Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Freyberg Excerpts(3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freyberg
“(aa) ensure that the school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy applies to any external catering provider operating on school premises and that such providers comply with the policy when preparing and serving food to pupils,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that a school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy must also apply to external catering providers operating on school premises, ensuring that caterers follow the same procedures as school staff when preparing and serving food to pupils.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 209 goes to the heart of what families rightly expect schools to do: keep children safe. This is not a novel or radical proposal. It responds to a long-standing and well-evidenced failure of the current system. For too long we have relied on guidance and good will, yet allergy safety in schools remains inconsistent and, in some cases, dangerously inadequate. This amendment matters because it moves us from aspiration to assurance.
Children continue to experience severe allergic reactions at school. Some have died. Families live with the daily fear that a simple mistake—a contaminated surface, a misunderstanding, a delayed response—could be fatal. The tragic death of Benedict Blythe exposed not a single error but a systemic lack of preparedness. His family’s determination to prevent another such tragedy deserves our respect—and action. I also recognise the work of the National Allergy Strategy Group and its member organisations. Its position paper, produced with the Benedict Blythe Foundation, sets out in calm, forensic detail why voluntary guidance has failed.
Schools are under huge pressures, as we have heard, and without a statutory framework, allergy safety too often slips through the cracks. I understand that the Minister met the group yesterday, as we have heard, which is welcome, and I hope she will update the House on the outcome of that discussion and any assurances given.
I became involved in this issue for a simple reason: a neighbour’s child is afraid to eat in his own school canteen because of his allergy. When a child cannot safely eat at school, something is plainly wrong. That quiet daily anxiety is shared by thousands of families. Amendment 209 is proportionate and practical. Without legislation, we cannot guarantee consistent protection for all our children.
The four amendments in my name are probing. I seek reassurance on how the framework will work in practice. Amendment 210 addresses a well-known gap: external catering providers. Compliance with allergen labelling law does not in itself create a safe school environment. Unless a school’s allergy policy clearly applies to caterers and is reflected contractually, responsibility becomes blurred and children are put at risk. There must be no opportunity for third parties to argue that the school’s policy does not apply to them.
Amendment 212 extends that principle to other external providers. Schools, as we know, are busy places and well-meaning third parties can inadvertently introduce serious risk if they are not bound by the same policy. I have heard of a case where a third-party supplier brought a box of sweets into school as a gift, entirely unaware of the danger this posed.
Finally, Amendments 213 and 214 raise a practical question about costs and responsibility. Who should fund adrenaline auto-injectors, and how should supply and replacement be organised? An approach that relies on individual schools risks duplication, inconsistency and waste, particularly where children already receive these devices from the NHS. The same question arises in relation to training to use them. If the provisions in Amendment 209 become mandatory, responsibility for funding and facilitating proper training must be equally clear.
We have done this before. As the noble Baroness has said, the Government funded defibrillators in all schools, because the case was compelling and the cost proportionate. The same logic applies here. I hope the Minister will address these points directly, but, if the drafting of Amendment 209 is not quite right, I urge the Government to bring forward their own amendments at Third Reading. What matters is not ownership but outcome. We must not miss this opportunity to put allergy safety in schools on a statutory footing and prevent further, avoidable tragedies. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 209, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, so powerfully introduced. I express my strongest possible support for Amendment 209 and commend the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for making important points in his amendments.
I will tell a little tale of how I got involved in this. Like most people involved in politics, I have encountered around the country parents who say that they are worried about allergies and their child at school. In my case, I was walking down a corridor of this House, past the dining rooms, and the Benedict Blythe Foundation was holding an event to highlight the issue. I was almost literally dragged in to meet Helen Blythe, who has such a tale of horror but a powerful voice to say that she does not want this to happen to any other parent’s child. That is a demonstration of where we have got to today: campaigning works and people can make a difference through their actions. I particularly want to record that.
The case has been powerfully made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cotes, said that there may be further technical solutions to injector pens. We do not need to argue about that. It is about the idea that every school has these instruments, whatever they are, guaranteed to be in date because the law says they have to be, and has teachers and other staff confidently trained to be able to use them in a moment of crisis. That should be absolutely basic. There should never be any question that, when something goes wrong, people are asking, “What do we do?”, “Who knows?”, “Where do we find it?”, “Is the cupboard locked?” We all know that those kinds of things can happen, unless the rules are set down in black and white in legislation. That is why I very much hope we will hear positively from the Minister that the Government are prepared to put this in the Bill, whatever the fine detail, because a child’s life is so important.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Before the noble Baroness tells us what she is going to do, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to find out what he is going to do with his amendments.
Schools and Universities: Language Learning
Lord Freyberg Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, we are all immensely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this important debate. Her Motion rightly draws attention to the supply chain for qualified modern foreign language teachers and to practical measures, such as visa waivers, that could help sustain language learning in our schools and universities. These measures may sound, as she said, technical, but they go to the heart of whether we are serious about languages as a national priority.
I argue, as other noble Lords have already highlighted, that the debate is about more than teacher supply alone. Language learning is not an optional enrichment or a narrow skills issue; it is a form of living cultural infrastructure. Just as roads enable the movement of goods and digital networks enable the flow of data, languages enable the circulation of ideas, values and relationships. When that infrastructure weakens, the consequences are not abstract but cultural, diplomatic and economic.
We increasingly recognise that infrastructure is not confined to concrete and cables. The British Academy, in its 2025 report on social and cultural infrastructure, argues that such systems underpin social cohesion, resilience and long-term prosperity, and deserve the same seriousness we afford to transport or broadband. Language learning belongs squarely in that category. It enables participation, mutual understanding, and the circulation of ideas across borders and communities. Without it, our cultural life becomes thinner, our diplomacy weaker and our global engagement more fragile.
Professor Li Wei, of UCL’s Institute of Education, has described language learning as fundamentally a “process of cultural translation”. By this, he does not mean a mechanical exercise but an active negotiation of meaning between people, histories and values. Through that process, learners develop creativity, critical thinking, and cultural and sociolinguistic sensitivities—qualities essential not only to education but to civic life and international co-operation. Language classrooms are, in effect, places where cultural understanding is practised daily. This matters profoundly for the UK’s place in the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, so eloquently emphasised in his speech.
A recent British Council survey shows a six-point fall in the UK’s overall international attractiveness in 2025. That should concern us. Yet the same research offers reassurance, with trust in the UK remaining high and engagement indicators recovering. We are still widely perceived as a reliable, value-driven actor—no small advantage in a fractured and volatile global landscape.
However, trust is not self-sustaining and reputation is not self-renewing. Both depend on sustained investment in the relationships, programmes and people that build familiarity and understanding across borders. Language teachers are precisely such people. They are cultural ambassadors in every classroom, shaping how future generations understand the world—and how the world understands us. When fragmented immigration policy makes it harder to recruit and retain them, when visa waivers that could ease critical shortages are dismissed, and when international trainees are forced to leave just as they are ready to contribute, we are not merely adjusting administrative rules but dismantling infrastructure that serves our strategic interests.
Language learning sits at the intersection of education, culture and diplomacy. To neglect it is to weaken all three at once. So yes, we should examine visa waivers and policy coherence, but with a broader ambition in mind: to recognise language learning as the strategic cultural asset it truly is, vital to our schools and universities, and to invest in it accordingly for returns that are social, cultural and enduring.
Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy
Lord Freyberg Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I explained to the noble Lord’s colleague the reason behind the international student levy. I do not think it is true to say that there is not an evidence base on the elasticity of demand for international students, but we will have more to say about the design of the international student levy at the point of the Budget.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
I welcome also the ambitious nature of the White Paper, but can the Minister respond to how the strategy will ensure that creative industries and crafts are seen as legitimate skill sectors on an equal footing with engineering, manufacturing and industrial bodies? Given that many creative and craft roles are bespoke, freelance or project-based, how does the strategy accommodate non-standard employment and income models in training and qualifications? How will successful craft and creative routes be measured and how will this compare with other sectors?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There are a lot of questions in the noble Lord’s question, most of which I will have to respond to in writing. I reassure him that, in the sorts of crafts he talked about, we maintain a considerable number of apprenticeship standards that can be used by employers to take on apprentices and continue those sorts of important crafts.