Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I recognise that there is an enormous consensus in this debate about the significance of family and social relationships for looked-after children, for children in care and for all of us. This is why we feel so strongly that these are relationships we need to protect as far as possible for the children who are looked after by the state. It must be key, as several noble Lords have said, that we are able to maintain those strong relationships.

Perhaps at this point I should give a shout-out to my two sisters, who, after my mum, are the longest relationships by far that I have had in my life. As other noble Lords have said, when the going gets tough, it is your siblings who provide you with the support necessary—if you are as lucky as I am with mine—to get through those times.

We have a responsibility to help those children whose lives have been even more difficult to be able, wherever possible, to maintain those relationships. When a child is in care, as other noble Lords have said, the local authority must allow reasonable contact with the child’s parents, if it is consistent with the child’s welfare. These amendments seek to place equal duties on local authorities to allow reasonable contact with siblings of children in care. They also seek to strengthen wider family and social relationships for looked-after children.

We very much agree that it is important for a looked-after child’s welfare to, wherever possible, have and maintain positive relationships with their parents, siblings, wider family and friends. The importance placed on these relationships is echoed at all levels of a child’s care journey and is supported through current arrangements and statutory processes. We have heard in more than one debate today about the excellent work that has been done, for example, by lifelong links, which is supported in 22 local authorities by funding from the Government, and which is operating more widely than that. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is right that, when it comes to relationships, we need to focus on quality as much as quantity and on the sustainability of those relationships.

For local authorities, there are existing duties in the Children Act 1989 to endeavour to promote contact between looked-after children and their relatives. This includes siblings, friends and other connected people, unless it is not reasonably practical or consistent with their welfare—the Children Act is clear about that. Good social work practice would ensure that there was a strong understanding of the people who are important in a child’s life, the nature of the relationships and an ability to be able to plan for how those relationships can be sustained.

Equally, when determining an appropriate placement for a child, local authorities must, as far as reasonably practical, ensure that the child can live with their sibling, if that sibling is also looked after. The importance of this is laid out in the care planning regulations. For those involved in care planning, regulations already make it clear that arrangements to promote and maintain contact with siblings must be included in a child’s care plan. This prioritises consistency, stability and lifelong loving relationships with those who are important to children and young people.

If a child is concerned about the level of contact that they have with their sibling or other family members, they should be encouraged to speak to a trusted person about this, be that their social worker, their independent reviewing officer—who has a responsibility to ensure that the plans being made for the child or young person are appropriate, including those that involve maintaining relationships—or an advocate. Under current legislation, in extreme circumstances children in care can apply to the court for contact with any named person, which could include a sibling, and siblings can seek permission from the court to apply for a contact order. Furthermore, as I think we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the court should consider contact in making a care plan for that child.

For foster carers and, for example, staff caring for children in children’s homes, there is statutory guidance and regulations to promote positive relationships between a child and their family and friends. More broadly, a very strong theme in the Bill is our working to promote strong family networks in all areas of children’s social care—for example, through the measures on family group decision-making, which we discussed right at the beginning of Committee. That might be an appropriate way to address the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised about bereaved children. The noble Baroness is right that, in those cases, it is particularly important that, at the point at which they are bereaved, children would be able to maintain contact with those who they have left in their lives.

I hope I have recognised the important arguments behind both these amendments, and that I have provided some reassurance to noble Lords that existing laws, regulations and guidance already strongly value, and have an expectation around, the importance of sibling relationships and other relationships, while ensuring children’s welfare. I suspect that this is a place where the law, regulations and standards are already in place. What we need to do is focus on the significance of this and on the good practice of social work needed to enable it to happen. Social workers around the country will be focusing on it, and I hope us having had this debate will make it more likely that it will be brought to the fore in people’s thinking. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel reassured enough to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very empathetic response. Following her example, I guess I ought to give a shout-out to my brother. We have been through some quite difficult times together, and that is what leads to that enduring relationship.

I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. It has been one of those debates that shows this House at its very best, and that we can deal with issues to do with love and emotions. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. My reaction is as follows: it may well be that this is currently written into existing legislation and guidance, but I know from all the care leavers I used to speak to on a regular basis that, far too often, it simply does not have much impact on the ground—and I think this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. One of my objectives in putting this amendment forward was to have something in the Bill that makes it absolutely obvious that sibling contact is a right. It would be really encouraging for children in care to know that it was there.

Between now and Report, it would be helpful to have further discussions about the extent to which the problem is that this is just not clear enough in law, and so we need to put something in—which, again, as was said, would not have any cost implications—or whether it is more to do with social work practice on the ground. I am a great believer in both/and, so I think we may well be returning to this on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the context for my Amendments 134 and 178 is, as we have heard in this short debate, that we face a very severe shortage of foster carers. As other noble Lords have said, this Bill feels like a huge missed opportunity to try to address this problem. Honestly, I do not really understand why the Government have not chosen to do more to address it—but perhaps the amendments in this group will offer the way.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned that there is currently a shortage of 5,000 foster carers in England; that is 33 foster carers per local authority. It just does not feel like an insuperable problem to find 33 homes across the country in each local authority—though, absolutely rightly, my noble friend Lady Spielman spoke of the very high prevalence of complex needs in children who go into foster care.

This speaks to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and others about a strategy, which would also address the recommendation in the MacAlister review that we need more flexible models of fostering. As we have heard, of just over 160,000 families who expressed an interest in becoming foster carers in 2020-21, only just over 2,000 were approved—a conversion rate of 1.3%. I understand that many applicants apply to multiple agencies and so get counted twice. There may be timing issues for potential carers, and there are structural challenges, including pay and the need for training, and difficulties in the application process, as we have heard. This is the most significant area for the roughly 83,000 children in care. Over 56,000 of them are in foster care, half of them with independent agencies and half in local authority foster care. That is a very big and important number, and it feels fundamental to address it.

It sits at the heart of what we might call the children’s homes problem of cost and profits, which we will debate in subsequent groups. If we had more foster carers, the pressure would come off children’s homes, prices would adjust and we would be in a much better situation, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, put so convincingly, because the wraparound of foster care—the fact that there is a family and relationships—leads to vastly better outcomes for the child. For all those reasons, this is an important group, and I hope that Amendment 143 is one that the Minister takes very seriously.

My amendments are much simpler. Amendment 134 would give more flexibility to allow young children over the age of three to share a room. My intention is that this would apply to primary-aged children, although re-reading my amendment I think that my drafting skills have come through yet again. Having talked to directors of children’s services in London and other areas with high housing costs, I know that the number of potential foster carers with several spare rooms is very limited. I am aware that some organisations in the sector see this as a safeguarding risk, but I argue that we are already trusting the foster carer to care for a very vulnerable child. Within that, we should trust their judgment about the sleeping arrangements of the children in their home. Sadly, safeguarding risks are not confined to what happens in a child’s bedroom. This amendment could potentially add several hundred more places, at little or no cost, in areas with the greatest pressure to place children locally, and would avoid children being placed very far from home—as we have heard about several times today—their roots and their communities.

This is not the only way to expand capacity. Another would be to invest in initiatives such as the Greater Manchester Room Makers scheme and roll it out more widely. It provides funding for foster carers to renovate existing rooms or build extensions to allow them to care for more children.

My Amendment 178 seeks to clarify the delegated authority that foster carers have for the children in their care. This was tabled in the other place by the honourable Member for North Herefordshire and received a positive response from the Minister. I seek further confirmation from the Minister here that the Government still intend to consult on this point. Perhaps she could update the House on the likely timeline for the consultation and for the secondary legislation to be amended.

Thinking more broadly, and returning to Amendment 143, it would help the House if the Minister could share other ideas the Government are working on to improve recruitment and retention. I spoke recently to the organisation Now Foster, which is developing “weekenders”—that might not be the right term—which offer regular weekend placements for children who might be either in kinship or foster care, giving much needed rest and space to both parties, and a consistency and stability for the child or young person that can extend beyond the age of 18. Crucially, it also gives foster carers a chance for a more modest but still substantial commitment, rather than taking in a child full time with everything that entails. This idea—again, this came up in the MacAlister review—of having different options and different models of fostering is long overdue for more work.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham talked about the importance of a support network for foster carers. I visited an amazing group of foster carers—some brand new and about to receive their first child, some who had been fostering for over 20 years—who are part of an employee co-operative, Capstone Foster Care, in Peasedown St John in Somerset. Again and again they spoke eloquently about the impact of that network on their ability to foster and to offer love and care to very vulnerable children.

They also talked—this ties in with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson—about the need for a really positive recruitment campaign. Most people hear about fostering only when there is a case of severe neglect or worse. But across the House we have heard examples of many noble Lords who have either been foster carers or who recognise the extraordinary and life-changing work that foster carers do. We need that message to get outside this Chamber and out to people who might consider this and see it as a respected and important profession. We need more innovation in this area to unlock the potential in our communities to provide this kind of support for children who need it, and to improve retention.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a well-informed debate on the amendments in group 5 concerning foster care, particularly informed by those who have had personal experience. The noble Lord, Lord Young, gave his experience of being a foster carer and I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made a very important contribution on what it feels like to be a child in the system and the lifelong impacts that has.

I think there has been a consensus once again that foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. We very much share the concerns raised in this House about the falling numbers of fostering households—a fall of 9% since 2020—and the effect this has on children. Perhaps it was the late night I had had, but I felt marginally grumpy about the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that because there is not more about fostering in this legislation, somehow or another that means that this Government are not committed to righting the decline we have seen over recent years. Therefore, I will take the opportunity to spell out exactly what the Government have been doing. There is a tendency in this House, which is understandable because we are legislators, to think that things happen only if they are put into legislation. I hope I can demonstrate that there is plenty happening on fostering due to the actions of and investment put in by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I just wanted to remind us of a little bit of history. Napoleon said that a battle plan strategy was the most useless thing on earth but that you were lost without it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is good, because I was about to say—although I think he called it a battle plan, not a battle strategy—that the Government will set out our plans for foster care in due course, bringing together the range of activities that is already happening and taking on board the need to go further in the way that noble Lords have rightly pushed us to today.

Amendment 105, introduced by my noble friend Lord Watson, is on the introduction of a national foster care register. As he outlined, fostering services currently maintain local registers of foster carers alongside records relating to prospective foster carers. A national foster care register would insert central government into the systems and processes of foster care oversight, which are currently deployed locally. But as he said, and as I think my honourable friend in the other place outlined in Committee there, we are considering the possible benefits and costs of a national register of foster carers as part of our wider reforms.

There are a range of proposals for such a register. It will require some careful consideration. Specifically, I am sure we all recognise the need to ensure that a national foster care register would also meet local needs and avoid unforeseen negative consequences, and that it would overcome some of the risks surrounding the security of sensitive data, as well as imposing additional bureaucracy on the sector. But we want to engage with fostering stakeholders on this issue to determine next steps, and we can see some of the advantages of the national register that my noble friend outlined.

Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is on the sharing of bedrooms for foster children to enable foster carers to look after more children in their home. She identified that one of the pushes for this comes back to one of the fundamental issues that we will discuss on upcoming clauses and which lies very much at the heart of the Government’s reforms: the insufficiency of high-quality places, fostering or otherwise, for the children who need them. I completely understand the belief that changing standards in this way might enable us to increase capacity.

I have already identified that the Government will invest money, for example, in allowing extensions and other ways that foster carers might alter their homes to provide more space and capacity for children. But it is also the case that our national minimum standards already allow foster children aged three or over to share a bedroom, subject to conditions being met, which are in place to safeguard and protect children. That means that fostered children, such as siblings, can share a bedroom where it is in the best interests of the child, provided that each child has their own area of the room.

We can update those national minimum standards at any time. We do not require a change to Section 23 of the Care Standards Act, as suggested in this amendment, to do so. The language in this amendment would change the tone of the national minimum standards. I am not averse to the point that is being made here; we just need to be careful about the balance that we are setting. It would shift the default position to present room sharing both as appropriate and, in fact, standard practice, rather than the current tone, where room sharing should be considered where it is not possible for each child to have their own room.

I think we all agree that children in foster care deserve to be treated as a good parent would treat their own children and to have the opportunity for as full an experience of family life and childhood as possible. I know that there are many good parents who will have children who share bedrooms, especially at a younger age, but I also know that for many children, fostered or otherwise, and for many parents, the gold standard would for them to have their own room. If we add to that the fact that children often enter foster care after experiencing neglect or abuse, including sexual abuse, and may have a greater need for their own personal space and for privacy, we can see the need to be careful about shifting the position to promoting sharing.

We recognise that room sharing in foster care may be suitable, as I have said, particularly for siblings, and we think it is right that flexibilities are already in place, but we are reluctant to suggest that room sharing should be promoted as standard practice. Importantly, we have seen no evidence from children and young people themselves to suggest that they want room sharing to become standard practice in foster care.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Minister mentioned that the Government are putting funding into extensions and so forth. Will she write with details of how many additional places that funding is expected to secure? I do not mean precisely, but just to give a sense.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I am happy to do that. Of course, that is just one part of the sufficiency work that the Government are doing and that other elements of the Bill aim to make progress on, but I will write specifically on that project.

Amendment 178 on delegated authority for foster carers, which is also tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Barran, would give foster carers more autonomy and flexibility. All foster carers should have delegated authority in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care, such as routine decisions about health, hygiene, education and leisure activities. That is so that they can support the child in having a normal upbringing, full of the experiences and opportunities that any other child would have. Under the current system of delegated authority, if something is not listed on the child’s placement plan then the foster carer does not have delegated authority and they must check with their social worker before decisions can be made. Foster carers can only take decisions that are in line with the child’s agreed placement plan and the law governing parental responsibility. This amendment would change that current system of delegated authority.

I have considerable sympathy with the idea that if we are asking people to take on the crucial role of caring for children on a day-to-day basis and making them part of their families then they also need the authority to be able to do that in the rounded way that any parent would expect to have. That is why we have begun conversations with foster carers and fostering services about proposed changes to ensure that all foster carers should have delegated authority by default in relation to the day-to-day parenting of the child in their care. We think that reforming this policy area would benefit from a period of consultation with stakeholders to ensure that any change to delegated authority best reflects the interests of all parties but, following a consultation, we are committed to implementing necessary amendments to secondary legislation. We do not believe that we would need changes to primary legislation in order to do that. Delegated authority is outlined in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. I hope that provides some assurance to the noble Baroness that, in that area, we very much see the case being made and want to make progress.

With all the assurances and further information that I provided, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, as a local councillor in Liverpool, once a week I do what I call my “Keeping in touch”, where I go to each resident with a little form and ask them to fill out any particular concerns they have in the area: “Leave it outside your letterbox, and I’ll be back in an hour to pull it out”. I did the final household and thought, “I will finish now and go home”. The lady opened the door and said, “Everything is fine. We didn’t need to fill it out”. I said, “Oh, that’s good news. Goodbye”.

As I was walking down the path, the lady said, “Actually, there is something you could help me with.” I said, “What is it?” She said “No, I don’t think you can help me.” I said “Well, what is it?” She said, “I and my husband adopted two children when they were two-and-a-half years old. One is now 11 and the other is 12. The boy was severely traumatised as a two-and-a-half year old, so much so that he has to have regular therapy sessions. The problem is that the grant we got has been cut by nearly £2,000, and we now cannot afford the therapy sessions.” I said, “Okay, leave it with me and let me think this through.” I thought, “Well, I will put down a Written Question to the Minister.” We know how Written Questions work, do we not? Those who have been Ministers will know that, often, they try not to reveal all the facts as they happen to be.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Oh!

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Oh, goodness, I would not suggest that for one moment of the current Minister—or the previous Minister.

My Written Question was:

“To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the importance of the adoption and special guardianship support fund.”


The Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, was:

“This government fully recognises the importance of support for adoptive and kinship children and families. The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund … has been a valuable part of the support landscape for ten years. This is why we have provided £50 million of funding for the ASGSF for 2025/26, alongside £8.8 million for Adoption England, to complement the range of support available in local areas.”


I did a little further research, because that seemed to tell me that everything was okay and that this family need not worry: they were not getting any cuts. Almost half the ASGSF awards last year exceeded the new £3,000 allowance, so some children will receive cuts of almost 40%. Data shows that thousands of children will now go without the therapy they need as a result of this cut. Alongside this cut has gone a separate allocation of up to £2,500 per child per year for special assessments. This has been completely removed. Match-funding support for children with an exceptional level of need has also been removed. Previously, the ASGSF provided up to 50% of the funding for up to £30,000 per child, with the rest provided by the local authority. The consequences of these changes are that any new specialist assessment must now be paid for from the £3,000. Therapy care or support must also come within this budget, regardless of need. Support that was given may no longer be given.

Change can exacerbate issues for children with attachment and trauma-related needs, who require sustained, regular support. Building trust with a therapist takes time, but continuity of care will now be harder. Children with the most complex needs now face a highly uncertain future, which may may lead to increased exclusions, due to behavioural issues that were traditionally tackled with therapy. An increase in issues such as child-to-parent violence threatens family placements further.

This family just cannot cope any more because the funding, as we have heard, has been cut. Whether that is the element from the local authority or from the Government, I do not know, and I have been unable to look into that any further. The language we sometimes use in such cases is interesting. Need for funding is now framed as demand. Such language is insensitive to children who need the funding—SEND children as well as children who have experienced significant trauma.

I do not want to talk any longer on this. Given that we had the Statement yesterday from the Chancellor and there is a bit of extra money for education, maybe a small amount of it can be used in these cases. We all know the figures on fostering and adoption. Anybody who adopts a child—never mind two children—into their family, brings them up and supports them needs all the help we can give them. I feel lucky that, because I am in your Lordships’ House, I can use the opportunity to try to help this particular family. I hope the Minister will look sympathetically on my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I have a lot of sympathy for Amendment 145, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. As he pointed out, it is 20 years since we have had a review of the regulations, and in that time the number of children being adopted has stagnated in some areas and declined in others, despite this being the most permanent and secure solution for them. Maybe when he comes to close—although perhaps I misunderstood his amendment —the noble Lord could explain something. I was puzzled by the focus being exclusively on local authority adoption services, when, as he knows, many voluntary sector organisations also do great work in this area.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 6. This is the second group of amendments in a row where I think that, quite rightly, we in this Committee will recognise the enormously important contribution made by those people willing to take children into their homes and families as a result of adoption. As other noble Lords have said, and as I know from having spoken to people who have adopted children, it is something that can bring enormous pleasure, satisfaction and completion to some families, and is often very much wished for by families. However, because of the nature of the experiences that children have gone through and the history of some of those children, notwithstanding that a family when adopting a child take on responsibility for that child and they become part of their family, I completely understand the need for there to be ongoing support for children in those circumstances.

Without going too far into history, one of the very first pieces of legislation that I did the last time round when I was a Minister was the Bill that became the Adoption and Children Act 2002. At that point, there was still quite a lot of discussion and debate about whether it was legitimate to provide any support for children in adoptive families. Notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed as a result of these amendments, it is the case that considerable progress has been made in understanding the nature of the challenge and the reward that comes from adoption, the types of experiences that children may well have had before going into adoption, the impact that that has on families, and the requirement to provide support on an ongoing basis for children who are adopted. I recognise that the amendments in this group cover that issue of support for adoptive and kinship children, as well as how we can ensure and review the quality of adoption support that is being provided.

This is a significant area, to which the Government are committed. Although there are some difficult elements in the amendments, I am nevertheless pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lord Watson have tabled them and enabled us to talk about adoption.

I reiterate the point I previously made about fostering. The fact that something is not covered in this particular piece of legislation should not be taken as some sort of statement about the significance of that issue for this Government, or about its importance for children and families. The point of legislation is to address those areas which have shortcomings in the legislative framework. Our view, certainly at this moment in time, is that the adoption legislation framework is fit for purpose, and our focus needs to be on supporting Adoption England and regional adoption agencies to improve local practice and set national standards so that there are high-quality adoption services across the country. That needs to be the priority, rather than thinking about how and whether we need to change legislation. Adoption is a priority for this Government and will remain so. Of course, most importantly, it is a vital permanence option for some children.

On the points made about the adoption and special guardianship support fund, I note the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the history of adoption—

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

It is actually Lord Russell. I have told this to the House before, but in 1959 my grandfather and Bertrand Russell—the then Earl Russell—jointly wrote a letter to the editor of the Times that said: “Dear Sir, we would like to point out that neither of us is the other. Yours, Russell, Russell of Liverpool”.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am glad to know that I am not the only person who has made that mistake. I apologise to the Chamber and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

The noble Lord talked about the important work done by the all-party group and part of the history of ensuring that there is sufficient focus through government activity to provide the necessary support for adoptive families. The adoption and special guardianship support fund has given valuable support to over 53,000 individual children over the 10 years that it has been in place. Many have received support for multiple years, which is a point that I will return to when talking about the criteria.

The Government have continued to support the ASGSF; we provided £50 million for 2025-26. There has been an increase in demand—some noble Lords argued it was an increase in need. Then you face a challenge, regardless of how much money is allocated, as to whether you provide more support for fewer children and families, or ensure a level of support for a larger number of children and families.

The revised funding criteria effective from April 2025 will continue to enable children to receive an excellent level of support, many at similar levels to before, and £3,000-worth of therapy remains a substantial amount of support. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the assessment, children and families receive this support over several years and I think I am right in saying that this £3,000 would include the assessment. Perhaps the next year or the year after that, it would not be necessary to redo the assessment, and £3,000 would fund 19 to 20 hours of therapy on current average costings. As I say, there are many children and families who are receiving similar levels of support as before, although I recognise the case brought to the attention of this Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, where families have seen that as a cut in the provision that they have been able to receive.

Local authorities can continue to supplement available funding locally through the mainstream children’s services budget, if assessments deem this necessary. As I have said, the revised criteria will ensure that all children can continue to receive support. It is important to recognise the significance of the contribution that this support provides, even if in some cases it does not feel as though it is enough support to respond to the considerable challenges that families are facing. For that reason, the Government recognise that recent changes to funding levels came unexpectedly, and therefore local areas had limited time to plan.

I hope I can provide some reassurance that applications under the revised criteria are now being not only received but processed as speedily as possible, so that children can receive the therapy that they need. The Government will continue to assess the implementation of adoption support arrangements, including the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We will be taking forward discussions on the delivery and management of funds in future years. Across the department, we have heard the concerns that have been expressed in the Committee this evening and, most importantly, that have come from the families affected.

The ASGSF, like other government expenditure, is subject to business planning decisions following the spending review, and these decisions will obviously need to take into account the full range of government priorities. The ASGSF is not a statutory arrangement. We believe that it should remain flexible to provide an effective service, and that it would not be helpful—as proposed in these amendments—for decisions on funding levels to be made in isolation from consideration of other budgets. However, as I say, I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I have just checked, and I think the Minister mentioned that, with the £3,000, the average number of sessions that would be allowed is about 12.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It would be 19.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The range of applications for the support fund over the last few years has typically been between 20 and 50 sessions per annum, so it is right on the margin.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I did say that it would fund 19 to 20 hours. I also made the point that this is something that does not happen within only one year; it is something that can continue, in order to provide support.

However, I also said that I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament. We will of course take these issues into account when making decisions about how to allocate funding from the DfE budget for future years. I hope this will assure noble Lords that we are considering these issues very carefully.

On Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I agree with my noble friend that adoption support should be high-quality. Of course, Ofsted already reviews how well authorities are delivering adoption services and publishes reports on each authority every three years. The Secretary of State has powers under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to require Ofsted to provide information on or conduct an inspection of any specified function of the local authority that falls within its remit, which may include adoption support services. Ofsted reports regularly on adoption support in local authorities, children’s social care inspection reports and on adoption agencies.

Post-16 Financial Education

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sater]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that young people receive adequate financial education in post-16 education.

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

My Lords, financial education is delivered through the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 through citizenship education and the mathematics curriculum. Although it is not compulsory at key stage 5, our 16 to 19 study programmes guidance sets an expectation that students take part in “other non-qualification activity” to develop life skills, including “managing personal finances”. If a student post 16 is studying a level 2 maths qualification, the maths GCSE and functional skills qualifications support financial education as well.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. This week, many schools are taking part in Young Enterprise’s My Money Week campaign. However, despite best efforts, according to the Money and Pensions Service, over half of our young people reach the age of 18 having received no meaningful financial education. Therefore, at this crucial time between the ages of 16 and 18, when they could be receiving their first pay packet and accessing financial products and services, we have no meaningful education available. Will the Minister therefore consider a national programme to ensure that all young people aged 16 to 18 are ready and equipped to navigate the financial world and manage their money? Perhaps this could be a good deployment of the dormant assets scheme.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I also recognise the contribution that Young Enterprise plays, having been both a participant in it as a student and an organiser of it as a teacher of economics and business studies. I know that it does enormously important work, as do others, in supporting children, young people and adults in understanding financial education. We could possibly look to the Money and Pensions Service, which is under the auspices of the DWP and set out in January 2020 a 10-year framework to help UK citizens make the most of their money and pensions, with a focus on financial education for young people. With respect to the dormant assets scheme, which the noble Baroness mentioned, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed earlier this year that there will continue to be funding from dormant assets for precisely the point that the noble Baroness makes, which is to challenge financial inclusion and support financial education.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Social Market Foundation reported last year—and this is very serious—that two in five young people, or 40%, are financially illiterate after they have been through school, so education in this field needs to start early. In the devolved nations, financial education is taught in primary schools. When will the Government start this in English primary schools? If they will not, why not?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

All primary schools in England teach many of the skills that are important for financial education as part of the maths curriculum. They also have non-statutory but important programmes of study for citizenship. Of course, from the age of 11, all students have compulsory financial education as part of their national curriculum entitlement to citizenship.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, as a fellow teacher, does the Minister agree that, rather than having token PSHE-day education, practical financial education should be embedded in the maths curriculum throughout the key stages?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord’s characterisation of the way that financial education is delivered, for example, through citizenship, but he makes an important point. I have just mentioned, of course, that financial education and the skills necessary to understand your finances and the concepts around them are part of the national curriculum from key stage 1 to key stage 4, and of post-16 maths study.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very important Question from the noble Baroness. One in four 18 to 24 year-olds is in some form of financial difficulty. Lacking knowledge of where to go for help or services that can help them, they are often pushed to illegal loan sharks. Does the Minister not think that we should run a young person’s public information campaign, which could be targeted in colleges, jobcentres and sixth forms?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course, this is part of what the Money and Pensions Service strategy aims to do, as is the work I identified that is being supported by the dormant assets funding. We also need to work alongside the legitimate parts of the industry to make sure that the support and information that it is providing is made more broadly available to young people—and, in fact, to people throughout their lives. I suspect that those of us who did not have the opportunity to have even the type of financial education that children nowadays get have a continuing need to understand our finances well into our lives and, in particular, into our retirement.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Minister that many excellent examples exist in primary schools right across our country of financial literacy being taught to young people. Although I absolutely accept that, some urgent attention is required to ensure that children and parents are educated about their presence in the online world. Children as young as five years old are playing Roblox, and they need to extract money and card information that might be automatically available online. There is an urgent need for education very early on, but also among parents. Does she agree?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point about the intersection of financial education and the need to ensure that our children have a good understanding about their online safety. Both those things, by the way, have been identified by the curriculum and assessment review that this Government set up as areas where it will want to say more when it reports in the autumn. As my noble friend says, parents have concerns as to whether there is sufficient space and direction in the school curriculum for these areas to be covered.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, we all know how important it is to manage our personal finances in adult life, and I am sure the Minister is aware that research shows that financial education makes young people more confident with money management and helps them to make better and more informed financial decisions. So, will the Government consider participating in the OECD PISA study of financial literacy, which could help identify gaps in current provision and allow better monitoring and benchmarking of progress towards every young person leaving education with a strong foundation of financial capability, which I am sure we all appreciate will be invaluable in their working lives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have had some very good contacts with the OECD about the work that it is doing, not just in this area but more broadly. I cannot commit at this moment that we will take part in that study, but I will certainly undertake to go away and consider whether there are opportunities there.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, children leaving care are particularly disadvantaged in this area. Can the Minister say whether there will be special provision for children leaving care to be provided with financial advice for when they are really on their own?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point about the need to support young people leaving care. That, of course, is the reason for making personal advisers available to young people in that position. It is why, as we have been, and will be, debating in the Bill that comes later and more broadly in the Government’s reforms, we must be much clearer about the support available to care leavers and the offer that needs to be made available to them in all parts of the country.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister spoke about citizenship in schools. We had a brilliant committee last year on 11 to 16 education, which came out with amazing recommendations, all of which the Conservative Government turned down, so it would be very nice to know that the Labour Government will pick those up. Can she say what success we are having in recruiting citizenship teachers? This was one of the big difficulties when all this was put into citizenship.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know that since citizenship was established—in fact, I had some responsibility for it the first time I was a Minister in the Department for Education—there has been enormous progress in the ability to deliver those sorts of skills to children in our schools, but also an ongoing challenge to make sure we recruit the specialist teachers in order to be able to do that. That is why the Government are determined to increase the numbers of specialist teachers by 6,500, and why we have put in place the financial and training support in order to encourage them into the profession and keep them in it.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for the scrutiny they have provided to this order. This statutory instrument, laid in draft on 5 February, will allow the Construction Industry Training Board to raise one more year of levy on the construction sector to fund training. In particular, I welcome the £40 million from levy funds that the CITB is investing in homebuilding skills hubs to support the Government in reaching our 1.5 million homebuilding target.

The CITB’s latest figures state that the construction sector contributes £186 billion to our economy and employs 2.1 million workers—unquestionably a significant part of the UK economy. However, the sector’s reliance on subcontracting and self-employment means that investment in workforce skills is too frequently left to others to prioritise. This levy order reflects the key role that industry plays alongside government in making its workforce safe, competent and increasingly productive.

Established in 1964 with a remit across England, Scotland and Wales, the CITB’s legal purpose is to encourage the provision of construction training. It is a purpose that, some 60 years on, the independent 2023 ITB review found is still needed, due to what the lead reviewer, Mark Farmer, identified as “ongoing market failure”. His report accepts that the current ITB model, a statutory levy system for construction employers, remains the best way to fund such training. The CITB also remains a key partner with government and is an important player in our plan for change. It will work closely with Skills England when it emerges from the passage of legislation through these Houses.

Over the last three years, the CITB has used levy funding to support almost 69,000 apprentices, given grants to over 44,000 businesses and delivered masterclass courses in areas including roofing and bricklaying. This order is the vehicle to bring in just under £224 million of focused funding from the construction sector for the CITB to deliver training and skills activity to support our missions. I trust that noble Lords will continue to support this approach of levy funding training within the construction industry.

Before I outline the details of the SI, I will address the duration of this order. The primary legislation permits a one-year levy order without consensus, the process of consulting with industry, as long as certain criteria are met. The CITB wanted to give industry time to consider the impact of the ITB review before debating its support for three years of levy payments through the usual consensus process. With the delayed ITB review publication truncating the available time before current levy income runs out, the CITB provided me with levy proposals for one financial year. With the ITB review now published, the CITB will start consensus next week on proposals for a 2026 three-year levy order and will listen and respond to industry views in earnest on that.

I turn to the details of the SI. This one-year order retains the levy assessment rates prescribed by the three-year 2022 order: 0.35% of the earnings paid by employers to directly employed workers and 1.25% of the contract payments paid to indirectly employed workers. The levy order exemption threshold means that employers with an annual wage bill of below £135,000 are exempt from paying any levy at all. The CITB estimates that 69% of in-scope employers fall into that category. The levy order reduction threshold provides a 50% reduction for employers who pay a wage bill between £135,000 and £449,999. A further 15% of employers are in scope of this provision and would pay reduced contributions.

Both thresholds have been increased from the 2022 order to prevent employers who have increased employee wages exceeding the limit and facing new or increased levy rates. Employers who are exempt or pay reduced levy rates are still eligible to claim CITB support. The large volume of eligible employers is counterbalanced by the amount of levy paid by larger employers, enabling the few to support the many for the wider benefit of the construction industry.

In lieu of the typical consensus process, the CITB sought views on the one-year proposal from its 14 prescribed organisations, sector federations representing around 30% of all levy-paying employers and the nation councils for England, Scotland and Wales. The vast majority were supportive, and subsequent industry engagement via CITB comms channels and engagement with trade media has not attracted any dissent over a one-year approach. With the ITB review and the CITB’s strategic plan now published, industry is in a much stronger position to enter consensus for the 2026 proposals and make informed decisions.

In conclusion, I have confidence that your Lordships’ Committee will have suitably scrutinised the impact assessment that was laid with the levy documentation; this articulates how the CITB proposes to spend the levy raised by this order. This spend is focused on activities that support the Government’s ambitions to deliver on the plan for change, especially in commitments to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament and to drive growth for the good of the nation. This order will enable the CITB to continue carrying out these vital training responsibilities. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I always remember how the late Lord Andrew Stunell, who was a spokesperson at one stage for the construction industry, used to rage at us about the huge shortages in every branch of construction. He said, “Just imagine, if we were able to fill these vacancies, how we would be able really to boost the economy and opportunities for young people”.

With an estimated 250,000 extra construction workers needed between now and 2028, it is vital to look at a wide range of ways in which to increase the number of new entrants to the recruitment pool, creating a more diverse workforce. One problem is the mismatch between supply and demand; individuals find it hard to find the right route into a role in construction, and it can be economically challenging for employers to invest in apprenticeships and new entrants.

Better pathways need to be created into the industry. Construction needs to grow apprenticeship starts, which are the main source of industry recruitment at entry level. In addition, around 30% of further education learners need to be able to progress to an apprenticeship or job in construction by assuring employers that they have the skills and experience they need.

Another problem is retention. Better retention of trainees and current workers in construction can significantly reduce skill shortages. Nearly 60,000 new entrants leave the industry each year. We need to retain the current workforce—many leave due to preventable reasons, such as poor workforce culture or limited career progression. Developing a training and skills system to meet the current and future needs, with CITB working with Skills England, will, I hope, start to reverse the problems we face. We very much welcome the levy.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this draft order, which, as the Minister set out, directly impacts the future development of the construction sector’s workforce. As we heard from the Minister, the CITB has been responsible, for the past 60 years or so, for ensuring that the sector has the skilled, diverse and competent workforce that it needs to meet both current and future challenges.

However, as we heard, following the 2023 review of the industrial training boards led by Mark Farmer and published in January 2025, it is clear that we need some radical changes to the way that we address the structural skills shortages in the construction sector. So we are left with a one-year SI, which of course is far from ideal from the perspective of the sector, but we accept that it gives time to work out an alternative approach. I hope the Minister will be relieved to hear that I think there is little to debate in relation to this SI, which I imagine will mark the end of an era, but it gives us an opportunity to hear from the Government about how they plan to deliver on the recommendations of the Farmer review.

I thank Mark Farmer, on behalf of these Benches, for his leadership of the review and his approach to analysing the challenges that the sector faces. His review does not mince its words, if that is the right phrase, by underlining the extent of the challenge facing the sector and the need for radical change in the way that skills are developed.

We welcome his focus on the need for a “competent, productive and resilient” industry, with the capacity to deliver on the nation’s critical infrastructure projects while ensuring high standards of quality and safety, and

“a ruthless focus on addressing the future workforce capacity, capability and resiliency challenges set out in this review”.

His recommendations are clear in terms of merging the ITBs into a single workforce planning and development body for construction and construction engineering, supported by a statutory levy. The shortages in the workforce that employers face are shown starkly by the combination of wages rising far faster than the national average while productivity has fallen. In the words of his review, these are

“crucial lead indicators of the industry’s future trajectory and represent a direct challenge to the effectiveness of the ITBs over the last 15-20 years”.

The review highlights the continued reliance on labour intensity but, sadly, appears to conclude—if I have understood correctly—that there are still too few incentives for individual businesses to markedly review that reliance through capital deployment or production model reforms. Of course, one unintended consequence of the increases in employers’ national insurance contributions might be more capital investment, but surely this is a clear call to the Government to create exactly the incentives that are currently lacking if the productivity of the sector is going to see the kind of step-change improvement that it needs. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.

The review also argues for

“a pivot in levy spend with a more forced redistribution for maximum industry impact”—

I love that; it is so direct. The review argues for

“more efficient industry drawdown and mobilisation of both ITB levy and apprenticeship levy”.

How can the Minister reassure the Committee that this will happen in practice and within the next year?

That leads me to the Government’s response to the review, which is where I began to worry. I reassure the Committee that, although my speech is longer than I had planned, it will not cover all 40 or so pages of the Government’s response. I absolutely know and believe that the Minister is very focused and cares a great deal about delivering on this area, but some of the responses left me very uneasy, and I would be grateful for her reassurance on this.

As the Minister said in her opening remarks, recommendation 1.1 is that the ITB model should be retained in terms of its “basic statutory mandate”, but it goes on to say that

“its strategic priorities, core capabilities and activity require wholesale transformation. This all needs to be ruthlessly focused on addressing the fundamental workforce resilience challenges facing the construction and engineering construction industries”.

The DfE response is:

“Meeting the skills needs of the next decade is central to delivering the government’s missions across all regions and nations. This government is committed to ensuring we have the highly trained and more productive workforce needed to deliver the national, regional and local skills needs of the next decade, aligned with the new Industrial Strategy and government infrastructure and built environment commitments. In this context, we agree that there is still a case to maintain the Industry Training Boards (ITB) in their basic form. The construction and engineering construction sectors recognise both ITBs service and that training levels would be negatively affected without the ITB model and are broadly convinced of each organisation’s value”.


I do not know what the Minister thinks, but that does not feel to me like the “ruthlessly focused” tone of the recommendation.

Recommendation 1.3 of the review is:

“Proposals to implement the recommendations set out below should be developed quickly with agreed milestones to be monitored by DfE. If DfE”—


I emphasise that—

“is unsatisfied with progress it should reconsider the viability of the ITB model”.

The department’s response says:

“Department for Education (DfE) officials will update ministers on progress as part of the implementation plan, with a view to commenting on the ongoing viability of the ITB model. This assessment of progress will be undertaken in conjunction with wider reform of the skills landscape, focussing on the introduction of Skills England and the Growth and Skills Levy (in England)”.


I had a couple of other examples, but I think my point rests.

I would be grateful if the Minister could address the question raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its remarks on the SI in its report. It said that,

“for the future period, agreement with the industry will be sought when there is little clarity about how the CITB will operate and, therefore, what the levy will be funding”.

Finally, in its briefing for this debate, the CITB explains that £143 million—over 12%—of the funds raised from the levy over the life of the Parliament will be spent on

“running the business, including grant and levy administration”.

I work out that this is about £28 million a year. I wondered how that compared with the projected budget for Skills England and what the Minister thinks about this as a level of running costs. Can this money, together with that of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, be put to use in addressing the urgency and importance of the recommendations in the Farmer review?

As the noble Baroness rightly said, the construction industry is vital for the future of our nation, and it is essential that we take an effective approach to its workforce needs. As the Official Opposition, we support the Government to ensure that the levy works effectively for the next year and hope very much that our concerns about the DfE’s response to the Farmer review prove to be unfounded, and that a year from now we will have a clear and compelling plan for the future of the sector and its workforce.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have attended today for their contributions to this debate—we are of quality rather than quantity. I will endeavour to cover all of the questions raised; where I fail to, I will follow up in writing.

The theme of both noble Lords’ contributions relates to our shared understanding of the challenge for the construction sector to be able to meet current requirements for construction skills and the construction skills necessary to deliver the Government’s plan for change, particularly to build the 1.5 million new homes that we have committed to. I wholly understand noble Lords’ concerns that we need to do more to fill the considerable gaps that exist there. That is why a much wider range of activity will be necessary, such as the important work that the CITB is doing, including the £40 million contribution to housebuilding hubs that I identified in my opening speech, which will make a considerable contribution to construction skills. A much broader approach is going to be necessary from the Government as well.

Such an approach will encompass, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, how we support our further education colleges to deliver the specific skills necessary, how we develop a broader and more flexible offer in the growth and skills levy than has been available up to this point, and how we ensure that the construction industry is making the most of the diversity of those who might be available to contribute to construction skills. The CITB’s analysis shows that just 7.4% of UK construction workers are from an ethnic-minority background and that only 15% of the workforce are female. We can see that there is much more work that the CITB and the industry need to do to ensure that we are developing a construction workforce that reflects the whole of our society and not just part of it. That in itself will enable us to go further in ensuring that people are coming into the industry.

In particular, the CITB in its homebuilding hubs will support individuals to become employment-ready and site-ready. It will support all people wishing to enter the sector, including underrepresented groups, women, and those from black, Asian and other minority-ethnic backgrounds. The Into Work grant supports progression to employment from FE provision. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, identified what is sometimes a leaky pipeline from training into work. There, employers can receive £1,500 if they support work experience and then recruit someone from an FE construction course. That funding makes local employment opportunities in SMEs more viable for employers. In addition, the CITB is funding the training of industry construction ambassadors on fairness, inclusion and respect, to drive improvements in human resources practices and site experience.

The CITB is already undertaking a range of activity. As part of the Government’s skills strategy, there is more that we will want to look at in relation to that pipeline, to support for employers and to the knowledge of employers, in order to take on those who have done training in the construction industry in our colleges so that they can take their place in the industry and maximise the contribution being made.

Apprenticeships: Entry Requirements

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they support people enter the apprenticeship system who have not been able to meet the entry requirements, including on literacy.

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

My Lords, apprenticeships are jobs with training, so it is employers who make recruitment decisions. But we have introduced flexibilities, so that adult apprentices no longer need to achieve stand-alone English and maths qualifications, while strengthening job-specific English and maths training. This will allow more adults to access apprenticeships and support thousands more to achieve them, helping to meet skills shortages in sectors such as construction and healthcare. Apprentices under 19 must still achieve these qualifications, putting them in the best possible position to progress in life and work.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to hear that Answer. But the potential of a very large proportion of 16 to 18 year-olds in the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities—a larger proportion than for any other minority ethnic group—to enter further education and/or to gain the apprenticeship status which could get them employment is still not being realised. In the years 2019-24, their entry into apprenticeships was never more than 170 per year. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the main reason, the significant drop-off in secondary school attendance and attainment for these children, needs targeted research into the many causes, encouragement of schools to sign up to the pledge to create a Gypsy, Roma and Traveller-friendly environment, and specific interim action; for instance, to expand the relaxation—

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

It is coming—to expand the relaxation of the requirement for level 2 maths and English for young people judged to be capable?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is a valued advocate for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and her work is important in helping us to understand what more the education system needs to do to enable their achievement. We recognise the issues faced by young people in those communities and want them to thrive, whether at school or in work. I want more people from underrepresented backgrounds to be able to access apprenticeships. I attended a very useful round table with some of our largest employers just this morning to talk about this issue. We are developing new foundation apprenticeships for those starting their careers. This is also an important step towards our youth guarantee of education, employment or training for every young person.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, I support what the Government are doing in reducing the levels of numeracy and literacy for apprentices starting. The House should remember that the apprentices of the 18th century who created the Industrial Revolution did not sit numeracy or literacy tests. The colleges for which I am responsible—the university technical colleges—produce 20% of the students in this country becoming apprentices at 18, while schools produce only 4%. As a result of these changes, I am sure that our percentage will increase, meaning that many more youngsters will be able to benefit from high-quality apprenticeship training.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord goes slightly further back in history than I do; nevertheless, I understand and share his view. We expect apprentices to continue to learn the maths skills and the English and communication skills necessary for the occupational standards within which they do their apprenticeship, but not to have to pass a separate qualification in maths and English. I reiterate that we will still expect young people up to 18 to study and achieve qualifications in English and maths.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness’s Question was most encouraging, because she well understands that this generation of young people have experienced a great deal of disruption in their education; not just during but since the pandemic, there has been a great deal of absenteeism in schools, as she knows. Can she assure the House that we will not only encourage this generation of young people but demonstrate to them how much we value their potential?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to work harder to make sure that all children are able to succeed in school and that all young people have the opportunities to then go on in education or training. In the area of apprenticeships, that is one of the reasons for introducing, as we will do later this year, foundation apprenticeships, which will provide that first step on the employment and training ladder for young people who perhaps would not otherwise have been able to access it. We will continue to find ways to ensure that all young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who have faced other challenges in life, can fully achieve the opportunities that they deserve and can make the most of them in their lives.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the vast number of people who have special educational needs—I declare my interests in this field—and who can have their problems in education solved by using voice-activation and readback facilities to access at least English, should be allowed to do so, as these facilities are so readily available? Without them, we would exclude a lot of people with the mere notion of exams or qualifications.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that assistive technology can make a big difference both to children in school and to young people as they enter training and higher education. That is why, for higher education, we will continue to ensure that the disabled students’ allowance provides support for students to fully access learning, and why we make specific provision for young people entering apprenticeships who have an education, health and care plan.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the crucial significance of the maritime sector to our nation’s wealth—and, indeed, survival—can my noble friend the Minister say what we are doing to encourage more maritime apprenticeships both in the Merchant Navy and more widely?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right about that. I will write to him with some of the details about the occupational standards that already exist to enable apprenticeships in the maritime industry. We have seen a development of these occupational standards, supported by employers and others. I agree with him that ensuring this apprenticeship route—whether into the maritime industry or more broadly, particularly across industrial areas that have been identified in the industrial strategy—is a crucial way to enable growth and opportunities for individual young people.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are committed to making sure that young people have a good grounding in English and maths. If that is the case, why have the Government cut the number of hours of maths teaching in colleges from four to three hours a week?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We provided a continuation of the expectation that young people who have not achieved level 2 in English and maths continue to have the ability to study those subjects. We continued the funding to enable that and provided some flexibility for colleges to deliver that in a way that is most appropriate for them.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, what can the Minister say about the plans for the proposed new growth and skills levy? How will that, first of all, increase the number of apprenticeships being taken up by younger people aged 16 to 25—which is disappointingly low—and, secondly, how will it promote greater provision of apprenticeships by small and medium enterprises?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to ask us about the growth and skills levy. The current apprenticeship levy and system are—employers tell us—too inflexible and do not allow some of the provision that would ensure precisely that more young people are able to enter apprenticeships. That is why, at the first stage of delivering flexibilities in the growth and skills levy, we will introduce foundation apprenticeships along the lines I outlined, which will encourage far more young people to come into apprenticeships. In doing that, we will also support the small and medium-sized enterprises, which tend to have younger people as apprentices and take more people from disadvantaged backgrounds. We will also introduce flexibility around the minimum length of an apprenticeship, so that in areas where it makes sense to teach the whole standard in a shorter time, or for those who already have a considerable amount of prior learning, that minimum will go to eight rather than 12 months.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, every young person is good at something. Finding that is not always easy. The required level in maths and English for entry to FE and apprenticeships acts as a barrier to Gypsy and Traveller young people. Does the Minister agree that it would be more effective to open up technical and vocational training schemes to these young people, without the need for relevant levels in maths and English, to enable them to fulfil their full potential?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To be clear, the issue is not that not having maths and English prevents you starting an apprenticeship. That is up to the employer to determine who they recruit to the job that will go alongside the apprenticeship. It also does not stop people from entering college. However, for 16 to 18 year-olds in particular, to ensure that they have the best opportunity to progress in life and they have the basic skills that will enable them to do so, we expect that they then pursue—between 16 and 18—the learning and qualifications necessary to give them those basic skills in English and maths.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House takes note of International Women’s Day and the steps being taken to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology in the United Kingdom and internationally.

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

My Lords, I first say how pleased I am to open this International Women’s Day debate on my first full day as the Minister for Women and Equalities. In doing so, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Anneliese Dodds, for the enormously important work that she did in this portfolio.

I also wish the House a very happy—almost—International Women’s Day. The theme of International Women’s Day this year is “Accelerate Action” because, right now, the pace of change just is not fast enough. In recent years—and, I am afraid, with recent Governments—we have seen far too many women left without the safety, security and opportunity they need. That is why the Government are determined to deliver for women through our plan for change, where women are central to all of the Government’s missions: from halving violence against women and girls to kick-starting economic growth, fixing the NHS and breaking down the barriers to opportunity. Through our plan for change, we are making the changes needed to make sure women’s equality becomes a reality. It will be an ambitious agenda for a decade of national renewal, and women will be at the heart of it. This International Women’s Day, we want to celebrate the achievements that have been made towards advancing women’s equality and redouble our commitment to deliver lasting change for women.

There is much that we—and I—could say about the achievements of previous Labour Governments and our plan for change. Today, we are focusing our debate on science and technology. We may not think of this place as a bastion of gender equality—we touched on that just yesterday in an Oral Question—but percentage wise there are more women in the House of Lords, a 1,000-year-old institution, than there are women in tech in the UK, a sector not much more than 100 years old. That gives us a sense of the size of the challenge. If our current trajectory continues, the world will not achieve gender parity until 2158. In the worlds of science and technology, those numbers could be gloomier still.

Our rate of progress will not see women making up an equal share of the tech workforce in the UK for another 283 years. That is an ocean of time—283 years ago, women in the UK could not vote, own land or property if we were married, go to university or enter most professions. Fortunately, we are not willing to let the current pace of change continue. This is a mission-led Government, squarely focused on creating a new era of opportunity and economic growth and a fairer society for all, and gender equality is imperative to that. So today I want to talk about how the Government are accelerating action in the UK and internationally.

First, I will just give a reminder of why this is so important. We should care about all forms of equality in science and technology for their own sake, but we should also care because this drives the betterment of our society and the strengthening of our economy. When women and girls are equally involved in shaping science and tech, the world gets faster breakthroughs, products that work properly and better returns.

We get faster breakthroughs because experts have told us time and again that diverse teams pursue new questions in new ways, leading to better research.

We get products that work because there is a long history of technologies built without women that do not work properly for the whole population. These are set out brilliantly by Caroline Criado Perez in her book Invisible Women, which I am sure many noble Lords have read. Crash-test dummies based on male bodies do not adequately protect women in cars; life-saving drugs, mainly tested on male animals, have a question mark over how they will work for women; and when the first voice assistants were created, they found it harder to recognise female voices because they had been tested only on the all-male developer team who built them. For some of us, that might explain why our phones and speakers do not take any notice of us—or it might be for other reasons.

Finally, we get better returns because businesses and economies stand to gain hugely here. Research consistently finds that gender diversity and ethnic and cultural diversity are both good for business. Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity in their exec teams are 25% more likely to outperform their peers on profit than those in the bottom quartile. Looking at the bigger picture, if women were to start and scale businesses at the rate that men do, we would see a potential £250 billion boost to the UK economy. Without gender equality, our growth mission is stunted.

Let us turn from the why to the what: what this Government are doing to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology. “Participation” takes in women as citizens of the digital world as well as creators of it, so we must think about digital exclusion, which disproportionately affects women, as well as online harms that women and girls are up against. My noble friend Lady Jones, closing this debate, may well go into those topics further. With the excellent range of speakers we have today, I am sure there will be plenty for her to respond to.

For now, I will focus on three pillars of improving diversity in science and technology. Skills: how do we make sure that women and girls have the know-how to participate in these sectors and pursue careers in them? Entrepreneurship: how do we support women to start and scale science and tech companies? Industry: how do we protect the rights of women employed by firms in this sector?

On skills, the Digital Poverty Alliance has estimated that if we help everybody currently in work to get essential digital skills, we could see a £17 billion increase in yearly earnings. But if we are to get that boost to the UK economy, we cannot afford to have such a big proportion of our population missing out. Globally, women and girls are 25% less likely than men to have enough digital skills to use technology.

As with everything we discuss today, we must recognise the experiences of the whole range of women in the UK. Women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are much more likely to lack digital skills, as are women with disabilities. The good news is that STEM education is growing. In the 2022-23 academic year, there were 35% more STEM A-level entries from women and girls than in 2010.

Breaking down opportunities is one of the core missions of this Government, so here is how we are making sure that this trend continues in the right direction. Across the board, the curriculum review is considering how to modernise education and qualifications to fit with work in the 21st century. Skills England is reviewing what courses can better fill the digital skills gap. Our new levy-funded growth and skills offer, with apprenticeships at the heart, will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers in England, aligned with our industrial strategy, creating routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries. We promote STEM apprenticeships to girls in schools through fantastic volunteers such as STEM ambassadors and apprenticeship ambassadors.

Women’s participation in STEM has improved, but challenges remain. Women now make up 24% of the STEM workforce in the UK, surpassing 1 million for the first time. However, representation remains disproportionately low in certain fields, highlighting ongoing challenges. Higher education is playing a key role in driving change. Universities are implementing mentoring schemes, outreach programmes and gender-balanced research funding to support and retain female talent in STEM.

Early engagement is key to growing that pipeline of women into STEM. Government, employers and education providers are working together to inspire more girls to pursue STEM careers, including through the STEM ambassador programme and industry outreach initiatives. Here are just a couple of further skills programmes of which we are particularly proud. The CyberFirst Girls Competition invites girls aged 12 to 13 to crack codes and solve coding challenges, all to encourage them to pursue a career in cybersecurity. In 2024, 14,500 girls from more than 800 schools took part. On science, the CREST Awards, funded by UKRI, give young people the chance to run their own research projects aimed at solving real-world problems.

Another area where it is crucial that we build up skills is AI. The AI Opportunities Action Plan, launched by the Prime Minister in January, sets out how we will seize the enormous opportunity that AI presents to boost growth, raise living standards and transform our public services. But this opportunity must be open to all. Only 22% of those employed in AI right now are women. Women are also less likely to use AI in their day-to-day lives.

The Government will continue to back AI and data science conversion courses, allowing STEM graduates to gain an AI master’s. It is wonderful to see that 72% of students on these courses so far have been women, far higher than for comparable STEM master’s courses. With support from the DfE, DSIT will explore how to scale up extracurricular activities for girls in schools to cover AI, building on the National Cyber Security Centre’s successful work on cybersecurity skills.

The UK is also opening up opportunities for women and girls around the world. The Girls’ Education Skills Partnership is an £8 million collaboration between the UK, UNICEF and companies such as Unilever, Vodafone and Microsoft. Giving women everywhere the right skills helps them to see new avenues that are open to them, from working as a code breaker to being part of the AI revolution or founding a business of their own.

That takes us to entrepreneurship. Here, let us take a moment to share the story of just one of the brilliant female-founded science and tech companies. Nu Quantum was started by Dr Carmen Palacios-Berraquero as a spin-out from Cambridge. Quantum computing could be our most powerful tool to fight climate change, design better medicines and transform every industry. But to do that, quantum computers need to be 1,000 times more powerful than they are today. That is the challenge the team is working on. It is a team with diversity at its heart. Almost half its employees are women. It has more than 20 nationalities represented and is an LGBT-friendly workplace. Companies such as Nu Quantum are essential for women to look up to, because women are still starting science and tech businesses far less than men do.

When we look at funding challenges, it is little wonder why. Overall, female-founded businesses got just a 1.8% share of total equity investment in the first half of 2024, and that number shrinks further still when we look at the experience of women of colour. In tech, the average deal capital raised by female-founded AI companies is six times lower than that by raised all-male teams.

This Government are supporting female founders across our economy to get the finance that they need. The Women in Innovation programme, run by Innovate UK, has awarded over £11 million to female entrepreneurs since it started, and women now make up one in three successful bids to Innovate UK, up from one in seven. We also back the Invest in Women Taskforce, whose Women Backing Women Fund connects female investors with female-led companies. Specifically in science, the Future Fund invests in R&D-heavy companies in life sciences and deep tech, many of which are headed up by female founders.

As well as helping entrepreneurs find funding, we are supporting the finance sector as a whole to reckon with its role in this. Over 280 companies, including most major retail banks, have now signed up to the Investing in Women code, committing to improve access to finance for women. It is not just a piece of paper. Companies that have signed up are shown to outperform the rest of the market in giving equity to female founders.

The proportion of female-founded businesses around the world has increased steadily in recent years, but we must continue to give them the environment they need to fly, to create new role models for the next generation.

Finally, I turn to industry. We will keep working with science and tech firms to boost gender equality at all levels, particularly in senior roles. The Employment Rights Bill will be a cornerstone here. The Bill will make sure that women, no matter the workplace, are empowered, represented, protected and able to pursue meaningful careers, regardless of whether or not, for example, they plan to start a family. It expands gender pay gap reporting requirements, gives more rights to pregnant workers and new mothers and puts tougher duties on firms to prevent sexual harassment. It also introduces equality action plans, whereby large employers will have to set out what they are doing to improve gender equality. By making sure that science and tech firms foster inclusive working environments, we can make sure these are places where all kinds of people get to succeed.

I am delighted at how popular a debate this is to speak in today and that several Members of this House are about to make their maiden speeches, so I will make way now for them to share their perspectives, and look forward to my noble friend closing our debate, with invaluable insight from her joint roles as Minister with responsibility for science, innovation and tech, and for business and trade. Let me wrap up by reiterating that we do not just improve the participation of women and girls in science and technology because it feels like the right thing to do. We do it because we stand to unlock new realms of scientific advancement, technological innovation and economic growth—the key to everyone being better off—when more women and girls are at the table.

Schools: Mobile Phones

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their position on the use of mobile phones in schools.

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

My Lords, we know that using mobile phones in schools can lead to online bullying, distraction and classroom disruption, which can lead to lost learning time. The Government’s Mobile Phones in Schools guidance supports schools on how to develop, implement and maintain a policy that prohibits the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break time and lunchtime. Head teachers are rightly responsible for the implementation of guidance within their schools.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I understand the tension between a clear national policy on the one hand and an element of local discretion on the other, but I was struck by the reply of the noble Baroness’s ministerial colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, in a recent debate on this subject in your Lordships’ House, in which she said that

“last year, around a third of pupils reported that most of their lessons were disrupted in some way by a mobile phone”.—[Official Report, 28/11/24; col. 895.]

Is that not just unacceptable? Should the Government not consult on some stricter options, one of which would include a ban on mobile phones in primary schools and, in secondary schools, making them inaccessible during school hours, except where they are needed for medical reasons?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, it is clearly unacceptable if lessons are being disrupted. That is, in many ways, a broader issue than whether mobile phones are being used and goes to the behaviour policies that every school has a responsibility to have and to develop with their parents. I think it is important that we look at the way in which schools are already taking action to limit mobile phones. Actually, schools are moving towards developing many of the things that the noble Lord has suggested should be in place. This comes back to the point he raised about whether we believe that, with clear national guidance, including examples of how phones should be controlled in schools, we should nevertheless allow a determination at school level by head teachers of how that is actually implemented. I think that the balance is broadly right at the moment, although it is of course important that we keep this under review and that we encourage schools to do what is necessary to enable all classrooms to be purposeful and calm and for every child to be able to learn.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is right that there is a place, I suppose, for phones in schools in terms of learning. Equally, parents think that, if the child has a phone, they are far better safeguarded, particularly on long journeys home. However, there is the other side, where phones can lead to bullying, to pupils taking inappropriate photographs, to such photos being sent, as well as to well-being and mental health issues. It is not a clear-cut situation we face. It is also disruptive for classes when schools have to ask teachers to collect the phones, hand them out, et cetera. Technology might be the answer. For example, in Ireland they have spent €20 million on giving schools what is called a Yondr wallet, into which the phones go and they cannot be used during that period: it cuts off all the connections. The Minister said we must look at ways: how will we look at those ways and how will we come to a final conclusion?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There are schools in the UK that are already using the Yondr wallets that the noble Lord refers to. On the whole, schools are not using the approach of making individual teachers collect phones at the beginning of classes. The most recent evidence suggests that the most commonly used way of controlling mobile phones is to collect the phone at the beginning of the day and give it back to the child at the end of the day. The broader point, however, that the noble Lord makes, relates not just to how mobile phones are used in schools but to broader issues of how children are using their phones, with high levels of screen time. Sometimes, we seem to think that what happens in schools solves all problems. Actually, I think we need to look more broadly than simply at a relatively blunt legislative proposal.

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister had any discussions about the innovation that is going on in mobile phones? I am particularly struck by “smart dumbphones” that do not have access to social media and allow children only to text and to keep out of danger. I think that there is a huge opportunity here for the UK to increase the supply of a different kind of phone. Will the Minister explain some of those discussions?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I have not had those discussions myself, but I have heard about some of the innovations. I would make a broader point about how parents, for example, who might be concerned about how their children are using phones, feel. That type of technological development may well help to provide some of the answers. With respect to schools, the department provides technological advice for schools on such things as, for example, how to ensure that filtering provisions are appropriate. Sometimes, there is an opportunity to use good technology to counter the detrimental impacts of technology. That may well be something that is appropriate in this area.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether any work has been done in speaking to young people about their use of phones in school? I have been a youth worker for over 38 years now and most of the best innovations in dealing with young people and their issues come from asking the young people. Many schools have discussions with their own young people and they give up their phones willingly. It creates a culture in the school that is much kinder. Has that kind of conversation been had with young people?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a really important point. I suspect that where schools are implementing this most effectively is where they have engaged not just parents but pupils in thinking about how mobile phones should be controlled, not only within the school but also to address concerns about what is happening to young people using phones outside school. I do not know whether the department has done that, but I will go back and check and perhaps follow that up with the noble Lord.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, to follow up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about school classes being interrupted by telephones, I merely observe that all of us are aware that proceedings in your Lordships’ House are occasionally interrupted by people furiously trying to control their devices. When it comes to mobile phones in schools, it is fine to give guidance to schools: we put so much burden on teachers and on head teachers to manage a whole variety of issues. In the experience that we have had of talking to schools, the issue they have is actually with parents. Will the Government try to ensure that part of the guidance they give to schools will be about how best to have a dialogue with parents, because it is often parents who are the most against their children not being able to take phones into school?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point, but sometimes parents are right. Perhaps, for example, there are circumstances where there is a long journey to and from school and parents want to be able to be in touch with their children. I take the point that one of the things that we could do is support parents to understand how their children’s use of screen time might impact on them, both positively and negatively, and to encourage them—particularly those with younger children—to engage with that screen time, to understand what their children are watching and doing. That is certainly something we are looking at in some of the early years and family support work that the department is doing.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we are not in a good place in relation to children and phones and social media. We heard from my noble friend Lord Young the evidence of disruption in classes. Parentkind has just published evidence which confirms that and shows that only one in seven pupils have an effective ban in place. Yesterday, we saw the watering down of the honourable Member for Whitehaven’s Private Member’s Bill on the protection of under-16s from social media and smartphones. Surely, with our children, we should be pursuing the precautionary principle. There is so much evidence of a correlation between the rise in mental health problems among young people and the advent of smartphones and social media. Until we know that that is not causation, surely the Government should be acting and not delaying.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are of course in a place that reflects the guidance issued by the last Government—probably by the noble Baroness, actually—less than a year ago. On other occasions, quite rightly in this House, the Government are challenged on the approach that they take to the autonomy and decision-making of head teachers. With respect to schools, it is clearly important that we continue to monitor this issue. I know it is of concern to parents, but we also need to be in a position where we trust head teachers to make appropriate decisions within the guidance about what happens in their schools. Some of the points that the noble Baroness rightly identifies come back to the point I made earlier about the impact of phones and social media way beyond what happens in our schools. There, our cross-government approach, which focuses on the implementation of the Online Safety Act, for example, and other issues, is really important in helping us to address this issue of great concern, which I accept is complex and does not exist only in schools.

Equality Act 2010: Diversity of Political Candidates

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gale]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 to require information to be published on the diversity of political candidates.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to commencing the Equality Act 2010’s provision requiring registered political parties to publish anonymised data relating to the diversity of their candidate selections. We are currently exploring when and how to commence that provision under Section 106. Implementing this policy would, through increased transparency, demonstrate tangible progress towards better representation among candidates of the population they seek to serve, and thereby increase the involvement of all groups across the democratic process.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her reply. I am quite encouraged by what she had to say, but does she agree that having a diversity of candidates means that the elected representatives will look like the people they represent, which will give more authority to our elected institutions, because people will be able to relate to them much better? Can she say when this provision will be implemented? We have been waiting 15 years for it now; that is quite some time. Those who are now shadow Ministers in the party opposite will know that I asked them this question numerous times. I am hoping that I will not have to do the same now to my noble friend.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have enormous respect for my noble friend and the leadership role that she has played in political parties—and, of course, in ensuring diversity. I too hope that she will not need to ask this Government as many times as she had to ask the previous Government, because we have made clear our commitment to implementing Section 106. We need to work through how we are going to do that and who will be included. I think it is right that something as important as this is done properly. I look forward to her challenge and her support as we take that forward.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, we need to understand the picture fully, and while I am sure we are all gratified by the number of women Members of Parliament we have now, the story on other protected characteristics, including disability, race, and sexual orientation, is not so rosy. In answer to a very similar question in January, Anneliese Dodds responded by saying that the Government were looking at when they might be able to introduce this data, much as the Minister has done today. If the Minister cannot tell us today when this will be, can she reassure the House on what approximate date we will be able to introduce this legislation by?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has found an interesting way to ask the same question again. I will try to find an interesting way to give the same answer. I recognise her point that Section 106 requires us, in commencing it, to think carefully—actually, exactly—about which protected characteristics will be included in the regulations. It is important that we give that sufficient thought, alongside political parties, of course, about how we will implement that.

There is nothing to stop political parties at this point, for transparency, publishing information about their own candidates. But, of course, the reasoning behind this piece of legislation is to ensure we get consistency; in doing that, we challenge ourselves as politicians, we challenge our parties, and we show to the country that those people who represent them reflect those whom they are speaking on behalf of.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, before International Women’s Day this weekend, it is important that we reflect on this issue. I ask the Minister whether there is a need to engage with political parties right across the United Kingdom to enable them to empower women to look at politics as an honourable profession. We know that there are many perceived barriers—and actual barriers, let us be honest about that—that they see when they look at political life. Is there some work that the Government can do with political parties across the UK, whether that is through the Electoral Commission or directly, to try to assist with that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. Some of that, of course, is the responsibility of political parties themselves, but particularly in areas where she and I have previously shared views and work—such as the abuse and intimidation that impact all elected politicians but disproportionately impact women—there is work that the Government can do, building on work done outside this place on this issue; for example, by the Jo Cox commission. The Government are working with the Electoral Commission to take this forward in terms of practical actions that will help overcome some of these barriers, which, as the noble Baroness says, might put people off coming into democratically elected life, and, in doing that, make us all poorer.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

How long does my noble friend the Minister think it will take before we achieve 50:50 representation of men and women in the House of Lords?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend the Leader assures me that the Front Bench on this side is pretty good. I am afraid it is not within my power, but I see in the other place that considerable progress has been made since 1997, when I was elected, which was equally a big jump in women’s representation. Then, however, it was just over 18% women—it now stands at 40%, which is the sort of progress that we would all like to see.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the Conservative Party has led the way on diversity when it comes to our party leaders? I know we have had a few. We have had our first Asian leader, when Labour has had none, and our first black leader, when Labour has had none—all, I add, chosen on merit.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that there has been an enormous diversity of leaders of the Conservative Party—some of it good, some of it less good. Given the noble Baroness’s understandable wish to talk about the diversity of leaders, I find it slightly more difficult to understand why the party opposite, during its 14 years in government, was not as keen to enable that, through Section 106 of the Equality Act, to be something that all political parties should do and why it is not willing therefore to say more about its candidates and their diversity. What we know is that, when it comes to real progress in broader representation, the fact that there are now more Labour women in the House of Commons than Conservative MPs in total tells us something about which party has made the most progress on gender.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, given the Government’s enthusiasm for gender equality in these matters, why will they not legislate for female succession to hereditary peerages?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think my noble friend the Leader of the House has considerable sympathy but also a lot of experience in the complexities of this type of legislation. I think, on the basis of her wisdom, I will leave it to her to respond to that particular issue.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

Ahead of the Senedd elections next year, my party Plaid Cymru has decided to reserve the first position on the internal selection process for half of the constituencies for women. Will the Minister share some more ideas for what other parties could do to ensure that we have a gender-equal Parliament in Wales and here in Westminster?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Our colleague Jane Hutt has written to the Secretary of State to talk about the action being taken in advance of the Senedd elections next year. I am sure that Labour and other parties will want to ensure a representative Senedd. I suspect that the ability to take the action the noble Baroness outlined was dependent on the previous Labour Government putting into law the ability to take that sort of positive action. It is because of that that we have seen the progress we have up to this point. Better representation in our politics does not happen by accident; it happens by people being willing to take action and be transparent. That is what parties which are serious about it support.

Erasmus Programme

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Erasmus programme, what steps they are taking to ensure that youth work and adult education organisations can access international exchange opportunities.

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

We could have done with a bit of diversity in those answering Questions today.

My Lords, the Turing scheme provides funding for adults at further or higher education institutions to do international study and work placements. It also provides funding for staff accompanying school trips. DfE offers several exchange opportunities, including UK-German Connection and language assistance programmes. Additionally, DCMS will be publishing a new national youth strategy in the summer, which will rebuild a thriving and sustainable youth sector.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, but has her department looked at what the Welsh Government are doing in this area? The scheme known as Taith, which means journey, has developed into a programme which, for many, works better than Erasmus. There is engagement in Taith from schools, youth organisations, adult ed and FE colleges. Those who have never previously considered international exchange as an option are applying for Taith funding, providing more opportunities for those with the least access and the greatest barriers. Would the Minister agree to look at this excellent scheme?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I would agree. I acknowledge my noble friend’s recognition and explanation of the Taith programme. My department and I hold regular discussions with Welsh Government colleagues about a range of policy issues, and this is a good example of our ability to learn from each other. I also note her important point about how Taith—and now, the Government’s Turing scheme—provides additional support to participants from disadvantaged backgrounds so that they can participate in international placements. We have made considerable progress in the Turing scheme in doing that.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, we had a long debate in the House recently on the question of restoring a youth mobility scheme with our European partners. Is it not now surely time for us to proceed with that, given that it has no negative impacts on the freedom of movement issue or indeed on our Immigration Rules? Young people all across Europe want to be able to meet and work together in the interests of future democracy and peace.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This Government are very keen to ensure that we reset our relationships with the EU, but that, of course, happens across a whole range of areas. The last time I responded to questions on this issue, I said that it feels appropriate to me to carry out that negotiation across the whole range of issues, and to do so in detail and in breadth, as my right honourable friend Nick Thomas-Symonds is doing.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, part of the reason why UK students took less advantage of the Erasmus scheme was our language skills capability, and because it was limited to Europe. The Turing scheme, which 42,000 students have taken advantage of so far—21,000 from disadvantaged backgrounds—is global. Does the Minister agree that our Turing scheme is working extremely well, and we should give it time to settle down?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about the Turing scheme: that, unlike Erasmus, it extends beyond the European Union. In fact, some of the most popular destinations have been outside the EU. If we truly want people to have a global opportunity, that is an important element of it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Erasmus+ programme is often talked about as the higher education part—I declare an interest, being on an advisory board for a Czech university programme—but it also allows for vocational education and training opportunities for between two weeks and 12 months. Given that the Minister will not undertake to do anything unilaterally, may I suggest that she takes back to Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds the idea of looking at ways of re-engaging, not just for those in higher education but those in further education and vocational education and training? They stand to gain a huge amount.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. We of course work hard to ensure that international students can come here and contribute to and benefit from UK higher education. When I talk to international counterparts, they talk about the enormous value of our skills and vocational training and the need to ensure shared learning and opportunities. In anything that happens in the future, we should make sure that this is seen as something not only for higher education but for further education and technical and skills education.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, universities in the Cathedrals Group—the 14 higher education institutions founded by the churches—have a higher proportion of students who progress to university when they are older, and/or who are the first in their family to progress to university. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that all students who wish to, and particularly those experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, are able to access the life-changing opportunities afforded by studying abroad, given the loss to students of Erasmus funding?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point about this being an opportunity that people need to have at all stages of their life. I think I am right to say that Turing does enable older students to benefit from it, and, as I have already emphasised, it has certainly focused on ensuring that people who come from more disadvantaged backgrounds have the opportunity to experience travelling, visiting and learning overseas in a way they otherwise would not have been able to do.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of injuring my noble friend twice in a row, may I pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel? Can the Minister update the House on which countries are most popular among students undertaking the Turing scheme, and how does the percentage of disadvantaged students engaging with the scheme compare with that for its predecessor, the Erasmus scheme?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, the noble Baroness can encourage me to do that, and I hope I will be able to do so. I think I am right in saying that five out of 10 of the most popular Turing scheme countries are outside the EU. As we have previously discussed, that is important. In 2024-25, 53% of people who are expected to take part in the scheme are from disadvantaged backgrounds. I think that all who have contributed so far have recognised that, whatever scheme we have, the focus we put on that opportunity is really important.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I warmly endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I accept the comments of the noble Lord on the benefits of the Turing scheme. Does the Minister accept that the status of associated third countries, enjoyed by countries such as Norway, Serbia and Turkey, is not incompatible with these other schemes? Might there be a way of bringing them together?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not wholly clear which other schemes the noble Lord is talking about, but I am happy to follow that up with him. If he is saying that we need to ensure that any scheme we support is as broad as possible in the opportunities it makes available to young people and older people, and if he is suggesting that we also need to consider bilateral youth mobility schemes—which we do have—with countries such as India, Canada, Australia, Iceland and Andorra, that is a useful contribution and certainly something we should do.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord was making the point that the Erasmus scheme takes in large numbers of countries that are not in the European Union, so there is no need to conduct this discussion as a competition between Turing and Erasmus. The best thing for the Government to do, surely, is to try to get the best elements of both schemes in one that we can now support in the future.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not think that I have conducted it as a competition between the two. It is not that difficult for this House to work out, had things gone differently in 2016, what situation I would rather be in. But we are in the position we are in at this point, and we have made it clear that we do not plan to re-enter the Erasmus scheme or to reintroduce free movement. However, what we have heard today is a general consensus that future schemes, whatever auspices they come under, that enable people to experience studying, working and living in other countries are important. We should do all we can to encourage particularly those who would not otherwise have these opportunities to be supported by whatever schemes we develop.

Relationship, Sex and Health Education

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for publishing revised guidance on relationship, sex and health education in schools.

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

My Lords, the subjects of relationship, sex and health education are vital to support children and young people to thrive in the world in which they are growing up. Children’s well-being must be at the heart of this guidance and, as such, we are analysing consultation responses, talking to stakeholders and reviewing relevant evidence to ensure we get it right. We will publish the guidance when this important process is complete.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I have been contacted by a number of parents and teachers who are increasingly concerned by what feels to them like a lack of urgency from the DfE. They also make the point that the teaching and content of RSHE are not covered by Ofsted inspections, and anyone can set themselves up to provide and deliver courses to schools with no qualifications. This has led to contested ideologies being taught as fact, and age-inappropriate material being shown to children. Many parents are still reporting that schools are unwilling to share the content of the lessons with them. Why are parents being kept in the dark about what their children are being exposed to in schools? Does the Minister consider this to be a satisfactory way for RSHE to be delivered?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I would certainly share concerns if parents did not feel that they were being properly engaged with on what their children were being taught, both on the overall policy and in being able to look at the specific materials that are being taught. It is precisely in order to ensure that children’s well-being and the confidence of parents are achieved that we are taking our time on this work.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, relationship and sex education must be inclusive if it is to achieve its aims of sustaining and protecting the young person or child. There must be no return to the days of Section 28 and the promotion of prejudice and ignorance. Therefore, does the Minister agree that education must be about allowing young people the space to become themselves and not who others would wish them to become?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I certainly agree that we do not want to go back to the days of Section 28 and intolerance throughout society. It is important that children get the opportunity at the appropriate time to learn, from trusted teachers and with the support of their parents, the precise skills and knowledge that will enable them to grow up safe and, as the noble Lord says, in a way that will give them a fulfilled life.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the 2019 RSHE guidance was praised for its robust, evidence-based, cross-party and cross-sector support. Will my noble friend the Minister take note of concerns that revised guidance could undermine children’s access to protective and preventive education if teachers are not supported to engage with the questions that pupils seek answers to when looking to understand the real world around them? If children are forced to turn to the internet for their education, does my noble friend agree that this carries real risks?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that one of the important decisions that schools need to be supported in making is delivering the right content at the right time for students to gain, from trusted sources, the information that they need to grow up properly and to keep themselves safe. That is of course our key aim in reviewing the guidance, ensuring that children’s well-being is at the heart of it. That includes ensuring that they have the knowledge they need at the right time to help them to be safe.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I have taught more PSHE days than I care to remember. The fact that in secondary schools they are a stand-alone day once a term enables some parents to keep their children at home to avoid the uncomfortable truth that homosexuality, religious tolerance and contraception are part of a normal society. I too get the impression that relationship, sex and health education in schools is down the list of priorities. Can the Government urgently find a way for us to teach these vital topics, plus citizenship, in a more effective way?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that it certainly is not down the list of priorities. It is precisely because we need to provide guidance that identifies children’s best interests and the well-being of children, having drawn on a considerable process of engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, that we are taking our time to get it right.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, the Church of England’s National Society for Education is proud to be part of the White Ribbon project, whose aim is to prevent men’s violence against women and girls by addressing its root causes. In our Church schools, we support the ability to explore these themes in collective worship, RSHE curricula and class time. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to address the root causes of violence against women and girls in their revised guidance?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a really important point about one of the areas where relationship, sex and health education can make an important difference. Education has a key role to play in the prevention of violence against women and girls, and it is therefore essential to the Government’s safer streets mission. We want to ensure that the revised guidance enables schools to tackle harmful behaviour and helps to ensure that misogyny is stamped out and not allowed to proliferate in schools. I commend the efforts of the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues in supporting us to do that.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, what action are the Government taking to ensure that relationship and sex education in all schools includes medically accurate and evidence-based information about contraception and reproductive health?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is fundamentally important that what our schools teach is based both on the best interests of children and on factually accurate information. Ensuring that that is the case is part of the reason for making sure that we take our time on this guidance, and for ensuring that schools are supported to find the right sources of that information.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister talks about the Government taking their time, but the review of the RSHE statutory guidance consultation closed in July last year, so we are nearly nine months on. Can she give a date for the publication of the results of that and the revised guidance? The Minister is right that these are very sensitive subjects, but that is why the previous Government had a very respected independent panel to advise them on this. Can she say whether its report will be published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Precisely as I suggested, it is particularly because of the stakeholder engagement that commenced in December 2024 that we have not got to the point of publishing this guidance yet. That stakeholder engagement is still ongoing; it has included LGBT round tables, a round table for parents and events both online and in person for key stakeholders, teachers and local authorities. There are also plans to convene a round table for children and young people. The broadest range of voices will help us to come to the right place on this. In relation to the advisory panel that the noble Baroness mentioned, I will perhaps come back to her in writing.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, we know that pornography is poisoning the minds of our young women and men. It is so important to teach men and women at a young age what healthy relationships look like, as they are often not seen at home. They are seeing the most violent, misogynistic and dangerous images. We know this hurts women, but it also hurts men who are drawn to people such as Andrew Tate. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will make this education a priority?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, which is why healthy relationships are a key part of RSHE and contribute to the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. That is why yesterday, or earlier this week, the Government also responded positively to the important work in the review of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on online pornography.

Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 January be approved.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 3 March.

Motion agreed.