Preschool Children: Digital Technology

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what information they provide to parents and early-years providers about safe and appropriate use of digital technology by pre-school children.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impacts of screen time on young children. We have produced guidance for the Help for Early Years Providers platform, which refers to the World Health Organization’s screen time recommendations. On screen time specifically, we are continuing to assess evidence gaps through ongoing research and will consider what, if any, further research and action is needed.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking time to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, last month to discuss this issue. The evidence shows that digital device use among early years children is growing rapidly, and education and health professionals, researchers and academics are deeply concerned about how this is leading to identifiable changes in behaviour, language development, social skills and mental and physical health. More than 40 members of the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group wrote to the Government more than a year ago to call for action in this area, but there is nothing in the early years strategy, there is nothing in the early years foundation stage statutory framework and there is no public health information for family hubs, health visitors or GPs, so the digital action group wrote again to the Government last week to call for real action in this area. Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are going to take to address this important issue?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for our useful and informative meeting, from which we have already taken further action. She is right about, and we particularly discussed in that meeting, the concerns of parents for the advice that they receive. I outlined in my initial Answer some of the action that we are taking to provide more clarity for early years providers, but we are also working to provide parents with clear, specific advice on early years screen time and home learning. In advance of specific early years screen time guidance for parents, we have streamlined content on the Best Start in Life website, an issue that she raised with us, to ensure that relevant home learning content appears in search results for screen time. We are exploring options to prioritise search results, ensuring that the most relevant home learning page appears first to further strengthen discoverability. Any new specific guidance for parents on early years and screen time will also be signposted clearly on the website. I look forward to the opportunity, when the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to this House for Report in January, to continue this conversation and provide further information about action that the Government are taking.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important question and the Minister’s replies have been very helpful. With regard to the safeguarding side of nurseries, the Minister will be aware of the tragic occurrences of two nursery children in my colleagues’ constituencies of Cheadle and Twickenham. I know she has engaged with those two MPs. What progress is being made to support children, particularly in those nurseries that are part of a group of nurseries?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point, and of course we have had other very distressing cases that have taken place recently in nurseries. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made a Statement about action that the Government are taking. Specifically on this issue, we will be appointing an expert panel to inform the development of guidance for the early years sector on CCTV and digital devices within safeguarding. That guidance will set out best practice, technical information and clear expectations about how those devices are used, along with the use of CCTV. I would be happy to send the noble Lord further information about the action that we have taken post that particular case.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is an adjacent problem to the one that we are discussing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has raised, which is parents’ own use of technology and the way that that impacts on their interaction with very young children? Most of us, if we travel on public transport, will often see a child in a pushchair and a parent or carer using their phone and the child being completely isolated from any contact. In the support for parents, will there be advice for parents about how their own use of technology can impact on their ability to interact effectively with their very young children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. I note, for example, the Children’s Commissioner’s suggestions and advice this morning that Christmas would be a good time for us as adults to put down our phones and focus on family time and interaction with children in particular, while the NHS website provides advice on the activities that are important for children’s health and development. Sometimes the issue about screen time is that it displaces other important activities, so the NHS website provides advice on the importance of sleep at all ages for good physical and mental health and well-being—I am sure that noble Lords will be keen on that one—and guidelines for parents on physical activity for children under the age of five. Those types of activities and the face-to-face interaction that parents can have with their children are one of the most important ways in which we can ensure healthy child development.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as it is Christmas, parents are looking at all the available toys. One area that concerns me is the use of AI now in toys for very young children. Do the Government have any plans to look at that area, because it is of great concern?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This is an issue that we touched on with respect to educational technology in particular during the course of the Bill. There are wider developments in how we can regulate the use of AI with respect to individuals’ data that are being taken forward, particularly by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The noble Baroness raises an important point that I am sure parents will have borne in mind when thinking about presents that they are buying for their children. However, she is also right that we cannot leave parents, schools or other settings to make these decisions on their own, which is why we need to keep up with the evidence in order to provide the best possible advice to parents, to education settings and to others.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about producing guidance for parents and early years settings in this area. Could she clarify the timing of that appearing and confirm whether it will be accompanied by a public health communications campaign?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have probably gone as far as I can today in talking about the work that the Government are doing in thinking about how we can improve the guidance for parents. We will have more to say about this in the near future. As I said, we will also have the opportunity to consider this in more detail when we come back to Report on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. However, any guidance that we produce needs to be easily accessible to parents. That will mean, for example, using the Best Start in Life hubs and website. We will also require public health dissemination as well.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said today, but can she explain how any DfE guidance is co-ordinated with the work of Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, the ICO’s age-appropriate design code and DHSC advice, so that parents and providers receive a clear and consistent message rather than a patchwork of partial guidance?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point: in all this work, it is important that we are evidence led—as I suggested, we are developing that evidence through ongoing research—and, secondly, that we are able to provide clear information for parents and for early years settings, for example, with respect to the youngest children. There is considerable work going on between the DfE, DSIT and Ofcom to make sure both that the research is coherent and that the results of that research are appropriately communicated and go alongside some of the regulatory measures that the noble Lord mentioned.

Special Educational Needs: Investment

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the £3 billion investment in additional places for children with special educational needs will involve the construction of new settings, or adaptations of existing educational establishments.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the £3 billion in high needs capital announced last week is intended to support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities and those who require alternative provision by creating facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more flexible support adapted to suit people’s needs. It can also be used to adapt mainstream schools to be more accessible and create special school places for pupils with the most complex needs through expanding existing settings or stand-alone schools where this is necessary.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can the Government give us some idea of how this will work for those who have less complicated needs and probably are more frequent in number? What will this do to support those who might just get by with a little bit of help, as opposed to those with very complicated needs who will have less of their education in the mainstream classroom?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. This funding is an opportunity to support those pupils to remain in schools close to home and enable them to learn and thrive alongside their friends, in environments that support their learning, by developing safe and quiet spaces and improving the accessibility of mainstream schools. That is a large part of what we expect this additional funding to support, precisely so that children can learn and thrive alongside their friends in mainstream schools and be identified earlier in order to do that.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I fully support the strategy to increase the number of SEND pupils in mainstream schools, subject to adequate funding to provide relevant support and teaching staff. However, there remains a small proportion of pupils with very special needs who will need further help that cannot be provided in such schools. Can the Minister explain how these young people’s needs will be met in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: there will be a small number of children for whom the excellent special schools that we already have—or, in some cases, additional spaces in special schools—will be the most appropriate way to support them. That is why the approach that we are taking with respect to the special school pipeline of free schools is to enable local authorities, which have responsibility for providing those places, to determine whether the funding is best used in mainstream schools or whether they need additional special schools to meet those exceptional circumstances that the noble Baroness talked about.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, this announcement was part of a bigger announcement that cancelled many long-awaited new special schools. I would like to ask the Minister: what assessment has been made of parents’ views on whether their children’s needs are likely to be as well served in mainstream schools? What assessment has been made of the kinds of SEN provision and interventions that have real value to young people beyond just comfort and reassurance? What assessment has been made of the many types of SEN provision to determine what represents real value from a stretched public purse?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Actually, what happened in the special schools pipeline, as I said, was not the cancellation but a choice that was offered to local authorities over how to proceed with special and AP free schools. In making that decision, local authorities will want to ensure that the needs of parents are met. These are too often not being met in the SEND system up to this point, and that is precisely the reason why parents are so concerned since they have been struggling to get the provision that they need for their children under the previous system. In fact, 18 of the 77 projects in this pipeline were cancelled because no trust had been appointed for them and it would have taken, frankly, too long at a point at which we need more places with the specialist provision, either in mainstream or in special schools, for those pupils. We will be making quicker progress through supporting mainstream schools to provide those places so that there are more places more quickly for those children.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows that there is at least a problem, if not a crisis, in teacher recruitment and retention. Is she able to say anything positive about what the Government will do to seek more teachers who will be trained and qualified to ensure that they can work with children with special educational needs and disabilities in all settings in order to meet their needs appropriately?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right, of course, that every teacher needs to be a teacher for children who have special needs. That is why, as part of this Government’s commitment to recruiting 6,500 new teachers, we have already seen over 2,300 new teachers for our secondary and special schools. It is why we are seeing a reduction in the turnover rate of those teachers; in other words, more are being retained in our classrooms. It is also why we are revising initial teacher training in order to provide more support and information for all teachers in how to respond to special educational needs in the classroom.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, has raised an incredibly important point. Special educational needs pupils need new buildings, but they also need new teachers. So why has there been a decrease in the number of primary school teachers since the Government came into power? Will the Minister commit to more teachers for early years special educational needs children to give them the best start in life?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As the noble Earl knows, or should know, primary numbers have been falling since 2019, which is why our additional investment—the 10% pay award for teachers, which applies across primary and secondary schools and which will bring in additional teachers—has, as I have already identified, increased the numbers of teachers in secondary and special schools, which is where they are particularly needed. It is already being effective, as is this Government’s commitment to keeping teachers in the classroom, not just attracting them in the first place.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, given that one of the big challenges for local authorities has been school transport for SEND children, what assessment has been done on how quickly these school places will be delivered? More importantly, has any work been done on the potential savings for local authorities, because this is one budget that is really challenging for local councils up and down the country?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The 50,000 additional places that will be funded through the £3 billion that we announced last week are on top of the 10,000 new specialist places in mainstream and special schools, supported by the £740 million that we invested this year. That goes back to the point I made earlier: this is not about saving money, but it is about saying that, for many children, they will be best served in local schools with specialist provision to care for them and help them to thrive alongside their friends. A side benefit of that is that we will no longer need to be transporting children long distances at great cost for education that they could more effectively receive closer to home.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, it is me again, and I am still a teacher. We can agree that the SEN system could do better. School action plus was a really good halfway house to an EHCP, where a lot of students could have their needs met without having to go through the EHCP. It was abolished 15 years ago, but there are rumours going around that the Government are considering bringing that back. Could the Minister comment on that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the noble Lord is one of the over 2,000 teachers that we have been able to retain in the classroom, despite his busyness in this House as well—I am very glad that the pupils of Mossbourne get the benefit of his teaching. The Opposition’s previous Secretary of State for Education described the special educational needs system as a “lose, lose, lose” system, and I agree with her about that. That is why this Government are taking by the horns the requirement to reform the system. It is why my honourable friend Georgia Gould, the Minister, is at this very moment engaging in widespread conversation with parents, teachers and children about how we can reform the system so that it identifies children earlier and provides the support they need. Where necessary, it should provide that really specialist support for those with complex needs, and it should help parents and children feel more confident their needs are being met. We will have more to say about that in the White Paper that we will publish next year.

Free School Meals

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that schools’ core budgets in more deprived communities are not disproportionately used to meet the costs of providing free school meals.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government already spend £1.5 billion annually supporting the provision of free and nutritious meals for around 3.4 million children. We have set aside a further £1 billion over the multi-year spending review period to fully fund our significant expansion of free meals to all households in receipt of universal credit from September 2026. This new entitlement will mean that more than 500,000 disadvantaged children will begin to access free meals.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Government very much for extending the remit of free school meals—that is excellent news. I declare my interest as chair of Feeding Britain. One of our trustees, Professor Greta Defeyter, does a lot of research into how the economics of free school meals work. She has found that the caterers are charging so much that schools are being forced to raid their teaching and learning budgets—literally the budgets they need to buy books—to pay for this. In Wales and Scotland, the budget for school meals is 60p to 70p more. What will the Government do to close this gap, given that the bill will get much higher next September, as she just alluded to?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have outlined, we are fully funding the expansion, with £1 billion additional funding over the next spending review period. We provide the funding for free school meals through the national funding formula, and it is within the ability of schools to be able to shift money around in order to fund this. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the pressures that food inflation may be causing, but it is right to prioritise additional funding on broadening the entitlement rather than on funding caterers.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is time that we brought back in-house catering to schools, so that children can benefit from knowing about food? Would it not be beneficial to also bring back home cooking to schools?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There are many schools that, in thinking about the sourcing of their free school meals, see the benefits of having those responsible for buying and cooking the food in the school itself. It is up to schools to determine how they procure their free school meals, although I recognise that the last Government provided support for schools in procuring that as effectively as possible. There are already opportunities for children to learn cooking within school—and at home as well. That will always be an important thing for young people to be able to do.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is nice to see that the Opposition have now accepted that privatisation of school meals was not a good thing and that it has led to some of our problems?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. This Government, in providing the additional commitment to children and the additional investment to expand free school meals, have recognised that, wherever it comes from, in-house provisions can often have a range of benefits for the school. More children will be able to benefit, with all the changes that that brings, such as the ability for them to concentrate on their learning and to have the food and nutrition that all children need to be able to succeed.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I welcome the child poverty strategy, which commits to no child in school going hungry. However, I am deeply concerned to hear that many schools, particularly in deprived areas, are having to use teaching budgets to fill this gap. Can the Minister provide a list, not in the Chamber now but to me, of how many schools are topping up free school meal provisions from their teaching budgets?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have outlined, the national funding formula already includes provision for the funding of free school meals. It quite rightly targets funding to schools on the basis of those with the greatest numbers of pupils with additional needs. I will investigate whether it is possible to provide those figures. I am not sure that it will be, given how school meals are funded, but I will have a look.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

Can the Minister explain further why the allocation is less in England than in Wales and Scotland, particularly the allowance for adolescents aged 14 to 18? There is clear evidence that secondary schools are supporting meals out of teaching budgets. If the numbers who are entitled increases, which I welcome, that subsidy will have to increase.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is the nature of devolution that different Governments make different decisions on how they fund and how they distribute that funding. Since this Government came into power, we have seen a considerable increase in the core schools budget, which increased by £3.7 billion in 2025-26. That benefits the teaching and learning that noble Lords are concerned about, as well as general health and the provision of free school meals, as this specific Question is about.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to worrying about how to fund free school meals, the Minister will be aware that there are concerns emerging about the funding of future teacher pay awards following the Treasury’s statement that there would be no additional funding for public sector pay awards outside departmental budgets. Can she reassure schools that the 6.5% recommended increase over three years which the department made to the STRB can be met through their budgets?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have been clear with schools about the 10% increase in teacher pay that we have delivered since we came into government. Additional funding has been provided but, of that, we will support schools to find approximately 1% through efficiencies. I am sure that the noble Baroness supports the focus on efficiencies, even if she does not support the additional investment that this Government have been able to find.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I very much support the Government on the free school meals issue—it is incredibly important. We are facing an obesity crisis, so the better children eat, the better it is from the start. Can the Department for Education give some advice to schools about moving from caterers to in-house catering if they need it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I suggested earlier, the Department for Education is already providing advice to schools on how to procure their provision of school meals, and how to do it effectively and efficiently. We have to give schools the ability to make their own decisions about how they provide the free school meals that they are responsible for providing. Alongside that advice, that is the current position.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a teacher at a state secondary school with over 50% pupil premium. I assure noble Lords that the food I taught my year 8 students about was nutritious and was taught to a budget. Students are taught food in year 7 and year 8—it is part of the national curriculum —so they are very well-taught at that stage. I welcome the free school meals news, but I have heard a lot that breakfast clubs are very much a top-down, one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach, whereas heads are saying, “Could you just give us the money and we’ll sort out how it’s done?”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord provided excellent food education for the pupils he was responsible for. The rollout of breakfast clubs started originally with the 750 early adopters. That was precisely about being able to identify, in a range of different schools, how we best delivered and funded breakfast clubs. While I understand the noble Lord’s call for more flexibility, and we would certainly want to maximise that where possible, we are clear that there are standards around breakfast clubs for the quality of the food provided and the period of time that club operates for. This is about food, but it is also about childcare and a good start to the school day, which have to be set centrally. Within that, I am sure as much flexibility as possible will be offered.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned procurement advice that the Government are giving with respect to free school meals. Can she update the House as to what advice they are giving to ensure that the produce consumed is locally sourced, sustainably grown and provided by identifiable local farms that the schoolchildren can interact with for their own learning benefit?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Earl will realise that that would not necessarily be possible in every school. I refer him to the good food cycle, the food strategy produced by my colleagues in Defra, which sets out the Government’s vision to drive better outcomes from the UK food system and particularly supports children in ensuring that there is more affordable food, good growth, a sustainable and resilient supply, and a vibrant food culture. As we have already discussed, although it is not always possible, where children’s cooking skills or school meals can be linked to local food providers as part of their education, that can only be beneficial.

Young People not in Work, Education or Training

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are investing £820 million over the spending review to help young people earn or learn through the youth guarantee. This includes a job guarantee, in which every eligible 18 to 21 year-old who has been on universal credit and looking for work for 18 months will be guaranteed six months’ paid work. In addition, we have announced £725 million for the growth and skills levy to support apprenticeships for young people, alongside reforms to simplify the apprenticeship system and make it more efficient.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend the Minister has just explained, but does she agree that nearly 1 million people not being in work, education or training—rising remorselessly under the last Government—is terrible for them and for taxpayers? The longer people are out of work, the more costly it is to prepare them for work. The media and right-wing clamour for short-term cuts in welfare is for the birds, frankly. Labour’s hugely successful 1997 new deal for young people programme helped more than its targeted 250,000 young people to move off welfare into employment, costing £668 million or up to £8,000 per person. However, national income grew by at least £200 million annually—so, short-term costs for long-term savings. Surely, that should be our policy today?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question and also for his history of tackling this issue in past Labour Governments. I fully agree with him that having nearly 1 million young people not in work, education or training is not only bad for those young people but also very bad for the economy. That is why we have today announced further detail on the policy measures underpinning the youth guarantee, to which this Government have committed £820 million over the next three years. For young people on UC, we are introducing a new youth guarantee gateway session and follow-up support, which will be offered to nearly 900,000 16 to 24 year-olds in jobcentres over the next three years. We are expanding youth hubs to over 360 locations, creating around 300,000 opportunities for young people to gain workplace experience and training. We are also fully funding apprenticeship training costs for all eligible 16 to 24 year-olds, by removing the need for non-levy-paying employers to co-fund these learners; that is alongside the job placement for 18 to 21 year-olds that I have already talked about. That is the way we will turn around the scandal of nearly 1 million young people neither earning nor learning, with all the damage that creates for them and the economy.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for visiting two university technical colleges, where she saw colleges which had a NEET unemployment rate of under 2%, compared to the rate of a mainstream school of 13.6%, which is disgraceful and unacceptable. As no new colleges or schools will be built in the next five years, the only way that those in school in communities that have an industrial heritage will be able to study a practical, technical education is to have a sleeve of UTCs from 14 to 18. The Minister knows that we produce 25% apprentices and 50% STEM graduates. That is our contribution to ensuring that, by the time of the next election, youth unemployment will not exceed what it is today.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I always enjoy my visits to UTCs and of course my conversations with the noble Lord as well. UTCs are doing a very good job in providing technical education which then leads on to apprenticeships, and so are other schools as well. At the heart of our post-16 White Paper was that we provide the pathways, through the new V-levels, T-levels and apprenticeships, for young people to get the skills they need to make a success of their lives.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will agree that, after the 1948 Education Act was introduced, there was an unspoken contract between the state and parents that the state would provide education for every child and that parents, on the other hand, had an obligation to get their child to school every day, unless there was good reason for it not to happen. The difficulty about the young people not in education, work or training today is that this behaviour starts very early in a child’s career. Does the Minister have any thoughts about how we can restore the contract between the state and parents to get their children to school?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. It is absolutely the case that children who are absent for periods of time, or who are in alternative provision by virtue of behavioural needs, are more likely not to be in education, employment or training. That is why, as part of this plan, we will have a particular focus on those children, to identify much earlier who is likely not to be able to find a college place or job, and to intervene at that point to prevent them becoming NEET in the first place.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments, but this is very much a top-down approach to getting young people back into work. Can she give further assurance on how the Government will encourage tradespeople—the plumbers, electricians, brickies and others—to take on people as apprentices and trainees? This starts at the bottom. This does not start with all the courses that young people can do part-time; they have to be employed by a plumber, a builder or an electrician. What are the Government doing about it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord will therefore welcome the announcement that we also made today of fully funding small and medium-sized businesses to take on apprentices. These are the businesses that are more likely to take on young people, including disadvantaged young people, and they are being supported by this Government. That will help to turn around the 40% decline in young people starting apprenticeships over the past 10 years.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the most effective way to reduce the number of young people who are NEET is to secure stronger economic growth, giving employers the confidence, incentive and capacity to hire? Furthermore, under Labour’s proposed new youth guarantee, which is very welcome, how will the Government ensure that young people are matched to sectors for which they are genuinely suited, so that employers are not left exasperated by placements that break down almost immediately due to poor alignment?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am very glad to hear the noble Baroness’s recognition of the importance of the youth guarantee announcements that we have been making today. We also announced the first six areas in which we will work with intermediaries, and directly with employers, to find those placements. An important element of the job guarantee will be the additional support that we can place around young people, who, by virtue of having been unemployed for 18 months, will undoubtedly need that additional support, including identifying where their talents lie so that they can then be used to the max.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, care-experienced young people are particularly at risk of being not in work, education or training. Has the Minister taken note of the support that universities, such as Nottingham Trent University, provide to care leavers in admissions, finance and transition, while also securing affordable, suitable and stable accommodation for them and estranged young people? What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the additional support that care leavers need to stay in education? Can the Government ensure that this kind of specific support is available more consistently across universities and for apprenticeships too?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope I can reassure the right reverend Prelate about that. First, care-experienced young people are a key part of the group for whom universities have responsibility through their access and participation plans, and the right reverend Prelate identified some good examples of where universities are doing that. In addition, those young people receive additional bursaries to go to university in the first place. If they undertake an apprenticeship, the employer receives additional money to support them with that. On their interactions with the benefit system, employment and education, the Department for Work and Pensions provides additional support to ensure that these young people get the chances later in life that they have not necessarily had earlier on.

SEND Budget Funding

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how the commitment to fund SEND budgets centrally as announced in the Budget will affect mainstream school budgets.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have been clear that SEND pressures will be absorbed within the overall Government DEL budget from 2028-29, such that the Government would not expect local authorities to need to fund future special educational needs costs from general funds. Budgets from 2028-29 onwards, including the core schools budget, will be confirmed at the 2027 spending review.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. On this side of the House, we genuinely wish the Government every success with their work on the reforms to the special educational needs system. As the noble Baroness knows, the expected annual deficit on the dedicated schools grant is over £6 billion in 2028-29, which is a huge number. While the Government have been very clear that this will come from current RDEL allocations, they have not specified a funding plan to cover this. Anyone who has been involved in SR negotiations will know that finding £6.3 billion, apparently from other government departments rather than the DfE, will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.

Of course, this is not even about £6.3 billion in one year; in the OBR document, if you look at the three years beyond this SR period, you see that the figure for the projected deficit is well over £20 billion. So I hope the noble Baroness will understand why schools and parents are worried, and why more clarity is needed about who is going to pay for this. I hope she can give us that now.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I take the noble Baroness’s assurance that noble Lords opposite want to support the Government in reforming the SEND system; I believe that to be true. However, it is also the case that there has been a fair amount of misinformation being peddled, not least by some of her colleagues at the other end of Parliament, about the nature and source of the £6 billion, and the way in which it will be dealt with in 2028-29. As I made clear in the original Answer, in the Budget the Treasury was very clear, in careful wording, that future funding implications will be managed within the overall Government DEL envelope—not the DfE’s DEL—and will be part of the spending review that will start in 2027.

The other important point is that that figure assumes no reform of the SEND system, and of course that reform will be focused first and foremost on ensuring that children and their families get better outcomes than they are getting from the system at the moment, and it will be important to ensure that that happens. It will also make system more sustainable.

I hope that all those interested in SEND reform will, for example, take part in the quite extensive engagement activity that is currently under way to help to inform those reforms.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I applaud the intention behind the Government’s announcement, but does the Minister agree that there will be no real reform unless there is capacity within the school system to identify early? This will require training budgets and technology to back it up. If the Government can assure us that this is going to be there, they stand a chance of doing something here.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. To be clear, the objective here is to ensure better outcomes in a system that at the moment costs a considerable amount of money but is not delivering the outcomes that children and families need. The noble Lord identifies a couple of areas where the Government are already investing additional money, for example into teacher training from early years onwards; into the support available for continuing professional development for teachers; into initial teacher training and the early career framework; and into the national professional qualifications for teachers. All of those have had reform and investment from the Government to ensure, as the noble Lord accurately said, that we are in a better position to identify children’s needs at an earlier stage and to address them in our mainstream schools.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely correct to suggest that early-stage identification is critical. She will be aware that there have been decades of persistent underfunding and pressures on local authorities about SEND services. Hundreds of thousands of children are still awaiting their final assessment. Can the Minister assure the House, and parents who are waiting for these assessments, that the local authority can be asked to ring-fence the budget, so children receive the care they deserve?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am afraid the situation is even worse than my noble friend has identified. A considerable amount of money is being spent on special educational needs and disability provision, but parents remain concerned about being able to access the support they need, the outcomes for children are not good enough, and local government is facing considerable deficits because of that. That is why we need the type of reform that this Government have undertaken. A test of it will be whether parents feel more confident at an earlier stage that their children are getting the support they need to flourish.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, is more being done to ensure that teachers have the time they need to assess the needs of people with particular educational needs? It takes time: no person is the same and individuals need to be assessed according to their own individual problems.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right about that. That is why, for example, we are improving the ability for staff in early years settings to identify special educational needs. It is why we are also developing a national professional qualification for the special educational needs co-ordinators, who will play an important role in that assessment, and why we have invested in recruiting more educational psychologists, who play a really important role in assessment.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, when there is not enough support for SEND pupils in a classroom, it has a major impact on other pupils in the classroom and on teachers themselves, some of whom are leaving the profession because of the stresses they are under? Does the Minister agree that sometimes it is in other educational provision, such as forest school and play, that these children can really thrive?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In actual fact, I think all children can really thrive in alternative provision. The important thing here is that we ensure that all of our teachers and schools are able to deliver the inclusive teaching and provision that will ensure that children can not only have their needs identified as early as possible but can then receive excellent teaching, which is what will make a difference. Also, I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that we have actually seen a record low in the number of teachers leaving the profession this year.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest in having recently stood down as the leader of the London Borough of Bexley, but I am still a councillor. The OBR has red-flagged the £14 billion existing deficit that local authorities are in, at a cost that is currently unaccounted for in government plans. Some estimates suggest that, by the time SEND spending returns to council balance sheets in 2028, nine out of 10 upper-tier authorities could be forced to declare bankruptcy. How do the Government aim to clear that deficit and solve the problem?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I take the noble Baroness’s point, but perhaps, if it were that serious, more effort could have been made on reform before we got to this Government. Nevertheless, this Government will work with local authorities. By the way, it is not an OBR red flag; it is an OBR assessment of what the costs will be in 2028-29. The OBR has been very clear—including this week in the Treasury committee—that its suggestion about the impact on core schools budget is hypothetical. We will continue to support local authorities, including, for example, alongside an extension to the dedicated schools grant’s statutory override. We will set out further details on our plans to support local authorities with historic and accruing deficits, including conditions for accessing the support we are providing through the upcoming local government finance settlement.

Equality Act 2010: Supreme Court Judgment

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government which departments have been involved in considering the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice on implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

[The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Services, Public Functions and Associations: Code of Practice provides guidance on all protected characteristics, not solely sex and gender reassignment. As the sponsoring body, the Office for Equality and Opportunity is responsible for providing advice to Ministers on the code. Other government departments have been consulted as required on specific elements of the code.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer; it was a fairly simple Question. But does my noble friend understand that the delay and constant difficulty in giving straight answers to questions about the guidance gives the strong impression that the Government are being held to ransom by a tightly knit group of politically motivated Peers and MPs who do not accept the Supreme Court judgment, as stated by the rule of law? One is entitled to ask: where has the rule of law gone?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, I do not recognise that because it is not true. Any suggestion that the Government are delaying the code is both totally inaccurate and unhelpful. This is a long and complex document, and we are carefully considering it. Frankly, it would be catastrophic for single-sex services, which have always been supported by this Government and this party, to implement guidance that was not legally sound, which would then place them in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we get this right. We have always been clear that the proper process needs to be followed, which includes understanding the potential impact on businesses, public functions and services. Understanding impacts is a routine and regular aspect of decision-making; it is not a delaying tactic.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that the law is as determined by the Supreme Court judgment? Any code of practice is guidance.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I am very happy to confirm that, as has been the Prime Minister. To be clear, the Supreme Court ruling in relation to the For Women Scotland case is clear; both inside and outside government, we expect it to be followed and, where necessary, people to seek specialist legal advice to enable them to do that.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, on costs, what assessment has been made of the potential cost implications for employers and public bodies? How are the Government ensuring that the code does not inadvertently require expensive or disproportionate changes to facilities or service delivery?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not believe that it will, but understanding costs is of course a routine and regular aspect of decision-making, as I suggested. This is a long and legally complex document that will have an impact on service providers up and down the country. Rightfully, we are carefully considering it and have asked the EHRC not to carry out a full regulatory impact assessment but, rather, to help by providing information on costs to ensure that a full impact assessment is not required, so that Ministers can take a fully informed decision.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare for the final time an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that this is my final intervention on this matter, but I want to explain for the information of the House the important point made by both the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the Minister. It is simply that the code was provided to government on 8 April, before the Supreme Court ruling. Since the Supreme Court ruling, only 10% of the code has changed. It is coming up to eight months since 90% of the code was reviewed by the Government, and they responded with suggestions to those different protected characteristics and aspects. It is only that 10% which has been with the Government since 4 September.

Finally, the Minister makes an important point about the costs of the regulatory impact. The bottom line is that since this is the law of the land, the impact of costs will be far higher if we litigate through the courts case by case, public body by public body, and duty bearer by duty bearer.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I wholly agree with the noble Baroness on her last point, which is precisely why it is important that we consider the code appropriately, as laid out in law in the Equality Act 2006. She is right that, as I outlined, the code covers more than the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment. But it was on 4 September that the updated code, post the For Women Scotland case, was submitted to the Government. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not think it unreasonable for the Government to take the time to consider this appropriately and to consider, as they are expected to do by the burdens process put in place by the previous Government, the potential impact of that on providers, and for us to work to do so in a way that will safeguard providers in protecting all the protected characteristics that the code—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have not finished yet. In concluding, I take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for her work in leading the EHRC. I suspect that this will not be the last time she asks questions about this issue in this House, and nor should it be.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

As the Whip for the Equality Act 2010, can my noble friend the Minister clarify the next steps in the statutory process and how the Government will ensure that, when the code returns to Parliament, it will be legally sound, proportionate and practical for those who will implement it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend not only for that question but for her history of work in the area she outlined. As I suggested earlier, there is no benefit to anybody, particularly those who most need the clarity that application of the code can bring—for example, to lawfully provide single-sex spaces for women—to sidetrack the correct and careful process the Government are following. The Government are following the process for laying the code in Parliament set out in the Equality Act 2006. The Minister for Women and Equalities is considering the EHRC’s updated draft code, as I have already outlined, and if the decision is taken to approve it, she will lay it before both Houses over a 40-day period, as per the process set out in Section 14 of the Equality Act 2006.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, on 5 November the Minister was asked this by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick:

“Does the Minister agree that, today, it is the obligation of all persons, whether private or public, to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court, whether they agree with it or not, and without waiting for guidance?”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1926.]


She helpfully responded by saying, “I do agree”, so the Government have said they support the Supreme Court’s ruling, yet the EHRC’s updated guidance reflecting that ruling has sat with Ministers for almost three months. Can I push the Minister a little more to say when it will be published? Every week of delay fuels confusion over a legally settled issue and leaves service providers without the clarity they need. Will it be one month, three months, six months; or, even better, will it be very soon?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It will be at the point at which we have fulfilled the process that I have outlined to the House today. It will be at the point at which we can all be confident that what we provide in clarifying the application of the law will support providers in delivering for all those with protected characteristics, which is of course the role of the code. But the noble Baroness is right: I was clear in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the clarity of the law and the requirement for all to be following it at this point. That is the position taken by the Prime Minister in the last week, and that is what everybody should be doing.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the current unclarity arises not from the judgment of the Supreme Court but from the rushed and muddled unclarity of the code provided by the EHRC? Does she agree that we must now make sure that we do not inadvertently create an undefined third category, who could be difficult for providers to deal with?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The theme of my responses today to the questions asked is precisely to try to follow the legal and correct process here, and to avoid legal uncertainty for providers in the application of the law and the use of the code in doing that. It serves nobody—it serves none of the people whom those in this House and more broadly understandably feel passionate about—if this Government are rushed by political considerations into publishing a code which will not do the job it needs to do for the most vulnerable people. That is at the heart of the process we are following, and at the heart of our commitment to serving those people.

Schools: Funding

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they propose to fund any increase in the numbers of children attending state-funded schools as a result of the decrease in the numbers of children attending private schools.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, private school pupil numbers remain firmly within historical patterns, with no evidence of excessive pressure on the state system. We are confident that the state sector can absorb any additional pupils. To deliver our commitment to the 94% of children who attend state schools, we are increasing school funding by £3.7 billion this year, taking total core school funding to £65.3 billion. By 2028-29, core school funding, including SEND investment, will reach £69.5 billion.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank the Minister for responding to my Question, but I am not quite sure about the Answer because, sadly, the facts do not support the Government’s rather spiteful ideology in this matter. The imposition of VAT on school fees means that thousands of hard-working parents who previously invested money in their children’s education, and therefore in the education system as a whole, now cannot afford to, so thousands of children have transferred from private schools to state schools. I am baffled by the statistics that the Minister mentioned, because we know that private schools are closing and that children are moving from private schools to state schools. Is it not the case that while the Government might well be raking in more money in VAT, local education authorities have to bear the cost of educating thousands more children? In spite of what the Minister has said, is it not the case that the Government are not investing in education but taking money out of the education system?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, that is not true. The noble Baroness is keen on facts and concerned about the closure of private schools, as would anybody be if a school was closing. I hope she will be somewhat reassured by knowing that, while on average 74 private schools have closed per year over the last 20 years, in this last year 59 closed.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, do His Majesty’s Government have in place a monitoring system to look at the numbers of young people with special educational needs accessing private schools? I am deeply worried that when state schools cannot provide that service, parents often then fall upon the private sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

If a young person has an education, health and care plan that identifies a private school for them, their parents will not be impacted by VAT on private school fees. Equally, most children with special educational needs and disabilities are educated in the state system. It is in order to improve the outcomes of our state system that this Government are committed to reforming our SEND system to make sure that all pupils will be able to access the support that they need within it.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the opposition party cried that this would have a damaging effect on state schools? From the facts that the Minister has just read out, it is clear that is not the case. Have the Opposition apologised or suggested that the extra money going to secondary schools in the state sector should be removed and given back to people who are in a better position to maintain their child’s education?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, the Opposition have not apologised, and nor would I necessarily expect them to. That will not stop me continuing, as I think my noble friend has invited me, to identify the facts of the situation as opposed to the rhetoric from the noble Baroness opposite. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to know that the number of pupils in private schools is still higher than it was in 2021-22 and before the pandemic. As I said, the latest school census data reveal that pupil numbers remain firmly within the historical patterns seen for over 20 years, while private schools have continued to open, even after the Government’s announcement about ending tax breaks: 79 schools have opened since July 2024. The average between 2014 and 2023 was 75 private schools opening each year. The average was 75 and the numbers in the last year were 79.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Chancellor said that every single penny of the money raised from this new VAT would be ring-fenced for state education, but the Prime Minister subsequently said that the decision to levy VAT on private school fees has allowed the Government to invest in housing. Will the Minister please confirm whether every pound of the money raised is going into better education for state-funded pupils?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Treasury’s analysis of this policy suggested that it would be able to raise around £1.8 billion a year by the 2029-30 financial year. As I identified in my first Answer, in this year alone we are increasing the amount of money that is going into our core schools budget by £3.7 billion. I think that demonstrates that, yes, we are investing every pound of that £1.8 billion in the £3.7 billion by which we have increased the core schools budget. That is before we get on to talking about the pay increase that we have been able to provide for our teachers to keep them in our schools, the investment that we are making in special educational needs and disabilities, and the capital funding that will enable schools to have both the condition and the places necessary for the 94% of pupils who have their education in the state system.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Has the Minister witnessed what I and some of my acquaintances have witnessed, which is a failure of social engineering because very rich parents and many foreign parents can still afford private schools but a larger number of the middle class and the less well-off will be going to state schools, hence a much bigger chasm between the privately educated and the state educated?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not sure that is unusual. It has always been the case that in order to benefit from a private education, you need to be able to afford it. The vast majority of children in this country attend state schools. That is why this Government are focusing our investment and our reform on those schools. That is the way to solve the problem of children from whatever background not receiving the education that they deserve.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister please answer the question that my noble friend Lord Effingham asked? Is this money being ring-fenced or not? Ring-fenced means ring-fenced, not part of some general budget.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The point I was making was that the VAT on private schools is raising £1.8 billion a year, and in just one year we are investing £3.7 billion in the increase in the core schools budget. If the argument that noble Lords opposite are making is that this is a small amount of the increased investment that this Labour Government are putting into education, they are right, but it is nevertheless an important amount.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, how are the Government getting on with recruiting the 6,500 extra teachers for which their iniquitous, unprecedented education tax is designed to pay? Is it not the case that the total number of teachers is going down, not up?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No. The number of new teachers in secondary and special schools, where the demographic need particularly is, is increasing due to the investment that we have been able to put into both a 5.5% pay award for last year and a 4% pay award for this year. That means that we have already seen the workforce grow by 2,346 full-time equivalents in secondary and special schools, where they are needed most. We are also able to report in the latest census one of the lowest leaver rates since 2010. We are recruiting more teachers for the schools that teach the majority of our children, and I am proud that that is the decision we have taken.

Teachers: Music, Drama, Art and Design, and Dance

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Keeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they will take to support an increase in the numbers training to be teachers of music, drama, art and design, and dance.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are working with the sector to re-establish teaching as an attractive profession across all subjects, including the arts. That is why this Government have increased teacher pay by almost 10% over two years and are providing bursaries this year worth up to £10,000 for trainees in art and design and in music. We are already seeing a positive impact. The number of new trainees and teachers has increased significantly in art and design and in music over the past year.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. The undervaluing of music in state schools by successive Conservative-led Governments since 2010 led to the loss of over 850 full-time equivalent music teachers since 2011; high vacancy rates and poor retention rates of music teachers, with only two-thirds of those who qualified five years ago still teaching; and music teacher recruitment targets being missed 11 times in 12 years. There is a great deal for the Labour Government to do. Sustained bursary funding for initial teacher training has shown more stable recruiting. Can my noble friend look at reinvesting in the music teacher training bursary and then sustaining it for a number of years? That must be backed by Ministers who emphasise the central place of that music teacher training bursary rather than just those for science and maths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that we have to deal with the previous Government’s underinvestment in teachers and the narrowing of the curriculum, which limited students’ ability to study music and art and design courses. However, I am pleased to say that we are making good progress on our pledge to deliver 6,500 more teachers. The workforce has grown by over 2,300, and we have a near-record low of teachers leaving the profession. When thinking about the additional funding that we provide for bursaries, we must consider the current position around recruitment. The good news is that we have seen a 53% increase in people starting postgraduate music teacher training in the past year. For that reason, we have decided not to continue the bursary this year. However, we are optimistic, given the figures that we have already seen and will publish in December, that course acceptances indicate that this improved recruitment will be at least maintained.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, the previous Government and this Government have recognised the problem that we have in getting teachers—for music in particular and for the arts generally. Therefore, it is very disappointing that the bursary for people wanting to train as music teachers has been cut to zero. For young people to follow on from people such as the Beatles, who have brought a huge amount into the economy, we need to invest in the next generation. That means teaching them to play instruments and to become the musicians of the future.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord. That is why, as well as investing in all teachers and seeing the results of teachers coming into the profession, we are making specific contributions by funding the over 40 music hubs, which exist across the country to support the very best teaching of music, and the music opportunities pilot. That will ensure that more young people, particularly those who are disadvantaged or who have special educational needs and disabilities, will be able to play an instrument or sing to a high standard.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, when discussing the Curriculum and Assessment Review last week, the Minister highlighted that creative subjects will no longer be the privilege of the lucky few. Rural and smaller schools often struggle to attract specialist teachers in creative subjects. How will they deliver a full, high-quality creative curriculum?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is precisely why we need the 6,500 new teachers in secondary and special schools to which the Government have committed. By not only committing to but investing in the profession, we are already delivering results through the increased numbers of teachers that we are seeing. Through the music hub programme, which I discussed previously, we also need to ensure that there are opportunities for teachers to understand the best way both to teach music and to enable their students to have the joy that comes from understanding and enjoying music and either playing instruments or singing.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, we know that the great majority of teachers in arts subjects—for example, in music and in art and design—in primary schools, where it all starts, do not have specialist knowledge in those areas. What importance do the Government attach to having specialist arts teachers in primary schools? Do they think that gathering statistics on the numbers involved—these figures do not currently exist—would be helpful in getting to grips with this area?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As the noble Earl says, in primary schools, teachers will often have a range of areas that they will teach. What is important is that teachers have access to the best understanding of how to teach music, with support from the music hubs. We will develop their understanding of best quality, excellent arts teaching through the new centre for arts and music education. They must also be supported—for example, through the pay increases that we have put in place—to enter the profession and stay in it.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow on from the question from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Before I do so, the Minister was very quick, as ever, to criticise the previous Government and come out with various statistics. However, she omitted to mention that teacher numbers were at an all-time high when we left office. On specialist teachers in art, music, drama or the other subjects that have been mentioned in this Question, one way to get the specialism to which the noble Earl referred would be to allow those without qualified teacher status to continue to deliver that teaching and to bring with them their specialism in these areas. Would the Minister reconsider that in the context of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I believe that good teachers bring specialist knowledge as well as the particular skills that teacher training and qualified teacher status bring alongside that. That is why pupils have an entitlement to ensure that those teaching them have both the knowledge specialism and the teaching specialism in order to give them the best possible opportunities. That is the reasoning behind this Government’s determination that all pupils should be entitled to have a qualified teacher in the classroom in front of them, because, as we know, the quality of teaching is the single most important determinant in pupils’ success in school.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Does the Minister accept that the most important driver in this area would be every primary and secondary school having access to a professional music teacher, whether full-time, part-time, peripatetic or through distance learning? If that were to happen, it would create the demand for teachers, which would lead to the necessary supply. I draw attention to my interest in that my wife is a harp teacher.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord’s wife is doing an enormously important job in developing an interest in harping in the pupils whom she teaches. We need to ensure that we have qualified teachers with access to the support for their specialisms—which, for example, the Government aim to provide through the new national centre for arts and music education—to ensure that all children, not just fortunate children, have the opportunity to benefit from arts and music. That is what this Government are putting in place.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recruitment of qualified teachers is clearly essential, and that the Government have made great strides in that the picture of recruitment looks much better this year than it has done in the past 10 years? Does she also agree that the retention of mid-career teachers is equally important? The report of the Teaching Commission, which I chair, entitled Shaping the Future of Education, revealed that it now takes 10 newly qualified teachers to replace every seven more experienced teachers who leave teaching before retirement. Does the Minister agree that this trend must be reversed if we are to maintain educational standards and a broad and balanced curriculum, including for the arts?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and I thank her for the work she has done to support teachers throughout her career and continues to do now with the work to which she alluded. We need not only to get teachers into the classroom but to keep them there. I am pleased that this Government’s investment in teachers, through pay as well as broader support in the classroom, has not only brought new teachers to the profession but reduced the number of them leaving it to one of the lowest ever levels.

Dyscalculia

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they recognise dyscalculia as a learning difficulty, and what plans they have to support children who have it.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that some children face real challenges in maths, particularly those with dyscalculia and other special educational needs. That is why we are supporting schools through our national RISE maths hubs, helping teachers deliver effective, inclusive lessons. Our Curriculum and Assessment Review is tackling attainment gaps for pupils with SEND, and in the new year we will publish a White Paper to build a system where every child receives early support so as to thrive.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. For the edification of the House, dyscalculia is a specific difficulty in understanding numbers and number processes. It is 130 years since the term dyslexia was coined. In 1978, Baroness Mary Warnock was told by an education civil servant that she should not suggest that there is a special category of learning difficulty called dyslexia. Her report on special educational needs, of course, transformed that view. I rather hoped it would not take quite so long for the Government to properly recognise and integrate SEN support for the 6% of the population with dyscalculia. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that having children and young people struggling with numbers and maths is a huge problem for them as they become adults and seek work, and for future economic growth dependent on technology and innovation? Why would the Government take the risk of not recognising this as a learning difficulty and giving it the proper treatment it deserves?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much recognise what my noble friend says about the challenges that children with dyscalculia have in relation to their maths. Probably where we differ is on whether it is necessary to name those things in order to make sure that children get support: we do not believe that a child should need a diagnosis of a condition to get support. While diagnoses and labels can be useful for some children, whether a child has secured a diagnosis should not determine the support they get. A child with dyscalculia needs more support to master concepts in maths, so the support that we offer will be the same as for others facing difficulties with maths—that is better scaffolding, more effective use of representation and careful sequencing of learning. We are taking action to ensure that children who have difficulties with maths, including those with dyscalculia, will get the support they need.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the answer that the Minister has just given shows why we need a name. She gave a long description of a term that can have one name, which means that the teachers, the parents and the child can understand it. One word is better than many for this, even if it happens to be a Greek one.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I said that I completely understand that children who have difficulties in maths, including those with dyscalculia, will need support. My emphasis was on the action that the Government are taking to support those children, which is, I suspect, where both noble Lords are in asking this question.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to understand from the Minister what steps are being taken to make sure that the conception of dyscalculia does not become far bigger than it should. We now know that much dyslexia was in fact the outcome of faulty early reading teaching. What efforts are being made to make sure that the emphasis is first and foremost on making sure that the curriculum and teaching are as good as they should be before anybody risks going near labelling a child and giving them a damaged conception of themselves?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have just faced two questions that suggest I am avoiding the difficulties that might occur with labelling. I fall somewhere between these two points: I think it is important to be able to identify as early as possible children who have difficulties with maths, but it should not be necessary to name that or to get a formal diagnosis to make sure that the support the Government are putting in place, some of which I have already described, is available for that child as quickly as possible.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, in 10 years of teaching I had not heard of dyscalculia until last year, and I could not pronounce it until about last week. It is okay supporting the children, but if the teachers do not know about it, how can they support the children? Can we please get more of this discussion, whether it is dyscalculia or whether it is just children finding it very difficult, into teacher training?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point about how we need to support the workforce in schools to meet the needs of children. These children deserve cutting-edge pedagogy that is rooted in evidence. That is why, for example, we introduced a new national professional qualification for SENCOs in 2024 and why, when we recently reviewed the initial teacher training core content and the early career framework, we introduced significantly more content on adaptive teaching and supporting pupils with SEND. That started in September 2025 and is now being delivered for teachers. We supplement that core offer with further SEND-specific training that is easy to access at any point in a teacher’s career, through the universal SEND services contract. Having teachers who understand the support that children need is fundamental, and that is what this Government are putting in place.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, given the current pressures on SEND, I understand why the Government are wary of another classification and assessment, which would be very difficult to meet. I ask the Minister whether Ofsted, in its future programmes, is going to look at identifying some of the issues on maths teaching, which might at least support the kind of changes that she has referred to.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In the new framework that has been set out, we are expecting Ofsted to place more emphasis than has been the case previously on the extent to which schools are achieving the type of inclusive practice that will benefit all pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, including those with dyscalculia. Alongside assessing the extent to which schools are doing that, we are also putting in place the support for the workforce that I have talked about, as well as evidence of, and development of, best practice in inclusive schools to ensure that all children can make progress.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Curriculum and Assessment Review made a recommendation for a diagnostic maths test in year 8; my understanding is that the Government have not accepted that. Can the Minister explain why?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Government will be introducing a reading assessment in year 8, on the basis that we think reading is the thing most likely to open up the rest of the curriculum and the ability to succeed in assessment. We will also make sure that schools have the support to use a range of methods of assessing progress in both maths and writing in year 8. Other changes we are making in response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review will make sure that the sequencing of maths learning enables students, including those with special educational needs, to build up their core understanding in a way that is more likely to support success.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I first came across dyscalculia as a young dad in school reports 25 years ago, when one of my children had an issue with mathematics. I noticed that his 2s, 3s, 5s, 7s and 9s were all the wrong way around. Is that not a very early and obvious sign to teachers that there is an issue?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I suspect it is, as other things would also be. The noble Lord makes an important point, which goes to the point I made in my first two responses. It is important that we identify all pupils who have challenges with maths—including those with dyscalculia—as early as possible, and put in place support, structure in the curriculum and training for teachers to enable those students to succeed, whatever is causing the problems with their maths learning.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, a number of people in my family have a whole variety of learning difficulties and have been successful despite that. There is a huge difference in being able to name the difficulty. Children who are not doing well find another single word if they do not get a diagnosis, usually “stupid” or “lazy”. To have a proper diagnosis makes a significant difference.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I partly accept the noble Baroness’s point, but there is a problem with suggesting that it is not possible for students who have problems with maths to get support unless they have had a diagnosis and have a single name for the issues that are causing challenges. Sometimes it is precisely the waiting for the assessment, rather than the action on the difficulties the child had, that causes the problems in our special educational needs and disabilities system. We need to identify where children have problems with learning and take action immediately, not wait for diagnoses.

Curriculum and Assessment Review

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I too begin by thanking Professor Becky Francis for her Curriculum and Assessment Review report. There is much in this final report that we on these Benches can welcome. Indeed, quite a few of the ideas bear a distinctly Liberal Democrat imprint: renewed emphasis on a broad and balanced curriculum; the recognition that every child must be offered both rigour and breadth; and the Government’s acceptance of the need for more digital, arts-based and citizenship education.

However, while the ambition is high, the risks are real, particularly for those children whose life chances depend on a system that works for all, not only for the privileged few. If we are serious about social mobility, these reforms must be equally serious about substance, delivery and equity.

I will speak a little more about social mobility and equality of opportunity—an issue close to my heart given my lived experience of the UK’s education system. The Francis review rightly emphasises that the national curriculum must be for every child, and that one of its purposes is

“to ensure that … all young people are not held back by background or circumstance”.

Yet the danger is that without an underpinning investment and workforce plan, these reforms will continue existing inequalities.

Let us consider triple science. The ambition to give more students access to deeper science study is admirable. However, I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that across England, a quarter of state schools have no specialist physics teacher. Without addressing the recruitment and retention crisis in science and other shortage subjects, we risk fundamentally disadvantaging children in less-resourced schools, many of whom are from more deprived backgrounds.

Similarly, while the arts and digital education are flagged in the final report, the parallel removal of bursaries for music teacher training is concerning. Rising teacher vacancies in music and creative subjects, and underinvestment in enrichment, threaten to drive a two-tier curriculum: one for those who attend well-resourced schools, another for everyone else.

I turn to the structure of performance measures and subject choices. The scrapping of the English baccalaureate is not in itself a problem; the problem lies in how its replacement may unintentionally narrow choice rather than broaden it. The new proposals around Progress 8 reform, with dedicated slots for science and breadth subjects, may incentivise schools to pick the cheapest route to satisfy buckets rather than ensuring rich subject access. Our schools will be under pressure to hit headline measures, which may lead schools to steer pupils away from the arts, languages and physical education.

If we are serious about social mobility, we cannot allow the curriculum for large numbers of children to become a bare-minimum choice which gives them fewer options than their more fortunate peers. A child in a deprived area should not be streamed into the narrowest option simply because the school’s performance indicators push them there.

Finally, I will touch on the issues of teacher supply, funding and implementation; they all require teachers, time, training and money. Without proper workforce planning, the ambitions of the final report will collapse under the weight of underresourced schools. The Government must clarify how the reforms are to be funded; how many additional teachers will be recruited in shortage areas; and how all schools, regardless of location, will be supported to deliver the new entitlement. If a child in Sheffield, or anywhere else outside a privileged postcode, is left behind because their school cannot deliver the new curriculum, the promise of a “world-class curriculum for all” becomes a hollow slogan.

Before I conclude, I would like to pose a number of questions to the Minister that I hope she will address in her response to your Lordships’ House. First, what workforce strategy does the Department for Education have in place specifically to deal with the specialist teacher shortages in subjects such as physics, music and languages, given that many schools in disadvantaged areas currently have none?

Also, what assessment has the department made of the impact of narrowing the curriculum on students from lower-income backgrounds? How will the reforms not widen the attainment gap? How will the Government monitor and evaluate whether the new curriculum and assessment changes improve both attainment and life chances for students from underrepresented groups, and will data be published by socioeconomic backgrounds, regions, disability status and other key equality indicators?

Can the Minister also explain why the Government have not progressed with all of the Francis review’s recommendations?

Finally, this report offers not just change but an opportunity to build an education system that is truly inclusive, ambitious and equitable. However, ambition must be matched by resources, rights must be matched by access and the reforms must be implemented with a resolve to ensure that no child is left behind. If we wish to talk of social mobility, we must mean it; if we wish to talk about opportunity, we must support it; and if we wish to talk of education for all, that must include children from communities such as mine in Sheffield, where aspiration is in abundance but where barriers remain real. The proposals are good, but only if we deliver them properly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, to his new role on the Front Bench. I will do my best to cover the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord—although I note that, for the second time in a row in responding to a Statement, I have less time to respond than the two Opposition Front-Benchers took to ask me questions.

I start by thanking Professor Becky Francis and those who contributed through her panel and in the consultation. This is a review driven by evidence, informed by data and which has relied on input from experts, the sector and the public. The national curriculum ensures a common entitlement to share in the core wisdom that we as a nation most value. An ambition for a curriculum of high standards was of course led by James Callaghan in his great education debate and delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in the first national curriculum in 1988.

Successive Governments have understood that, as the world changes, so must the curriculum that prepares our young people for success in that world. That is why this is a national curriculum that will ensure both rock-solid foundations in oracy, reading, writing and maths but also the development of the sorts of skills necessary for young people to be able to succeed in the world today.

On the particular points about accountability in relation to the EBacc, while I can understand the objectives of the EBacc, unfortunately, it did not achieve them. We have seen no increase in the numbers of students aged 16 to 19, for example, who took up subjects focused on in the EBacc. The levels of students taking modern foreign language GCSE increased to begin with but is now at broadly the same level as it was in 2009-10. Of course, the result has been to narrow the curriculum and ease out arts and creative subjects.

In relation to Progress 8, we will consult on how to continue to provide a strong academic core—which we believe our proposals will do—while balancing breadth and student choice. Languages and humanities of course continue to be incentivised in the proposed Progress 8 accountability measure.

On the important point made by the noble Baroness opposite about attendance and behaviour, I am sure she will recognise the work this Government have continued to do—some of it undoubtedly based on work she did—to improve attendance. I am sure she will welcome the fact that children were in school for 5 million more days in the most recent academic year than the year previously.

This is a substantial change, as noble Lords have said, and that is why we are making only changes that are essential. We will support teachers through the resources made available through the Oak Academy, including AI learning assistance to support teachers. There are 2,300 more teachers already in our secondary and special schools as a result of our focus on delivering 6,500 more teachers. We have seen an increase in the number of music teachers entering initial teacher training, which is one of the reasons for the changes in the bursary. Of course, 1,300 fewer teachers are leaving the profession.

We will provide sufficient time to implement this by producing the new national curriculum in spring 2027, with the first teaching to commence in 2028. That will provide four terms’ worth of preparation to deliver the national curriculum—more than was the case the last time it was changed.

On triple science, we will work with schools to see what is necessary to enable them to provide that entitlement for all pupils. For example, we are already providing support for non-physics science teachers to teach physics.

The curriculum has not been updated for over a decade, and parents want one that is fit for the future. We need a knowledge-rich education, which is central to ensuring high and rising standards for every child, and a curriculum that will help children shape their own futures and the future of our country. It must include digital skills for a digital age and the speaking and listening skills that employers value. Music, sport, art and drama will no longer be the privilege of a lucky few. We will have standards that will enable all children to benefit and to deliver their potential, whatever their starting point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I do not think there is very much I need to add to that.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this new curriculum and its emphasis on widening the scope to engage more pupils. Does the Minister agree with me that when the Opposition talk about dumbing down and powerful knowledge, the fact is that the current curriculum fails to engage far too many pupils? There is a 20% persistence absence that rises to 35% for disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND. We need a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum but one that addresses the interests, the aspirations and the subjects of a great variety of our pupils, who can see themselves in the curriculum, see the diversity, learn about the arts, financial education and media literacy, and be provided with the skills they will need in the 21st century.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right; we need students to have the deep knowledge that is necessary to succeed in the world, but we also need them to have the skills that the modern world demands of them. This new curriculum will deliver both and, in doing that, will engage more students, as my noble friend says, to achieve success, both for themselves and for the future of the country.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the arts sector is hugely grateful that the EBacc has gone, and I think that needs to be said. However, does the Minister agree that it is going to take a lot of work to turn around the culture in relation to the arts in schools that has been in place since 2010 and, importantly, repair the arts infrastructure? This is a question of resources and specialist schoolteachers—which the Minister has mentioned—but the increase is from a low base, so in that light the decision to axe all the arts ITT bursaries seems to many of us unfathomable. The music hub landscape is in a mess and, in the wider landscape, the music course at the University of Nottingham is just the latest to be suspended. Getting rid of the EBacc is a good start, but the Government need to do a lot more work to turn this around in relation to the arts in schools.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Earl that a high-quality arts education must not be just for the privileged few. It is ironic that the arts that have been forced out of state school curricula are those that are so often advertised in independent schools’ offers. It is an essential part of the broad and rich education that every child deserves. We will revitalise arts education for a reformed curriculum and will support teachers.

In improving the art and design curriculum, we will ensure that all pupils are taught the core knowledge and skills to develop their own creative practice and to study the work of a wider range of artists and designers. I have already partly responded to the point about teachers. I will add that our new national centre for arts and music education will provide support for schools and teachers to deliver the reformed curriculum, as will our continued investment in music hubs to support pupils to make good progress in instrumental performance.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, like others, we warmly welcome much in the report, particularly on languages and the arts, as we have already heard. I want to raise one thing mentioned on page 37 about the technical awards. We have not had any briefings or debates on V-levels; they have suddenly appeared as if from the blue. The Government should have learned from the T-levels that it takes a long time to introduce and embed a new vocational qualification. What is wrong with BTECs? They are understood by everybody. They are understood by pupils and even by parents—ye gods, that is a triumph. Universities and employers all understand BTECs. They have served people very well. T-levels have not really got properly embedded yet. Why on earth are the Government involved in embarking in something new when there is something perfectly good already there?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There will be plenty of opportunity for people to have their say about V-levels, not least in the consultation that we published alongside the skills White Paper. It has never quite been my approach to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. There are improvements that we can make to the standard of our vocational education. T-levels are now achieving considerable success, both in the outcomes for students and for a broad range of students in terms of their prior attainment. As we carry out that consultation, I am very happy to carry on talking about where we think V-levels fit in the important range of choices and options for students aged 16 to 19.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords—

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, we are living in an increasingly complex world, and the study of religious education is critical in helping young people to navigate it. The need for understanding and dialogue across different faith groups and worldviews is increasingly obvious. The Church of England has welcomed the scrapping of the EBacc, because it has positive implications for religious education. At present, schools with a religious character provide the most comprehensive RE in the country. Will the Government commit to ensuring that these new proposals do not undermine this or the historic role that churches have in providing education in England?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will start—seeing as this is my first opportunity—by congratulating the right reverend Prelate, who is soon to be elevated. The Government firmly believe in the importance of religious education. Good-quality RE can develop children’s knowledge of the values and traditions of Britain and other countries, and foster understanding among different faiths and cultures. That is why it remains compulsory for all state-funded schools, including academies and free schools, at all key stages. We welcome the review’s recommendation that Vanessa Ogden continue her work with the sector to seek to reach consensus on what a national curriculum for RE might look like. We look forward to seeing the outcome of that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

I am really grateful for the noble Lord’s protection and championing. It is always an honour to give way to the future Archbishop of Canterbury.

Can the Minister say more about the new oracy framework? Of course, young people need to be able to speak as well as read and write. Can she give us an assurance that, in preparing the framework, her department will work closely with the experts in this field, the English Speaking Union, whose work this has been for the last 107 years?

Secondly, I welcome the focus on building media literacy. The number of young people who do not read a newspaper and do not listen to the broadcast media is alarming. Their information comes through social media, with its adjusted algorithms. Within that, can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that the benchmark for independent, impartial broadcasting in this country—and, I would say, around the world—is the BBC? Whatever the short-term squall, the BBC is a huge jewel in Britain’s crown.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she asks for on the development of the oracy framework. As she has identified, being able to speak and listen is an enormously important skill that employers say they need young people to have. On the point about media literacy, as she says, in a world in which young people need to distinguish misinformation and disinformation, it is enormously important that they are supported with media literacy. That is why media literacy will be embedded in English, in history and in citizenship. I share her view about the importance of the BBC, both at home and abroad.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Curriculum and Assessment Review, particularly the removal of the EBacc, which has damaged the provision of arts and music education in state schools. I also welcome the emphasis on both media literacy and music provision in the curriculum. It is important to highlight the significant inequalities in access to music in state schools. The annexe to the review highlights that in 2023-24, one in four young people may not have been able to access a music qualification at key stage 4 in their school, even if they wanted to.

A further aspect of inequality highlighted in the review concerns those pupils whose parents cannot afford extracurricular tuition. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the Government will double down on these inequalities to ensure that the ability to read music and play an instrument becomes available to all students in state schools, and that the number of specialist music teachers will start to be restored to the much higher level it was at in 2011?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Despite the fact that my cello has sat in the attic for far too long, I wholly agree with my noble friend about the value of music and music tuition. We recognise the current challenge of access in music. Tackling that starts with a high-quality music education for every pupil through a reformed programme of study, and then providing clear progress routes for further study to 16 and 18, starting with a review of music, GCSE and technical awards. It needs the continued investment that the Government are making in the 43 music hubs partnerships across England to offer musical instrument tuition, instrument loaning and whole-class ensemble teaching. That is why I welcome the increase we have seen in the number of teachers teaching music and those entering initial teacher training.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, with the withdrawal of the EBacc and with more and more universities shutting down their modern language courses, what measures are the Government considering to prevent take-up of languages at GCSE plummeting? Secondly, will the noble Baroness give urgent attention to introducing an advanced language premium to boost take-up of languages at A-level, modelled on the very successful advanced maths premium? We know that having foreign language skills significantly enhances future employability, so we must avoid short-changing pupils in state schools by letting languages disappear.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education. That includes supporting and empowering the workforce: for example, we will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers have access to high-quality professional development. We want more pupils to develop strong language skills and to have their achievements recognised earlier than at GCSE. For that reason, we will explore the feasibility of developing a new flexible languages qualification which enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready, rather than at fixed points.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, alongside my noble friends and the irrepressible noble Lord, Lord Baker, I very much welcome today’s Statement. It talks about “boosting digital literacy through a reformed computing curriculum to allow pupils to navigate the opportunities and challenges of AI and much more”. What is the “much more”?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We want, first, to recognise that digital skills are an enormously important element of a young person’s development in the modern world. That is why we will widen the GCSE beyond simply computing and introduce a new level 3 qualification in data science and AI.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, Progress 8 has been proved to have been a success, and, as my noble friend pointed out, the Francis review is clear that its recommendation is not to make any changes

“to the structure of Progress 8 or the composition of the ‘buckets’”,

yet Ministers have now decided to consult on changes to the measure anyway. So, will keeping the current Progress 8 measure be included as one option within this consultation, or have the Government simply decided to ignore the evidence-based recommendation of their own review?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We believe we will deliver an improved version of Progress 8 that balances a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, reflecting the importance of a curriculum that supports high standards. That improved Progress 8 will recognise the value of subjects, including the arts, which strengthen our economy and society, and the importance of a broad pre-16 curriculum. As I have already said, it will maintain the focus on languages and on humanities. It has the potential in the consultation to strengthen the role, for example, of triple science, which is very important for enabling students to access further science study. We will of course listen carefully to the points that come forward in the consultation.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the review and the Government’s response. I particularly welcome the emphasis on preparing young people for a changing world and the statutory requirement to teach citizenship at key stages 1 and 2. This is imperative in order to make the democratic process relevant to young people, but also for respect in politics. The Jo Cox Foundation, which I chair, highlights that, and the Speaker’s Conference noted that 96% of MPs have been subjected to harassment. That cannot be good for democracy. Can my noble friend reassure me that citizenship will be properly taught by properly qualified teachers?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I strongly agree with my noble friend, not least because I preceded her as the chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. We agree with the review that people should be taught the skills and knowledge they need to be active, informed and responsible citizens from an early age. As my noble friend says, it was one of the recommendations of the Jo Cox Civility Commission that there should be a better focus on the nature of government and the responsibilities of politicians in the school curriculum, in order to support not only better understanding but to reduce the unacceptable levels of abuse that elected officials face. I am glad that this Government have delivered that.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the review, and I must press the Minister further on the decision not to accept its recommendation to stick with the current Progress 8. Can she tell us a little bit more about why the Government have made the proposals they have—why creative arts and not computing or technology? For many young people, particularly lower-achieving pupils, there will be less choice under the Government’s proposals. I am not sure that pushing a large number of unwilling boys into drama is quite what we have in mind. Any further enlightenment as to why the Government have made the recommendations they have made would be very welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Nobody is going to be pushed into drama who does not want to do it. In fact, in the same category as drama, music, and art and design is design and technology, which is being introduced into the curriculum for the first time. The noble Baroness will recognise that as being important. As I have stated, to ensure that we have a curriculum that supports high standards and the breadth and choice that students need, we are consulting on the reformed Progress 8.