but I am absolutely clear that that is an important part of what should be happening in our universities.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to say that there are two sides to this freedom of speech debate. In many universities, if not most, Jewish students have been howled down, barricaded and assaulted, whereas on the other side, hate speech has been directed at them. Does the Minister agree with me that a clear line needs to be drawn between freedom of speech and hate speech, and that, while we concentrate on transgender and other issues, Jewish students are being overlooked and not protected?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I was able to discuss that directly with Jewish students at a Friday evening dinner event hosted by the University of Birmingham’s Jewish Society, which I attended here at the House of Lords. It is not wholly right for the noble Baroness to suggest that the Government are taking no action. We are making £7 million available to the education system as a whole to tackle antisemitism. We have been clear, in the careful approach that we have taken to implementing freedom of speech provisions, that we need to protect students from some of the issues she outlined. We will continue to be clear that universities need to be places where all students can carry out their studies, confident of both the protection of their freedom of speech and of their ability to be there in the first place and to succeed.
Schools: Special Educational Needs
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House of my declared interest with the British Dyslexia Association and Microlink PC.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we are improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream settings to ensure that all children and young people receive the support they need to thrive. To do this, we are funding the universal SEND services programme, which has supported professionals to access over 20,000 SEND-specific training modules, the PINS programme to support around 1,600 primary schools to better meet the needs of neurodiverse children, and the NELI programme which has helped staff screen an estimated 640,000 children to identify those with language development difficulties.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will she expand on what has been done to disseminate knowledge throughout the teaching staff once this assessment has been made? Where anyone has problems, it is usually a case of working smarter, not harder, so more help from the mainstream types of support can often be counterproductive.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: we believe that every teacher is a teacher of special educational needs and disability. Where we find good practice, we need to make sure that it is disseminated to all teachers because the best teaching produces the best results for all children, including those with special educational needs and disability. From this September, the initial teacher training scope will include improved measures and information about what works well for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, dyscalculia is the learning disability that most people have never heard of, yet its prevalence is the same as dyslexia, and indeed its impact on educational, employment and health outcomes are very similar. The prevalence rate means that one child in every classroom has dyscalculia, yet the Minister will know that the DfE has no official definition of dyscalculia, nor is there any guidance at all for parents, carers and educators on the website. When will the Government address the incredibly low awareness of this high-impact condition by including reference to it in initial teacher training so that young people get the diagnosis, early identification and support that they need and deserve?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know that the noble Baroness has not only raised the issue of dyscalculia with me but, in doing so, drawn attention to it more broadly. The approach that is taken in initial teacher training is not to specifically identify particular conditions because, as I suggested to the noble Lord, the best-quality training for mainstream teachers is in the type and quality of teaching that will enable them to identify needs and to enable children to make the best progress. Where really specific support is needed, that should be commissioned by the special educational needs co-ordinator, within the school or externally. I feel reasonably confident that SENCOs understand the sort of issues that the noble Baroness is raising, but ensuring that information and best practice are available is clearly an important part of the work that we are doing.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, when there is not early identification, increasingly parents have been feeling that they have to withdraw their children from mainstream education and home-school them. Could the Minister confirm that we are collecting data on those who are home-educated? Those parents do not think it was an elective home education, and it is important that we know how assessment is failing and why those parents have withdrawn their children and are home-educating them.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that it is an enormous failure of the system if parents feel they have to withdraw their children from school, not voluntarily but because they do not believe that schools are providing for them. That is why it is so important that this Government’s plans to develop a more inclusive and expert mainstream education, alongside specialist schools where there are particularly complex needs and they are needed, is so important. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will be coming to this House reasonably soon, we will be taking additional measures around both the consent needed and the understanding of those students who are being home-schooled. On that particular issue, however, I will write to the noble Baroness about the extent of the information that we currently collect.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is an intermediate position between removing children from mainstream schooling and leaving them there, which is that some children with special educational needs should be able to access support alongside their mainstream schooling? Once a condition has been identified, parents who can do so will often look to access that in the private sector because it is difficult to get it due to the availability of the right resources. To what extent is the Minister confident that, where there is an identified need for additional special support outside the classroom, there are sufficient specialists available to deliver that support?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Some of the best practice that we are seeing in mainstream schools occurs where they are able to develop in-school resource centres with particular specialisms. That is why the Government have provided an additional £740 million-worth of capital to improve the capability for specialist centres like that and specialist places within mainstream schools, and in special schools where necessary. So my noble friend makes an important point. Last week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State launched a call for evidence on best practice in inclusive practice which is nevertheless maintaining the specialist support that children need. I hope we will find more examples through looking at the good work that is already happening, which, through the increased investment and the reform that we are making in the special educational needs and disability system, we can ensure is spread more widely across our schools.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the adoption and special guardianship support fund may run out of funds entirely by the end of this month? What action are the Government thinking of taking to avoid that extremely damaging situation?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Due to the enormously difficult fiscal position that we inherited from the last Government—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, it was bad. We are having to make some enormously difficult decisions. Having said that, we are in the process of business planning, as well as planning for the next spending review, and we hope to be in a position to announce the future of schemes like that as soon as possible.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that recent reports have highlighted the very variable quality of education, health and care plans, and have identified a number where interventions were recommended that are proven not to work. In parallel with that, there have been suggestions that there should be the equivalent of NICE for special educational needs. Given how complex this area is and how long it will take to make the big structural reforms that I know the Government want to do, is this not something that the Government could press on with quickly to improve the lives of children within the system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a fair point about us being as clear as possible about which interventions are most effective for children, as well as the broader reform that is going to be necessary. That is why, to be fair to the noble Baroness, some of the work that was started under the change programme is identifying where there is good practice in relation to EHCPs. That is why, in the engagement that this Government have started, led by Christine Lenehan as the strategic adviser for special educational needs and disability, we are looking at what is working effectively and what we need to change. I take the noble Baroness’s point about how we more quickly identify what high-quality interventions are and how to spread that as quickly as possible across the system.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we are in a situation where we need to get early assessment for those who need it, but, as the Minister will know from recent discussions on welfare and on the number of very young people particularly on sickness, how does she think we should deal with the problems of overdiagnosis and of pathologising and medicalising young people who are having difficult times but are actually keen, or their parents are keen, to get a label when it is not appropriate? It seems to me that that is skewing the figures and damaging the system.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness identifies the crucial role of identifying early where there are difficulties or particular needs that children have. That needs to start really early, which is why the Government have improved both the training and the advice available to early years practitioners to be able to identify that. In the range of measures that I outlined in my initial Answer, there is more scope to identify and to start to take action early to prevent the early signs of some of those conditions, which can then become more serious, from escalating in the way in which the noble Baroness said. In relation to welfare reform, ensuring that we are preparing all children, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities, for their future working lives—as I was able to see in a recent visit to New College Worcester for visually impaired young people, for example—is also incredibly important so that people can start their life able to work and achieve the best outcomes that they can throughout their lives.
Campus Antisemitism in Britain: Community Security Trust Report
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Community Security Trust, Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2022–2024, published on 9 December 2024; and what steps they have taken to ensure an appropriate response to its recommendations from university authorities.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the recommendations of this report focus on improving processes for reporting and investigating campus anti-Semitism. We have discussed it with the Community Security Trust and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The Secretary of State will shortly host a round table with vice-chancellors to discuss, among other matters, how the report’s recommendations might be implemented. The forthcoming Office for Students E6 condition will require universities to demonstrate that they are preventing and tackling harassment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, and wish to press her on further action. The events of 7 October have released a 117% rise in anti-Semitic incidents on campus and released into the mainstream an anti-Semitism that was always under the surface—what a failure of education. The incidents reported, which include acts by lecturers, are shameful: calls to “Kill Jews” and “Bring back Hitler”, comparisons of Gaza and Auschwitz, physical assaults and isolation—the like of which I have never seen before in academic life. Will the Government tell the Office for Students to use its regulatory powers to ensure a good complaints system which is speedy and punishes the malefactors? Will the Minister follow this up? Will she tell vice-chancellors to stand up for persecuted Jewish minorities and to stop appeasing and negotiating with vandals? Vice-chancellors should follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, the new Chancellor of Oxford, who has spoken out against the situation.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there are some shocking examples of anti-Semitic abuse, some of which I was able to hear about yesterday during a session run by StandWithUs, at which students themselves movingly and distressingly talked about their experiences on campuses. The noble Baroness is right that higher education needs to focus on the recommendations of the report and, in thinking in advance of the implementation of the new OfS condition in August, on what action it can take. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be bringing together vice-chancellors to make that message very clear.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, as the CST report lays bare, university campuses are indeed the front line of anti-Semitism, with some at risk of becoming all but no-go zones for Jewish students. Has my noble friend the Minister seen the briefing compiled by the Union of Jewish Students which catalogues a litany of Holocaust distortion and inversion that occurred on Holocaust Memorial Day this year in universities across the country? Does she agree with the UJS that HE institutions—including the Office for Students and student unions—and the police need to take immediate and decisive action to confront this troubling trend, ensuring that Holocaust distortion has no place on campus, and that Jewish students have the necessary support and protection to thrive at whatever university they choose to attend?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I recognise the situation outlined by my noble friend. I have already talked about the action that this Government will be taking with respect to the Holocaust to ensure that young people understand its significance even before they go to university. The Holocaust is, quite rightly, the only historic event that is compulsory in the current national curriculum for history at key stage 3. It is why, as well as the support provided for Holocaust education in schools and colleges at the moment, an additional £2 million was committed in the Autumn Budget 2024 for Holocaust remembrance and education. That funding aims to ensure that all students have the opportunity to hear a recorded survivor testimony, with the department exploring ways to support schools in achieving that goal.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, aware of the renewed efforts by the University of Bristol to combat anti-Semitism, and noting the multifaith conference on anti-Semitism that will take place there this month and the collaborative work of multifaith chaplaincies with university authorities and the Community Security Trust, how are the Government using the learning and good practice from universities around the country?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes the important point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that there are some universities which are taking this challenge extremely seriously and are making progress. It is important that we share that best practice as widely as possible. On the role of chaplaincies, one of the things that this Government have already done is to provide £500,000 to the University Jewish Chaplaincy, to help to support student welfare on university campuses, as part of the £7 million in funding that we have confirmed to address anti-Semitism in schools, colleges and universities.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
One of the areas led on by the CST was the encampments at the universities, which provide an intimidating and, frankly, terrifying atmosphere for Jewish students. I have walked past them myself and I have seen them. They have been joined by people from outside the university who are masked, shouting slogans supporting terror. What steps will the Minister take to encourage vice-chancellors to move these encampments away from the central parts of the universities—free speech is fine, but not right in the centre of a university—and pursue those who are clearly guilty of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic rhetoric?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that encampments have been enormously intimidating and that they have attracted external activists on to campuses, often in a very intimidating way. Universities have already been working hard to improve on the situation from 2023-24, when there were a number of pro-Palestine encampments—at one point, there were around 40 active encampments. Some universities have taken legal action in order to secure possession orders in legal cases. Those cases were helpful for other universities contemplating or in the middle of possession proceedings against similar student encampments. So far, in this academic year, 2024-25, protesters have not been able to establish any kind of encampment lasting more than a few hours. Universities appear to be learning a lot from last year’s experience, both in being able to de-escalate incidents where possible and, where necessary, taking formal action to prevent disruption to core activities, including teaching.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether all universities have designated places of worship for Jewish students and what security arrangements they are expected to put in place to ensure that Jewish students can work in safety?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not in a position to say whether all universities do, although, as I have previously identified, we are providing support to the University Jewish Chaplaincy to support student welfare on campuses. However, I think that is a fair question and one that I hope vice-chancellors will reflect on.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, last night, I had the privilege of hosting a group of students who described in devastating detail the sort of abuse that they were receiving on campuses, such that many are now afraid to attend classes or even go to the universities. Worst of all, it seems that their complaints to the authorities are often ignored and not answered at all in many instances. There may be examples of good practice but there are too many examples of bad practice. Will my noble friend the Minister bring it to the attention of vice-chancellors that they must take a grip on this horrible situation that allows their students to be treated in this manner, and in a way that means that some parents are beginning to think they should move abroad, rather than take their children into an English university.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right about the impactful testimony that we were able to hear yesterday evening. I agree with him about the types of action we should be taking, particularly focusing on how the introduction of the new OfS condition will ensure that universities respond quickly, appropriately and with sufficient independence to the sorts of complaints we heard about yesterday.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the University Jewish Chaplaincy, which offers invaluable practical and emotional support in universities all around the country. Will she join me in thanking it for its work, recognising that it is in exceptionally difficult circumstances, and for the leadership of the chief executive, Sophie Dunoff, and her team?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am very pleased to join the noble Baroness in recognising that work. The University Jewish Chaplaincy not only provides safeguarding and support for Jewish students, at a time that we have already agreed has been enormously difficult, but, as the right reverend Prelate outlined, is increasingly working with other chaplaincies to develop the tolerance, and the ability to discuss and debate on our university campuses, that we should absolutely expect—as should Jewish students, given the experiences they have had. As a Government, we will definitely promote that work.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the draft Order laid before the House on 5 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March