Education and Skills Reform

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, as ever, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House. Last week’s PISA results placed English pupils in the top 10 in the world for reading, maths and science. That is down to the dedication and hard work of our teachers in executing almost 30 years of reform begun under new Labour and continued by the Conservatives. I am delighted that this Statement acknowledges that success, but it makes the dismantling of the system which has given generations of children greater life chances much harder to justify. It is laudable that the Government wish to address what is not working and to do more for those not in education, employment or training. We on these Benches share that desire. But good intentions are not the same as good decisions. The parts of the system which are working so well should be left alone.

Since 2016, schools have been judged on the progress every pupil makes between the ages of 11 and 16. We know this measure as Progress 8. It is a reliable measure because it adjusts for intake, so it quickly weeds out the schools coasting on good results in affluent areas without significant improvement and reveals the schools with remarkable outcomes for children in our most deprived communities—top schools like Tauheedul girls’ school, Mercia in Sheffield and Michaela. It is such a good measure that the Government’s own independent reviewer, Professor Francis, recommended keeping Progress 8 completely unchanged. But the Government have overruled her, and we know from the February consultation what overruling her means. It means broadening the subjects for lower-attaining pupils to “reward inclusion”—if ever there were words to make the heart sink. Can the Minister assist us here? What evidence did the department possess to justify overruling its own expert reviewer?

There is a very bold claim about NEETs in this Statement that the overfocus on academic pathways is a major factor driving the growing NEETs crisis, which has produced the current 1 million NEETs. Now is not the time for an economics debate, so I am going to resist that temptation, but we have data on this. Wales has been rolling out precisely the kind of skills-based, less exam-focused curriculum now proposed by this Government for England. On the results published on 8 September, Wales scored well below England in maths, reading and science. The Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that 11% of Welsh 16 to 18 year-olds are NEET against 5% to 9% across the rest of the United Kingdom, and that disadvantaged children in England score 30 points higher than disadvantaged children in Wales.

The Statement also cites 1.5 million persistently absent children as part of its reasoning against the current academic curriculum. I am delighted to talk about school absence; we do not talk about it enough and the toll it takes on children’s outcomes, and parents need to know more about that. The Education Policy Institute has found that the widening of the disadvantage gap since 2019 is entirely explained by higher absence rates among poorer pupils. Again, there is no causal link with the academic curriculum. We have the data. Persistent absence is 18% in England, 28% in Scotland, and 37% among Welsh secondary pupils—20% higher in Wales under the same skills-based, less academic curriculum the Government now propose for England. While absence rose across every UK nation after the pandemic, in England, with its boring old academic curriculum, the rate is the lowest and falling.

We have heard a lot this week since the Statement about the abolition of resits. None of us wishes children to resit exams for the sake of it, but, again, we have data on this. Solid LSE research cited by Alan Milburn comparing students of identical ability who fall just either side of the grade boundary finds that just failing as opposed to just scraping a pass in English GCSE makes a young person more likely to be out of education and work by 18. At 16, 35% lack the grades, but by 19 it is only 22%, so resits help almost a third of those to transform their life chances. Can the Minister tell us what happens to that group if resits are abolished, and what is going to replace resits?

Vocational pathways are the centrepiece of the new Prime Minister’s and Secretary of State’s education reforms, but, regrettably, from this Statement we are none the wiser as to what these will look like. We still do not know what qualifications we are expecting and when, which means real uncertainty for children and their families. It supposedly launches in two years, but the qualifications are just existing technical awards with any new ones yet to be explored. There is no plan for the specialist teachers, and colleges cannot fill technical posts today. There is no plan for work experience when T-levels already struggle to find placements. There is nothing on who decides which children will take this route, no guarantee of what it leads to and no budget. I ask the Minister: which qualifications will a child starting in September 2028 take? When will we know? Who will decide which children go down this route? Will completing it guarantee a place on a T-level or V-level course or an apprenticeship? And will the Minister guarantee that a child who starts it can return, complete academic GCSEs and go on to A-levels if needed?

I must press the Minister on a few other questions about the timetable. The review was published in November 2025. The Government promised the first teaching of the new curriculum would happen in September 2028, with the final documents by spring 2027 and four terms for schools to prepare. The draft curriculum and the Progress 8 consultation response were due this September. It is now 17 September, the Commons has risen, this House rises this afternoon, and nothing has been published. Can the Minister tell us on what date the draft curriculum will be published? Does the four-terms pledge still stand? And if so, what does that mean for the implementation date? Finally, will the Progress 8 consultation response come before or after schools must set their options for 2027? I thank the Minister in advance for her answers.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate on education and skills policy because ultimately it comes down to one question: are we giving every young person the opportunity to build a good-quality life regardless of where they come from?

There is much in our education system of which we should be proud. As we heard earlier, the latest PISA results show that the United Kingdom remains one of the highest-performing education systems in the world, particularly around science, mathematics and reading. Our performance in science has improved since 2022, and we need to acknowledge these achievements. However, we also have to recognise that academic success alone is not enough. The ONS has estimated that more than 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are currently not in education, employment or training—a figure that has increased over the past year. Alan Milburn’s review, which many of us have spoken about, warns that, without action, one in six young people could be NEET within the next five years. That should be a wake-up call to all of us.

We need an education and skills system that works for young people who want to go to university, but equally for young people who want to become engineers, electricians, nurses, technicians and skilled professionals. The Government’s reforms to post-16 pathways have the potential to provide greater choice, including V-levels and occupational certificates, but choice exists only if young people have access to a genuine range of choices. My concern is that technical education must not become a second-tier route, disproportionately taken by children from poorer backgrounds while affluent families continue to choose the traditional academic pathways. There must be parity of esteem between academic and technical education and, crucially, the ability to move between the two pathways.

A 16 year-old should not be expected to make a decision that permanently determines their future. That is why careers advice is so important. Every young person should have access to high-quality careers guidance and meaningful work experience—an issue that I have often mentioned in your Lordships’ Chamber—so that choices are informed by aspiration and opportunity rather than postcode or family income. We also need to ask whether the system has the capacity to deliver these ambitions. Technical education requires teachers, lecturers, specialist facilities and strong links with employers, yet colleges are already under pressure to recruit and retain staff with the specialist skills required. How will the Government ensure that colleges have the workforce and the funding necessary to deliver these reforms? Will the Minister commit to addressing the disparities in pay and conditions that are making recruitment and retention more difficult?

Apprenticeships must be central to this debate. They can provide a powerful bridge between education and employment, but employers, in particular small and medium-sized businesses, need a system that is simpler, more flexible and financially viable. I welcome the Government’s move towards greater flexibility in the apprenticeship levy, but we should go further: make apprenticeships more attractive, ensure that apprentices are properly paid and give smaller businesses practical support to take on more. We also need regional flexibility. A young person in a rural community should have access to the same breadth of opportunities as someone in a major city. That would require proper workforce planning and greater involvement from regions and employers.

We cannot discuss education and skills reform without mentioning SEND. Too many families are still fighting for support while councils struggle with the financial consequences of a broken system. Reform must put children and families at its centre. That means early identification, sufficient specialist and mainstream provision, a properly funded workforce and meaningful rights to appeal for parents.

Skills are not simply about filling vacancies; they are about giving people the confidence, knowledge and opportunities to shape their own future. If these reforms are to succeed, we need an education system that does not divide young people into winners and losers, academic or vocational, advantaged or disadvantaged. We need a system that says to every young person: your background does not determine your future, and, whatever route you choose, we will give you the opportunity to succeed. That should be the ambitions of education and skills reforms.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their questions. I will turn to the specific points that have been raised in a moment, but, before I do, it is worth briefly reiterating the context of the Secretary of State’s Statement last week. At its heart was a simple proposition: every young person should be able to see a clear pathway from education into further learning, skilled work and adult life.

Our education system has many strengths. The latest PISA results confirmed England’s strong performance in reading, mathematics and science. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that that should be reflected in our thanks to the hard-working staff in our schools who have helped to deliver that, but it also builds on the work of successive Governments. I am very proud of the role that I played in the previous Labour Government, alongside some of my noble friends here today, in the focus on numeracy and literacy, the introduction of phonics and the support to ensure school improvement across the system. I recognise that many of those elements were built on successfully by the previous Government.

However, there is a slight flavour in the Opposition’s response to this Statement, both in this House and in the other place, that somehow we should now place in aspic the education system and not recognise the areas where, notwithstanding the progress, there is more work to be done. I am afraid that a disadvantage gap still exists for our children, and it is stubbornly wide. A gap between regions is widening. We have a growing SEND crisis, 1.5 million children persistently absent from school at the last general election, a doubling of those educated at home since 2019 and now 1 million young people, all educated during the last 16 years, not in education, employment or training. Simply standing still and resting on our laurels will not be good enough for our children.

The purpose of these reforms is therefore to build a nationally coherent, locally responsive education and skills system that supports opportunity, responds to local labour market needs and creates stronger progression routes for young people. Central to that ambition is a new approach to technical and vocational education. Academic, technical and vocational routes should be complementary parts of a single high-quality offer with stronger connections to employment. New technical pathways from age 14 will combine technical qualifications alongside GCSEs, careers education and meaningful work experience, helping young people to progress into further study, apprenticeships and skilled careers. Alongside that, mayors, local leaders, schools, colleges and employers will work together to develop those high-quality technical and vocational routes for 16 to 19 year-olds, aligned to local economic opportunities and the Government’s industrial strategy.

These reforms are designed to widen opportunity, not to narrow it, ensuring that technical excellence is recognised and valued alongside academic achievement, and that every young person can see a clear route to success. That is why I have to rebut the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that this Government are dismantling the system. Actually, we are aiming to ensure that the high standards we can achieve for a lot of children—although not all—in our academic education are matched by high standards for those who want to take a more technical or vocational route, and that the opportunity to do that at the age of 14 by combining GCSEs with technical qualifications is made much more widely available to young people than is the case at the moment. That is not a dismantling of our system; it is building on what is good but ensuring that technical and vocational education has the support and the priority that many people in this House think it should have.

Furthermore, we are not talking about abolishing resits. We are talking about abolishing the situation where young people, without the additional support that they need, resit in a way that simply promotes their feeling of failure. That is why we are investing in teaching in further education, and it is why we are introducing a new level 1 stepping-stone qualification in order to enable young people to get the foundation that will then enable them to go on to successfully resit their GCSEs.

On some of the detailed questions about the 14-16 technical route, first, as I think I have made clear, this is not about separating pupils into academic and vocational groups or narrowing choices. All pupils will continue to study a broad and balanced curriculum. We are drawing on evidence from the interim Milburn review, the Curriculum and Assessment Review and engagement with strategic authorities, employers, schools, colleges and other partners as we develop those pathways. They will be rolled out using the existing level 1 and 2 technical awards that are already available. We will also work with Ofqual and other key partners to develop top-quality vocational and technical qualifications, which support—to respond to the noble Baroness—progression to T-levels, A-levels, V-levels, apprenticeships, university and beyond. Those qualifications will continue to sit alongside GCSEs and provide a high-quality option at key stage 4.

As that work progresses, the DfE will consider how to use its existing budgets to best support delivery, including through reprioritising budgets to ensure investment in high-quality education and clearer routes into skilled work. We are already making a difference to the number of teachers we are recruiting but, of course, we recognise the challenge to ensure that the expertise is there to deliver on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is right about careers guidance and work experience. He is right about apprenticeships, which is why we are already going further with support for employers. He is also right about reform of the special educational needs system, which is why we will bring forward the results of our consultation. We are already investing in the SEND system. We will have plenty of time in this House to discuss this Government’s reform programme.

Independent Schools: Tax Changes

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, back to his rightful place and thank him for securing this debate. I declare the interest, as other noble Lords have done, that I did not go to an independent school. I went to Park House comprehensive school, which sadly is no more; it was demolished many years ago.

I was not here two years ago when the debate around independent schools and VAT took place, but I suspect that those who were here have probably heard some of the old speeches being brought back in. I thought today’s debate was about the impact of VAT, so I am going to stick to that.

The more important questions are about its impact and how properly to evaluate whether the assumptions on which it was based were correct. My understanding is that, since January 2025, private school fees have been subject to VAT at 20% while, from April 2025, most charitable independent schools in England have lost their 80% business rate relief. The Government estimated that VAT would raise £1.5 billion in 2025-26, rising to £1.7 billion by 2029-30, while the business rate measure was expected to raise a further £70 million to £90 million a year.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe profoundly in equality of opportunity. A child’s educational opportunities should not be determined by the wealth of their parents or the postcode in which they happen to be born. The long-term answer must be a state education system in which every child can access an excellent school with properly funded SEND provision, excellent teachers and genuine opportunities to progress. But we should not confuse that long-term ambition with the immediate question of whether this particular policy is delivering what was promised.

There are approximately 560,000 pupils in independent schools in England. The latest figures show that that number fell by about 3.8% in the year to January 2026. Total pupil numbers across all schools also fell by 1.2%, reflecting wider demographic changes. This distinction matters. Before implementation, HMRC estimated that VAT would eventually lead to 37,000 fewer pupils in independent schools, of whom approximately 35,000 would move into the state sector. It estimated that the additional cost to the state sector would eventually reach around £270 million a year. The OBR similarly estimated around 35,000 fewer private school pupils and around £300 million in additional state school spending.

There are important unanswered questions. How did the modelling move from 37,000 fewer pupils in independent education to approximately 35,000 additional pupils in the state sector? What assumptions were made about where those children would go? At what ages would they transfer? Would they enter primary schools, secondary schools or sixth forms? How would the impact vary geographically? How many would be home educated or leave the UK education system altogether? These are not technical details. They determine the actual cost and consequences of the policy.

I am particularly interested in the figures used for the cost of an additional state school pupil. If we are going to assess whether the policy represents good value for money for the taxpayer, we need to know whether the estimated cost captures the real marginal cost of additional pupils, including buildings, capacity, teachers, SEND and high-needs provision, and post-16 education, or whether it is essentially an average funding figure.

There is another issue that deserves much greater attention: the children and families behind the statistics. I have spoken to parents in my home city of Sheffield, and to a few friends here in London, who have made enormous sacrifices to pay independent school fees. They do not necessarily regard themselves as wealthy. Some have given up holidays, delayed moving house or made other financial sacrifices because they believed that their child’s education was worth that commitment.

Some families who have historically just managed to afford fees may now be unable to do so. The impact may be particularly significant for children receiving bursaries or scholarships. We should not assume that the consequences of higher fees fall equally across the independent sector. A very wealthy family may be able to absorb the substantial increases, but a family already stretching its finances to keep a child at a particular school may not.

I also want to raise the question of teachers. One of the arguments for the policy is that revenues raised will support state education. This is entirely legitimate, but if we want to improve educational outcomes, we need to ask what happened to the teaching workforce? I hope that, when the Minister rises, she will address this issue.

The independent sector employs teachers who could work in state schools. If independent schools respond to higher costs by reducing staffing, while state schools simultaneously struggle to recruit and retain teachers, the consequences deserve careful examination. The Government’s original modelling assumed that schools would absorb some of the costs, pass on some through higher fees and make efficiencies. The OBR estimated an effective VAT rate of 15.4%, with roughly two-thirds of the cost passed on through fees. HMRC estimates average fee increases of around 10%, although it recognises substantial variation between schools, so what has actually happened?

The Independent Schools Council reports that among schools responding to its survey average fees increased by 4.4% between January 2025 and January 2026, before VAT and nursery fees. We now have the beginnings of evidence but not yet the complete picture. That is why I believe the Government should commit to a proper post-implementation evaluation. I am grateful to the Association for Families of Independent Schooling for drawing attention to this issue for me.

I do not suggest that this analysis should simply be accepted; indeed, the same principle applies to every source of evidence in this debate. The answer is not to commission a review designed to reach a predetermined conclusion; it is to commission an independent and credible assessment of the evidence, assumptions, modelling and forecasts and test them against what has happened since January 2025. We need to examine pupil numbers, destinations, school closures, fee increases, bursaries, staffing, geographical effects, SEND provision and additional costs to the state sector. We should also assess the combined effects of VAT and the removal of business rate relief rather than examining each measure in isolation.

The Government made a significant policy intervention in education and taxation. It is entirely reasonable for Parliament now to ask whether the evidence is matching the forecasts, so I have two questions for the Minister before I sit down. First, what monitoring and evaluation of the original assumptions and forecasts have taken place, who is responsible for that work and when will the results be published? Secondly, will the Government consider commissioning an independent review of the evidence, assumptions, modelling and forecasts underpinning these reforms, tested against the evidence emerging since implementation?

If these measures are to be justified by the benefits they are intended to deliver for state education, we owe it to taxpayers, parents, teachers and, above all, children to ensure that those benefits are measured properly. We should follow the evidence, wherever it takes us.

Office for Students: Academic Misconduct Allegations

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That would clearly be an unsatisfactory position for any junior academic involved in that situation. It is slightly less a job for government and slightly more for the leadership of universities, which, as I have said, are autonomous institutions that are rightly responsible for maintaining their academic standards. I am sure that they and others will have heard the concerns that the noble Baroness has expressed today.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I also pay tribute to Jason Arday. In the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Young, she talked about the Office for Students having the powers already, but is she willing to carry out a review to ensure that it has sufficient powers and, if possible, look at the possibilities of beefing up its powers if she found that it needed more?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We always keep the powers of the Office for Students under review. I am sure that it, like others, will want to look carefully at any recommendations that come out of the independent inquiry that Cambridge University has instituted. Universities UK may also want to think about the way in which any lessons learned from this episode can be reflected across the whole sector, and we will obviously want to work with it on that as well.

Skills, Vocational Training, and Further and Higher Education

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for initiating this important debate and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it. What has come through is very clear: this is not simply a debate around qualifications. This has been a debate around opportunity, social mobility and economic growth. The central question for me is this: how do we ensure that every young person, whatever their background or postcode, has a genuine route to meaningful work, as we heard earlier, further education or a secure future and do not—as many noble Lords mentioned, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander—become NEET with all the issues that Alan Milburn has identified? We look forward to his second report.

For too long, the education system has presented universities as the default measure of ambition while vocational education has too often been treated as second best. University is absolutely the right choice for many young people, but it should not be the only route to success. We have heard that clearly in the debate today. A young person who wants to become an engineer, an electrician, a technician, a care professional or a builder should be able to pursue that ambition through a high-quality technical or vocational route and have the same status and respect as someone pursuing an academic degree. That is why I remain attracted to the dual system model that combines classroom learning with sustained structural workplace experience.

We can learn from other countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, at the start of the debate. Their vocational system demonstrates the value of giving young people both theoretical knowledge and practical competence. That additional workplace experience matters. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, about some of us practising what we preach by giving young people the opportunity to shadow us. I have had one young person, Louie Xenos, shadowing me this week and she is watching the debate. She helped to formulate not only this speech but my Oral Question. It is important that we create work experience opportunities for young people and then go out and advocate for them within industry because, too often, young people are told that they lack experience when the very businesses employing them are the ones that do not give them the opportunity to gain that experience. How can we tell a young person that they need experience when we have failed to give them that opportunity, as I mentioned earlier?

No vocational system will succeed unless employers are properly incentivised to participate. I would like to see strong incentives for employers to recruit young people facing the greatest barriers, including care leavers, young people with SEND and those who have experienced alternative provision. Young people furthest from the labour market—I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, about white working-class young people—cannot be those least likely to receive their first opportunity. We must look into the findings of that report and see how we can help that cohort of young people.

We also need to move away from a culture of short-term recruitment and low retention. Training should be seen as an investment in people and in the future workforce rather than as a simple cost. That is why I support greater flexibility in the growth and skills levy. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, at the beginning of the debate, small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, need a system that allows them to use training and support for the skills their workforce and the local economy generally require.

If we want vocational education to succeed, as we heard from many noble Lords, we must also fund further education properly. As my noble friend Lady Garden said, further education colleges often work with young people who have the greatest need, yet they continue to face significant financial pressures. We should extend pupil premium-style support into post-16 education so that disadvantage does not stop counting when a young person leaves school. They still have those needs. We must also ensure that FE colleges are treated fairly financially, including through the ability to reclaim VAT so that they are not placed at a disadvantage with sixth forms. We should also encourage partnerships rather than competition between institutions. Collaboration between universities and FE colleges can open opportunities that neither can provide alone.

We should also recognise that education does not end at 21. People change careers. People lose their jobs. They may become carers. Industries may disappear, and new industries emerge. That is why lifelong learning matters. The lifelong learning entitlement has the potential to give adults greater opportunities to retrain and upskill, but lifelong learning must mean more than lifelong borrowing. People from disadvantaged backgrounds must be able to access opportunities without financial barriers preventing them participating.

We also cannot seriously address young people being outside education or employment without addressing mental health and other barriers. For some young people, the problem is not a lack of ambition. It may be poor mental health, disability, caring responsibilities, poverty, lack of confidence, or simply not having anyone to help them navigate the complicated system, as we heard earlier about career services in schools. That is why organisations such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award are so valuable. Volunteering, physical activity, developing practical skills and working as part of a team can build confidence, resilience, leadership and well-being. Those opportunities are particularly important for young people who may not have the same networks or advantages as their peers.

Finally, I want to turn to regional growth and devolution. The skills needs of a place like Sheffield, where I am from, are not identical to those of Manchester, Cornwall or London. In South Yorkshire we need to think about advanced manufacturing, engineering, construction, clean energy and the future of our steel industry. Others may have other priorities. The people who understand those needs best are the ones that are closest—the local employers, colleges, universities, councils and combined authorities. I therefore welcome the direction of travel towards greater regional decision-making that we have heard from the Prime Minister. But devolution must mean real power, real resources and real accountability. We should not simply devolve responsibility while keeping the important decisions and funding in Whitehall.

There is a danger that we focus on qualifications, structures and funding mechanisms and forget the individual young person at the centre of them—the young person who leaves school without the grades expected of them; the care leaver navigating adulthood without a stable family network; the young person with SEND who wants to work but needs the right support; the adult who needs to retrain because the industry they have worked in for years is changing. They do not simply need more choices on paper; they need a route that actually works.

From these Benches, I make five simple demands. First, to give vocational education the status it deserves; secondly, to make further education a genuine pillar of our education system; thirdly, to give employers the incentives and flexibility to create meaningful training and employment opportunities, particularly for those facing disadvantage; fourthly, to integrate skills with mental health, employment and wider support, because people’s lives do not fit neatly into departmental boundaries; and finally, to devolve power and funding so that regions can build the skills systems their economies and communities actually need.

Opportunity should not depend on postcodes, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and others; nor should ambition be defined by whether someone chooses a university lecture theatre or a workshop floor. A successful education system recognises talent wherever it exists, gives people the skills they need to use their talent, and gives them a genuine opportunity to succeed. That is the education and skills system we should all aspire to build.

Schools: Mobile Phone Policy

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, of course parents need to be involved in this. They need to be involved in the development of schools’ behaviour policies in which, or alongside which, the mobile phone policy should sit. They need to understand the benefits for children of not using phones during the course of the school day. As I say, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of secondary schools use a policy that could come under the broad category of “not seen, not heard”, there are lots of examples of schools, even within that category, that have strong and effective mobile phone policies that are making a real difference to the calmness of the classroom and the learning of their pupils.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, the effectiveness of a policy is always about how it actually happens on the ground. What assessment has been made about the variations in how schools are implementing “not seen, not heard” policies? In particular, what support is given to those schools that are facing a challenge from either pupils or parents? We heard during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the last Session that a small group of parents are very vocal about this issue and often take up a lot of teacher time.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that the difference is made on the ground. That is why school leaders, and their capacity to be able to decide what is right for their school, are absolutely at the heart of this. Where school leaders are finding it difficult to do that in a way that supports their school’s functioning effectively for children, there will be support from the department’s attendance and behaviour hubs, and of course Ofsted will now be inspecting schools on the basis of the extent to which their mobile phone policies are not only in place but being properly implemented. That will potentially have an impact on their standard for attendance and behaviour.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is with profound humility and sincere gratitude that I rise to make my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House. Never did I imagine, as a child born in Kashmir to parents from a humble farming background, that I would stand here among your Lordships, not as an observer but as an equal, entrusted with responsibilities to speak up for communities like the ones that raised me.

I arrived in the United Kingdom in 1977 at the age of four with my mother, Khadija Bi, to join our family in Tinsley, Sheffield—a proud community, poor in material wealth but rich in spirit. The contrast could not have been greater: from the clear, ice-cold streams of the valleys of Kashmir to the smoky steel mills of the Lower Don Valley. Yet it was here that I learned resilience, solidarity and the value of opportunity.

My journey here has not followed the traditional path that one might expect of a Member of this House. My father, Mohammed Saddique, grew up working small pieces of land with his siblings. They all lived in a simple, fragile house made of mud, straw, rock and wood. Life was harsh—often, food would consist of a chapatti and a raw onion—while they harvested the wheat by hand in the gruelling, searing midday sun. When the opportunity arose to work in Britain’s steel industry, he grasped it, bringing with him the dreams of a better life for the generations to come.

The steel mills of Sheffield gave my family hope, but their decline in the early 1980s took much of that security away. Like many others, my father lost his job, and like many others, we relied upon the state for support. I grew up receiving free school meals and free clothing from Sheffield City Council, which at the time was led by a very youthful leader. I emphasise the word “youthful” because he was known as David Blunkett. I wonder what happened to him.

Although I excelled at school, particularly in mathematics, family necessities meant that at the age of 16 I entered the world of work through the youth training scheme—or YTS, as it was known—earning £27.50 for a 40-hour week unloading lorries at the Sheffield Co-op superstore in Hillsborough. It was a tough start but not without its blessings. I was supported by my manager, Mr Bryan Richardson, who gave me Wednesdays off—not to go and watch my beloved Sheffield Wednesday but actually to attend Loxley College to do my A-levels. This small act of faith helped secure a place for me at Sheffield University to study business as a mature student. I was the first in my family to go to university.

After graduating, I dedicated myself to youth work in the city of Sheffield, supporting young people like me who needed a second chance. That passion led me to be elected to Sheffield City Council in 2004, followed by a spell in the European Parliament, where I championed young people, women’s rights, human rights and international development. I see my arrival as a mark of this House’s enduring commitment to represent all walks of life and to recognise the importance of lived experiences alongside legal, academic and business expertise.

I have also served as a lay magistrate in Sheffield. I cannot resist sharing with your Lordships a moment from my very first day on the Sheffield bench. I arrived early but was mistakenly directed through the public entrance. I spent an anxious 10 minutes or so mingling unknowingly with defendants who were due to appear before me, before an eagle-eyed receptionist realised the error and swiftly had me escorted to the appropriate floor. I am pleased to report that no such confusion accompanied my first day here in this House, thanks to the exceptional support from Black Rod and her team, the clerks, the doorkeepers, the security staff, the police officers, the catering staff, the wonderful attendants in the Library and my supporters, my noble friends Lady Benjamin and Lord Allan of Hallam.

Turning to the important business before us today— the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—I wish to speak briefly on the issue of home education. During my time as a youth worker, I worked with many post-16 NEETs: young people not in employment, education or training. I often encountered those who had been educated at home or had suffered disrupted schooling. Without structured support and oversight, these young people can easily slip through the net, falling far behind their peers and missing opportunities that would enable them to thrive.

This is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill for local authorities to maintain contact with home-educated children, not as a heavy-handed intrusion but as a vital safeguard to ensure that no young person is left behind. Supporting young people is not merely a moral imperative, it is a national investment. When we help young person realise their potential, we strengthen the fabric of our society for generations to come.

I owe everything I have achieved to the resilience of my parents, the kindness of strangers who believed in me and the opportunities afforded by this great country. It is now my privilege to give back—to serve your Lordships’ House with the same spirit of duty and hope that has brought me here.