Erasmus+ Eligibility: Asylum Seekers
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(6 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, may I press the Minister on the question of diversity in accessing Erasmus+, particularly in regard to pupils from state schools? I do not want international mobility to be the preserve just of schools in the private sector.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is exactly right. That is why we need to make sure, with this opportunity that we have with Erasmus+, that we do better than we did the last time we were in the Erasmus scheme in making sure that we get the benefits in the UK. It is a job for us all to make sure that our schools, universities, training providers and colleges understand the chances and are able to take them up, and that we see those chances shared widely among all those who could benefit.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 107, moved by our friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and will follow the powerful speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Bennett. The amendment is timely. It supports our children, particularly those most in need. As we heard, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis on child poverty in Britain has said that 4.5 million children are living in poverty—a figure that continues to climb, even after the most recent policy changes.
These are not abstract numbers; they are the lived reality of millions of families who are denied the security and opportunity that every child deserves. The amendment goes beyond rhetoric: it would require the Government to set binding targets, with clear timescales, and to account publicly for each step taken towards meeting them. Doing so would emulate principles behind other statutory frameworks. The most obvious is the Climate Change Act, through which parliamentary accountability has driven sustained action and cross-government focus. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, talked about eight separate departments having some sort of responsibility for child poverty. That rigour should be applied to the fight against child poverty.
Peer-reviewed evidence makes it clear why this matters. International literature also shows that poverty has causal, long-term impacts on children’s health, educational attainment and future incomes. Children in low-income families are more likely to suffer poor health, lower school attainment and diminished life opportunities than their better-off peers. Moreover, robust reviews find that increased family income improves children’s educational and health outcomes, including school performance and future prospects.
I am not just reviewing the literature: I speak before noble Lords with my own lived experience as someone who was on free school meals, who got subsidised school clothing and who could not afford to go to college simply because we were poor. I had to go and work on a YTS training scheme in 1988 for £27.50 per week, working 40 hours a week unloading lorries. This is my lived experience that I bring before noble Lords today.
The evidence also reminds us that policy choices matter profoundly for children’s life chances, and systematic measurement and accountability mechanisms are essential to gauge impact. The Government’s recently published child poverty strategy, which was mentioned earlier, forecasts that the current suite of measures could lift an estimated 550,000 children out of relative poverty. We should all aim for that, but without legally enforceable targets, there is no guarantee that those outcomes will be delivered and sustained across future Administrations.
Targets give shape to ambition; they transform good intentions into measurable progress. We should also heed lessons from within the UK. Scotland was mentioned earlier. Scottish poverty targets might not be perfect, but they have a guided, sustained policy focus, which has shown that, when outcomes are measured and monitored, progress is more achievable.
This amendment is a practical tool to ensure that Ministers cannot evade responsibility for promises they have made. It is a mechanism that will help ensure that every policy aimed at education, well-being, housing and family support is tested against the yardstick of whether it moves us closer to reducing child poverty. I therefore urge noble Lords from all sides of the House to support the amendment and help ensure that the Government are held accountable to the children of our great nation.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to add my name and voice to the force of nature that is my noble friend Lord Bird. We have heard points made forcefully by all noble Lords around the House. I think noble Lords all know what I do for a living; I am sorry to be boring about this.
“(1) The appropriate authority of a relevant school in England may not require a pupil at the school to have to buy branded items of school uniform for use during a school year which cost more in total to purchase than a specified monetary amount, to be reviewed annually.(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the monetary amount that may apply to—(a) a primary pupil, and(b) a secondary pupil.(1B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes a monetary cap, rather than an item cap, on branded uniform items.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 114 and 118 in this group on the cost of school uniforms. This issue is about far more than clothing; it goes to the heart of the cost of living crisis. It affects children’s dignity and well-being, and, ultimately, their ability to learn and succeed in school. For too many families, the start of the school year is no longer a moment of optimism; it is about anxiety. Parents dread opening the uniform price list, knowing that compliance is mandatory and flexibility is limited. Branded blazers, logoed jumpers, PE kits and specialist items are often required from a single supplier, with costs running to hundreds of pounds per child, payable up front, when household budgets are already under severe strain.
The evidence is clear. Research commissioned by the Department for Education shows that the average cost of school uniforms and PE kits is close to £400 per child, rising to over £440 for secondary school pupils. These are not trivial sums. For families with two or three children, the cost can exceed £1,000 in a single year. For parents who are on low incomes, with insecure jobs or reliant on benefits, these costs are simply not manageable. The reality for many households is stark. Parents report cutting back on food, delaying rent or utility payments, or taking on high street debt, simply to ensure children are not penalised for incorrect uniforms. Some skip meals so their children can attend school properly dressed. Others are humiliated into asking schools for help or exemptions, knowing that support is inconsistent and often discriminatory.
The consequences fall most heavily on children. When families cannot afford the required uniforms, pupils are sent home, isolated from lessons or disciplined because their clothing does not meet school rules. Others attend school embarrassed and anxious that they stand out or are judged for their family’s circumstances. This sense of shame undermines confidence and damages well-being. This matters not only for children’s mental health but for their education itself. There is strong evidence that stress and financial insecurity are linked to poor attendance, reduced concentration and low attainment. A child worried about being reprimanded for their uniform is not focused on learning. Excessive uniform costs become a barrier to education rather than supporting it.
We must also recognise that this burden is not evenly distributed. Families in areas already facing high levels of deprivation, including parts of the north-east, the Midlands and coastal communities, report significantly greater difficulties affording school uniforms. High uniform costs in these areas compound existing disadvantage and widen attainment gaps that the Government rightly say they wish to close. A system in which affordability varies by postcode is neither fair nor defensible.
That is why my first amendment proposes a cap on the total cost of branded uniform items, rather than limiting the number. The item-based cap is insufficient. Single branded blazers can cost £50 or more and a logoed PE kit even more. What matters to families is not how many items are required but how much they are forced to pay. The clear financial cap is fairer, more transparent and more effective, while allowing schools flexibility.
My second amendment addresses the continued application of VAT on compulsory school uniforms, particularly for those of a certain size. In effect, this is a tax on clothing that children are legally required to wear to access education. The zero rating for school uniforms up to the age of 16 would provide immediate, targeted relief, particularly for families with multiple children and for those on the lowest incomes. These amendments do not undermine discipline, standards or school identity; uniforms can foster belonging and pride. But no child should feel ashamed or excluded because their parents cannot afford an overpriced item with a logo. If we are serious about supporting families, improving well-being and narrowing attainment gaps, I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I very much support all the amendments around trying to make uniforms more affordable, but I want to speak about a health time bomb that we are sitting on, much in the way that we spoke about smoking some years ago, or ultra-processed food. It is the whole question about PFAS in our systems: in everything we eat and touch, but in particular, in this case, in school uniforms. Uniforms that are made from fabrics that contain PFAS constantly contact your skin and the results and the emerging evidence are now incontrovertible. I also support Amendment 119A from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the health, generally, of uniforms.
Forever chemicals, as they are commonly referred to, are a group of over 10,000 chemicals that exist over many products. We call them “forever chemicals” partly because they are so widespread and partly because, so far, they do not appear to break down. They are relatively new, so we do not know whether they are going to break down in 100 years. Right now, though, they are not breaking down. The quickest way for any of us here to find out whether we have them in our system is to get the test, give a drop of blood and find out what is in your body.
Serious evidence is emerging. Yesterday morning I signed an NDA with Netflix in order to watch its newest documentary on the question of forever chemicals. In particular, this was around children, babies and fertility, but it obviously stretched to the wider implications for all of us, and in particular our children, because they have grown up in the plastic era. There is now evidence from Denmark to suggest that prenatal exposure is associated with reduced IQ scores in seven year-old children, and in Germany, there is new research showing that PFAS is significantly associated with reduced tetanus, rubella and diphtheria immunity. So it has effects all over the place. We must remember that these chemicals have been put into systems: not just our food and what we touch, or what we make things out of. There has been no FSA approval and there has been no FDA approval—it has just happened. All these chemicals are made by oil companies; plastic is a product of oil. Saudi Aramco is now the largest producer of plastic in the world, and production is growing as I speak.
Kids are thought to be particularly vulnerable; they have been found to have higher concentrations of PFAS in their blood than adults. One route of exposure is through the skin, and this brings me to the subject of school uniforms. They are often used in clothes to provide what they call “extra qualities”. So, if you get clothing that is “stain resistant” or “easy iron”—which, of course, is very tempting to someone on a time budget—these qualities in fact last for very little time. As you wash the clothes, they disappear, and then those chemicals end up in our watercourses. They are non-essential. There is no cost implication whatever to using them, apart from a gimmicky bit of advertising. I do not feel that the Minister really addressed this in Committee. Among other things, she said that
“the UK product safety laws require all consumer products to be safe, and manufacturers must ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market”.—[Official Report, 3/7/25; col. 907.]
Turning this around, could the Minister update the House on whether the Government believe that the now overwhelming body of evidence that is emerging that PFAS is causing detrimental health outcomes is incorrect? Do the Government believe that the approach of our close neighbours, such as France and most of Europe, which have banned the use of over 10,000 substances, is in vain? At present, neither our product safety laws nor UK REACH is preventing harmful products being placed on the market. They are not working to protect children or adults.
In the summer, the Minister in Committee said there was work
“across government to help assess levels of PFAS occurring in the environment, their sources and potential risks, to inform policy and regulatory approaches”.—[Official Report, 3/7/25; col. 906.]
That was quite a long time ago. What work is being done, or are we just acknowledging a problem and not doing anything?
I appreciate that this is largely the responsibility of Defra, but it seems that our current approach is waiting for this disaster to happen. Would it not be more prudent to take steps at least to make schools and parents aware of this growing risk? An example of this is in Jersey—I appreciate that it is not part of the UK, but I happen to have been born there—where people are being treated with bloodletting, essentially leeching without leeches, because firefighting foam got into the watercourses and drinking water and filled them with PFAS. The state has taken some steps to reduce that, but, even then, our response was glacial.
I was disappointed that the revised environmental improvement plan, which was published before Christmas, said almost nothing about PFAS, but that the Government were
“investigating whether to restrict other PFAS in fire-fighting foams”.
I do not understand why we need to expend resources investigating what should be incredibly obvious. There was nothing about PFAS from other sources, and, unironically, the following paragraph said that we were a leader on chemical management. That is hard to believe. If this is the only work that the Government have done since Committee, I put it to the House that it is inadequate.
However, we have a chance here to make some small progress. This amendment would ban the use of PFAS in school uniforms. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would set the limit for residual PFAS and textiles to
“no more than 50 mg”.
This would not allow producers to use a small amount of PFAS, because it is so prevalent in the water systems and in all our systems that you cannot—as was confirmed in the Netflix documentary that I watched last night—get the level back to zero. Noble Lords should find this fact alone really disturbing and I hope that it serves as an impetus. Our close neighbours in France and Denmark have banned the use of PFAS in all clothes, not just kids’ clothes. Indeed, in France’s case, it is banned much more widely, and there is an expectation that an EU ban will come quite soon.
While my amendment has been drafted within the confines of the Bill that we are debating, I urge the Minister to encourage her colleagues to match the EU’s approach, which is following the OECD’s definition of over 10,000 substances as PFAS and banning their use, rather than inventing our own definition and a new list. I accept that there is much about PFAS that we do not know for certain, but, as I say, I watched a Netflix documentary on this last night and, without a doubt, there is hard and fast evidence linking chemicals in our blood to declining birth rates, falling sperm counts and all sorts of other very complex medical situations.
I therefore ask for two things in the near term. First, can we change the statutory guidance that schools follow around considering
“sustainability and ethical supply chains, as well as engaging with parents and pupils when tendering for uniform contracts”.—[Official Report, 3/7/25; col. 907.]
Could something more specific be added to that guidance, so that the school uniform providers that are invited to tender must provide details of whether their garments contain PFAS? We are not saying “Remove it”: just put it on the label. Can a recommendation that schools aim to source school uniforms without PFAS possibly be included? If this is not possible, and they go ahead and contract a supplier whose uniform items contain PFAS, can those suppliers be required to label items so that schools and parents can make an informed decision? That is not going to cost us more money, and it is not just about saying that everything must be made of cotton. Cotton is obviously better, but cotton gets given stain-removal qualities and so on, which can also be bad. But this would put the responsibility fair and square on the producer.
Secondly, can the Government, at the very least, urgently consult on a wholesale ban of PFAS? If we do not, we risk becoming the dumping ground in Europe for all the school uniforms and other garments that the European Union is going to start rejecting and is starting to reject from now. That would be a very bad place to be.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what was a fantastic debate. However, I would still like to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 191 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I declare my interest as honorary president of COBIS. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is unable to be here today, but I am grateful to him for sharing recent correspondence he has had with the Minister on this matter.
It is critical that we act to improve the safeguarding arrangements between schools here in England and international schools overseas. The Safeguarding Alliance has supplied a couple of very concerning examples of recent cases where the system has clearly failed. In one international school, sexually explicit material was discovered on a school-owned computer during recent IT maintenance. A subsequent investigation identified multiple videos showing a member of staff livestreaming and recording explicit content which was stored within their user account. The content was assessed as being of such an extreme nature that the local UK embassy declined to view or handle the material. A referral was made to the Teaching Regulation Agency, but the TRA confirmed that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction. The member of staff is now working in another country and able to return to teach here undetected.
In a second example, a nursery teacher was discovered by a parent in the act of sexually abusing a child within the school setting. The parent immediately reported the incident to the school’s senior leadership team. The school made an immediate referral to the relevant local authorities and attempted to report the incident to the TRA, but as the school was based overseas, the TRA was unable to accept or process the referral. The school had no clear alternative reporting or regulatory pathway for international safeguarding concerns involving a UK-regulated teacher. The alleged perpetrator subsequently left the setting, and their current whereabouts remain unknown.
For this reason, Clause 46 is very welcome, in that it extends the jurisdiction of the TRA to those who have previously worked in England. It will give much-needed assurance to employers as teachers return from overseas. However, there remains a narrow but significant gap: where an individual who is qualified to teach in England through IQTS has completed induction in a British school overseas but has never taught in England, there is currently no route for serious misconduct overseas to be reported to the TRA. As the Minister has agreed in correspondence, this covers a very small number of teachers, but this loophole remains a risk to children if it is not closed.
The substantive reason for the Government resisting this amendment was set out in a letter which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, received last night. In essence, it argued that the TRA cannot practically be expected to investigate such incidents overseas. Yet this is precisely what it will have to do with incidents in relation to Clause 46. I want to stress on behalf of both me and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that this amendment does not seek to turn the TRA into a global regulator or require the Secretary of State to investigate all misconduct overseas. It is tightly drawn, applying only to those who are qualified to teach in England and who may in due course seek employment in our schools.
Once Clause 47 requires all schools to employ qualified teachers and Clause 46 brings those who have previously worked in England within scope, this group is all that remains. It is a small cohort, but without this change, an individual who commits serious misconduct overseas may move on, secure a fresh reference and subsequently take up a post in England.
Safeguarding training reminds us that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility; it does not stop at national borders and concerns must be reported wherever there is a risk to children. This amendment is pursued in exactly that spirit, and I hope that the Minister will once again reflect on whether this narrow extension could be accommodated to deliver the outcome that I know we all seek.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am also grateful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and to speak to Amendment 191A in my name. During the debates on the Employment Rights Bill, Peers on this side of the Chamber welcomed the Government’s commitment to a review of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. However, it is clear that such a review will not necessarily be economy-wide in scope.
What it cannot easily do is address the specific position of teachers and school staff, who work in one of the most highly regulated and safeguarding-intensive environments in the labour market. For teachers, disciplinary and grievance processes are not exceptional; they are a structural feature of the profession. Safeguarding law rightly requires that every allegation be taken seriously and investigated, even when later it proves unfounded. As a result, teachers and school leaders are far more likely than most workers to experience formal proceedings during their career.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak chiefly to Amendment 196A in my name and to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which I also attached my name. Given the hour, I am going to restrain myself on a lot of things. It is a great pity that we are doing this important business at this hour. The Minister, in introducing this group, talked about the need to improve the accountability of multi-academy trusts, which has not kept pace with the growth of MATs. We have heard agreement on that from right across the House. With that in mind, I am going to start with Amendment 197, which we have not yet heard the formal introduction of. I will not go through it in detail, but it looks at the remuneration of chief executives of multi-academy trusts. It includes the provision, under parliamentary scrutiny, to impose limits on that pay.
It might be a difficult job, but I think I am about to shock the House at 11.23 pm. A few days ago, the website Education Uncovered produced some figures on the pay of CEOs of multi-academy trusts—not the biggest ones but the group of the next biggest ones, ranked from 11 to 25 on the number of pupils. A £220,000 salary is becoming standard for these multi-academy trust CEOs—and you can add a pension of about £50,000. This is significantly more than the Prime Minister is paid. We have a fat-cat pay problem right across our society, but here we are talking about public funds allocated for children’s education going to fat-cat pay.
I said that the Education Uncovered figure was for 2025. For the largest trusts, I had to go back to a Schools Week investigation from last March looking at some of the highest pay, and a year ago the CEO’s pay at one of the multi-academy trusts had crossed the £500,000 a year threshold, while three more were on more than £300,000 a year. Unsurprisingly, the National Governance Association told Schools Week that benchmarking seemed to be leading to inflationary pressure—something some noble Lords here who know quite a bit about the financial sector have seen happening. It really is obscene that this is happening in our schools.
The Education Uncovered study shows that the larger trusts are spending more per pupil on these highly paid staff and less per pupil on pupils in the classroom than are smaller trusts and, particularly in England, local authorities and local authority schools. This is a huge problem of accountability, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on bringing forward this amendment and seeking to deal with it. I cannot think of a reason why the Government would not think this a good idea.
I come now—very briefly, given the hour—to my Amendment 196. This follows attempts that I made in Committee, with the assistance of the National Education Union, to create something that would allow schools to get out of this mess when they are just fed up with it. It would allow parents fed up with multi-academy trusts that are not working—we have seen a lot of examples recently of multi-academy trusts imposing on local school communities disciplinary rules that have caused a great deal of upset, concern and fear for the well-being of pupils—a way to get schools out of this system that is not working for them.
In Committee, I brought forward the idea of an academy reversal order. It is very complex, given that schools in multi-academy trusts no longer have their own legal entity, but I made an attempt at doing that. I also attempted to say that it was a duty of the Secretary of State to produce an order like that.
Now, on Report, with Amendment 196A I am calling for the Government to create a duty for them to produce a report on the demand for, desirability of and mechanisms for the conversion of academy-run schools to maintained schools, within two years of the Act calling for a report. That would not direct anything to happen, but it asks for a direction to the Government to think again, in a Bill that already acknowledges that there are huge problems with the academy trust model, ends the presumption that all new schools must be academies and removes the duty to force schools into multi-academy trusts. We are clearly heading in that direction. Let us get ahead of the game and prepare for a future where we put schools back under local democratic control.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, regarding the amendments by my noble friend Lord Storey, research has shown no correlation between the pay of the CEOs of multi-academy trusts and the schools they have responsibility for. I hope the Minister can say whether there will be a mechanism to look at the pay of some of these highly paid officials and what responsibilities they have. There could be cases where people have responsibility for eight to 10 schools but get paid more than people with responsibility for higher numbers. That does not seem fair or right. I know it is late, but I thought it important that I raise this point on behalf of my noble friend.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
It is really late, but I tabled a similar amendment to this in Committee. Unregulated CEO pay is becoming an ever greater problem in the sector. Last year the policy think tank EDSK called for mandatory CEO pay scales capped at £263,000, with fines for those who did not follow that. The National Governance Association has said that the growing gap between CEO pay and that of other senior leaders—and, I would also say, teachers—risks undermining the collaborative leadership essential to school improvement. I hope the Government will look at this serious problem, which demands action.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 91, in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and Amendment 106, also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
I am conscious that I am the warm-up act for the debate on Amendment 94A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash, which is also in this group. However, it is right and appropriate that, before we discuss the issue of teenagers and social media, we think first about the early years. Ofcom data shows that the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from 25% in 2022 to 37% in 2024, with one in five of those using it independently of their parents. That data is reported by Ofcom but without any comment or action associated with it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response as to whether the high-quality age verification that may accompany Amendment 94A in my noble friend’s name would be welcome in restricting use among our very youngest children also.
It is not just social media. Some 85% of three to five year-olds go online, with one in six owning their own mobile phone, while 98% of two year-olds watch television, videos or other digital content on a screen on a typical day, averaging around two hours each day—double the WHO recommendation—and among the top 20% of two year-olds that figure averaged five hours per day. Such levels of usage go against everything we know about what is needed for good development in the early years, where adult-child interaction is paramount. It goes against everything we know about how much physical and active play our youngest children need, the importance of outdoors activities and the development of healthy eyesight.
The reason this is so important is that we know that the early years are an important time for a child’s development and impact them much later on in life. That is why this Government have rightly placed so much emphasis on their early years strategy. In that context, the Government’s announcement last week that they will produce guidance for parents and carers on the screen time of preschoolers was incredibly welcome, if overdue. However, this will have a positive impact only if the high-quality guidance reaches parents and helps to change their behaviour. Can the Minister provide any more detail on the early years screen time advisory group that the Government are forming to develop this advice? We have the chairs and the terms of reference, but group membership and planned meetings remain to be updated “in due course” on the government website. Given that the guidance is being published in just three months, it would be useful to know more detail on that.
What plans do the Government have to publicise this advice once it is drawn up to reach parents where they get their information and ensure join-up across government, particularly with the Department for Health and Social Care so that it is integrated into the healthy child programme and available through health visitors and GPs, not just through Best Start Family Hubs? Given the importance of joint working in this area, would the Minister be happy to commit to a joint meeting between the two departments and experts to develop this further?
I turn to Amendment 91. The welcome action on guidance for parents makes the lack of any proper guidance and policy within early year settings an even greater outlier. There is policy around the use of technology in schools, but, in nurseries, often the most tech-rich environments as practitioners use tablets to log so much of a day’s activity, there is currently nothing. This is deeply problematic. It is problematic from a child development point of view, as the use of YouTube in early years settings has been described by one expert as “ubiquitous”, not just replacing the all-important adult-child interaction but using content that is too fast paced for children to learn from. This actually stimulates their fight or flight response, capturing their attention but in a way that is associated with hyper-alertness, hyper-wakefulness and later-life affective disorders. It is problematic from a safeguarding point of view, most starkly illustrated by the tragic case of Operation Lanark, where 18 nursery-issued devices were among the almost 70 seized from the home of a nursery worker charged with the most horrendous cases of abuse.
I am incredibly grateful that the Minister and her colleague Liv Bailey, the Early Education Minister, met me to discuss this and the parental guidance issue discussed earlier. I am really pleased that the Government’s intention is to update the voluntary guidance for settings on the help for early years platform, and, as part of their review into the non-statutory curriculum guidance, Development Matters, to not only include information on screen time and digital literacy but to include it in the next update to the statutory early years foundation stage framework. I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat this commitment today and give a clear timeline for when the amendment to the EYFS will be made.
In undertaking this work, will the department consider the impact of screen time and the wider use of technology and devices in early years settings, by children and practitioners, as well as child development and safe- guarding issues? Screen time is important but, based on research published about current levels of screen time use, “less is better” is an important message. The evidence shows that context and content matter too, and I hope the Government can commit to incorporating this in their approach.
I should be absolutely clear that those settings which choose not to use screens or tech should be free to do so. Tech is not needed for good child development in the early years. If it is being used, it should be informed by our understanding of early years development and accompanied by robust safeguarding practices and clear policy within the setting.
It is essential we get this right. I know a host of education, health and research professionals stand ready to support the Government in their work. I thank Katy Potts at the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group, Professors Rachael Bedford, Tim Smith and Sam Wass, Birth to 5 Matters and Health Professionals for Safer Screens. These are among the many dedicated people who have been generous to me with their time and worked so hard in this area.
Finally, I should probably explain why it is so important to get clear reassurances from the Minister on this now. I first tabled amendments on this in May last year, but there was no mention of digital technology or screen time in the Government’s early years strategy published in July. Guidance for parents of preschoolers was announced only in January, with no accompanying detail of a campaign to reach parents. On the incorporation of guidance into the early years statutory framework, the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group wrote to the previous Early Education Minister over a year ago calling for this to be incorporated into the update to the EYFS that went live last September. That call was rejected, although I have never been able to find out why.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to action now and believe it is genuine, but I need reassurance that, once the spotlight has moved on, work will not stop and delivery will happen at pace, in particular on making a substantive change to the early years foundation stage statutory framework this year; otherwise, a two year-old who started nursery when we first debated this issue will have left for school before any change is made. I beg to move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the two amendments in my name, which are both amendments to Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. These are necessary if this House is to respond to the online harms that children face in a way that is effective, proportionate and grounded in evidence.
To be clear from the outset, I share the concerns across this House about the real harms that children face online. These range from exposure to age-inappropriate and damaging content to the disturbing prevalence of grooming and exploitation. Parents are right to be worried and Parliament is right to intervene. However, as the NSPCC made clear in its briefing to us, a complex safeguarding problem demands a risk-based response, not a blunt one-age ban.
My Amendment 94B would introduce a mechanism for limited and tightly controlled exemptions to a blanket minimum age requirement. Crucially, such exemptions could exist only where they demonstrably improved child safety, not where they weakened it. Any exemption would be jointly specified by Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner. That joint responsibility is deliberate and important. It would ensure that decisions were made independently of commercial interests and rooted firmly in regulatory expertise and the statutory duty to act in the best interests of children.
The amendment sets out a high evidential bar for platforms. Providers would have to show compliance with Ofcom’s risk-based guidance on minimum age, have full regard for UK GDPR principles and give explicit consideration to children’s rights as recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. They would also be required to assess impacts on children’s mental health, examine whether their platform’s design or features encouraged addictive or compulsive use, and scrutinise the role of algorithms in content recommendations and targeted advertising for any products or services, including, for example, gambling content marketing. Importantly, any exemptions would be subject to periodic reviews, with powers for amendment or revocation if Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner were no longer satisfied that adequate protections were in place. This would place a burden squarely on the platforms to prove safety on an ongoing basis, rather than leaving children exposed to unmanaged risk.
The NSPCC, the 5Rights Foundation, the Molly Rose Foundation and 39 children’s rights and online safety organisations have warned us this week that
“blanket bans on social media would fail to deliver the improvement in children’s safety and wellbeing that they so urgently need”.
We already know that age limits are not meaningfully enforced, and these organisations are well respected up and down this country. The NSPCC estimates that, in the UK, more than 2.5 million children under the age of 13 are currently accessing social media. Raising the minimum age to 16 does not solve that problem. Indeed, it risks pushing children into less regulated and higher-risk spaces, including encrypted platforms, anonymous forums and unsafe gaming environments. Children who bypass age checks are likely to register as adults, placing them in an environment with weaker safeguards and a higher exposure to harm. There is also a real risk of unintended consequences. Safe, age-appropriate use of social media such as family group chats, peer support networks and access to services like Childline could be lost, particularly for vulnerable children. Bans may also deter children from reporting harm for fear of being punished for being online at all.
Briefly, Amendment 94C would ensure that the definition of “regulated user-to-user services” was aligned with the Online Safety Act 2023. This House invested significant effort in establishing a risk-based regulatory framework under the Act, and it is essential that this Bill operates coherently within it.
These amendments would not dilute child protection but strengthen it. They would move us away from a blunt, one-size-fits-all ban towards a proportionate, evidence-based approach that respected children’s rights, held platforms accountable and generally reduced harm. The public out there have sent a clear message that they want us to act. It is now up to us in your Lordships’ House and down the Corridor in the other place to act on this. We need to heed the warnings of these respected organisations that have written to us all and to say, “We hear you that there is a need for a ban, but we think we can look at a much more sophisticated model than just a simple, one age limit ban”.
“subject to any exemptions under subsection (1A).
(1A) Any exemptions to regulations made under subsection (1)(b)—(a) must be specified only by Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner acting jointly, and(b) can only apply where—(i) the primary purpose of the exemption is to address or mitigate harms arising from social media use by children,(ii) the exemption specifies an alternative minimum age to that provided under subsection (1)(b), and(iii) the provider of the service has demonstrated to the satisfaction of Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner that it—(A) meets Ofcom’s guidance concerning appropriate, risk-based minimum ages,(B) has due regard to relevant standards and principles of the UK General Data Protection Regulation, (C) has particular regard to the importance of protecting the rights and best interests of children, as recognised by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,(D) has considered the potential impact of the service on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children,(E) has investigated the extent to which the service’s design, functionalities or features may encourage addictive or compulsive use, and(F) has considered and reviewed the use of algorithms for content recommendation, amplification or targeted advertising.(1B) Regulations made under subsection (1)(b) must also provide for—(a) periodic review of any exemption to ensure the continuing adequacy of protection for children, and(b) amendment or revocation of an exemption where Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner are no longer satisfied as to the matters set out in subsection (1A)(b)(iii).”
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank all noble Lords for the debate that we have had, but I would still like to test the opinion of the House.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Establishment of Child Protection Authority(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.(2) The purpose of the Authority is to—(a) improve practice in child protection,(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection,(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards, and(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.(3) The Authority must act with a view to—(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes the Child Protection Authority for England.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, it is very late, so I will not go through the five pages of my speech. However, I will speak to Amendments 102 and 103 in my name.
The arguments have been well rehearsed previously. I thank the Minister in the other place, Josh MacAlister, for meeting some of us to go through the issues. He is very clear on the so-called postcode lottery of child in need reports that are often produced for children. In some areas it is as high as 70%, and the research I did found that in other areas it is 20%. The Children’s Commissioner found that the lowest percentage of young people known to social care in some local authority areas was 3%.
As we have heard earlier and in previous debates in your Lordships’ House, that number cannot just be demographics. My suggestion and the Children’s Commissioner’s suggestion has been, and we continue to maintain this, that we need some national thresholds so that we do not have a big gap in the care that young people get, depending on where they live. A child in need report is quite crucial.
I understand that the Minister in the other place is very sympathetic to the issue but does not see this as a way forward. Late into this evening and night, I hope I can use my power of persuasion to convince the Minister in front of me to be willing to at least continue to talk and see whether we can find a way forward.
Amendment 102 is about establishing a child protection body that would work to improve child protection practice, advise government and the sector, and conduct inspections. This is an important issue, in addition to the one I raised earlier. I do not intend to speak any further, but I would welcome a response from the Minister. Given that we agree that there is a problem, would she now be willing at least to look at whether we can reinvestigate the national thresholds? I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too will be brief. I was slightly surprised at the need for Amendment 102. If I have understood correctly, the Government have committed to establishing a child protection agency and are currently consulting on it. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord wants to raise this because, clearly, implementation will be crucial if we are to avoid blurring lines of accountability and creating a bureaucracy. But it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
We covered standards for children in need thresholds in Committee. On these Benches, we retain the view that we need flexibility in the system so that practitioners can use their professional judgment to look at the overall situation of a child and keep it under review. But I absolutely accept that there are real problems at what one might call the top end of Section 17, with an extraordinary number of children who are suffering child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation still being classified as “children in need” rather than “child protection”.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. I do not intend to prolong proceedings any further, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moraes (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendment 77 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Lister, who tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I apologise to the House for not being in Committee to speak to this amendment due to a period of illness last year.
The amendment concerns a new statutory duty for corporate parents to be alerted to matters concerning children’s well-being. In this respect, there are a group of children in the UK who are entitled to citizenship but for various reasons do not achieve it. This is not widely understood generally, nor even among parents, foster parents and corporate parents of those children. Achieving their citizenship under British nationality law is good for the children, who gain stability, and for society, which sees the integration of children often in vulnerable situations. Here, I should declare that I am a patron of the non-profit Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens.
We want to ensure in this amendment that there is no duplication of duties on the Secretary of State, while ensuring that duties on corporate parents under Section 21(1) concerning the well-being of young people include appropriate consideration of nationality rights. We do not want to see children being wrongly categorised or treated as if this is wholly a matter of immigration or discretion.
In Committee the Minister placed an emphasis on Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, which states that the Home Secretary should be the one discharging citizenship in relation to the safeguarding and welfare needs of the child. But this places the sole duty on the Home Secretary; it does not apply to the corporate parents to whom the new duty is to apply. Our amendment understands the importance of Section 55 but would ensure that care providers to whom the new duty is to apply are not left without the protection of any statutory duty altogether in relation to these child citizenship applications.
In Committee the Minister suggested that the Government are reflecting on the requirement to support children in gaining citizenship. That is welcome, and it is welcome that the Government are considering what further steps to take in this area. But this amendment would support those efforts by ensuring that corporate parents could act on whatever new policy or practice was brought forward by the Home Office.
While we welcome the Government’s steps to improve local authority practice in relation to child citizens, the experience of credible practitioners on the ground, such as PRCBC, is that these rights are not widely known or acted on, and any improvements that are seen are not uniform, with some local authorities showing evidence of no improvement at all.
My noble friend the Minister is probably aware that a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Lister, have been pressing the case for children in this situation for many years. Government support for this amendment would ensure that these important children’s rights are not overlooked by local authorities in their role as corporate parents.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I support and will talk to Amendments 75 and 76, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester set out powerfully; I fully support the arguments. Last week I hosted a meeting in your Lordships’ Committee Room 1, which showcased care experience and protected characteristics. The room was full. Care-experienced people had travelled from across the United Kingdom to be there because they wanted their voices to be heard, and I speak today to ensure that those voices are heard in your Lordships’ House.
Care-experienced people are asking that relevant bodies in the exercise of their corporate parenting duties are required to have due regard, as we heard earlier. One care-experienced person told us: “I deserve to have my voice heard to create real change. Too often decisions are made about us but without us”. Another said: “Care-experienced individuals need recognising because our outcomes are constantly poor yet our insight is rarely used when services are designed”.
At that meeting, Terry Galloway, who often helps and supports these young people with care experiences, offered a simple but striking example. He asked us to imagine driving down a road in a fast car and seeing a child standing in the road. You are alert to that child being there, but you drive straight through them—and you say your duty has been discharged because you were alert to them being there. Contrast that with a duty of due regard. On the same road and with the same child, discharging that duty would require you to stop the car, get out and speak to them. You would seek an understanding of why they are in the road and whether there is something you can do to help them.
Youth Guarantee Scheme: Evaluation
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It will certainly be the case that in the evaluation we will want to track how many young people are able to move into permanent employment. I agree with the noble Lord about that. Evaluations of job support schemes in the past have suggested that there is a positive movement into long-term employment from these types of schemes.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am all for opportunities for young people, but I challenge the Minister on why, particularly, young people on universal credit have to wait 18 months before accessing support. Why can we not move this forward, like we do for younger people who are in danger of being NEET, to six months?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
They will not have to wait 18 months. The backstop at 18 months is a guaranteed job of six months. Before they get to that point, they will have received support much earlier on from specialist work coaches, access to the additional 300,000 opportunities through either a swap or work experience to try work, and the support of other organisations to help tackle the issues that may be keeping them out of the workplace in the first place.
Sexual Harassment in Educational Settings
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I say, the Technology Secretary has already made it clear that X needs to deal urgently with the issue of Grok. Ofcom has already contacted X and xAI to understand what steps they have taken to comply with their legal duties to protect users in the UK. If services fail to adhere, Ofcom can impose fines of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue and, in the most serious cases of non-compliance, could apply to the courts to block services.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
Can I just quiz the Minister about research by Girlguiding last year? Its Girls’ Attitude Survey 2025 found that one in 10 young girls aged between 11 and 16 was missing education, deeply affecting their life chances going forward. I take the point that sexism and harassment existed before social media, but there is now clear evidence that social media is playing a huge role. I ask the question that other noble Lords have asked: will the Government now reconsider their position, particularly on mobile phones in schools but also on social media access for under-16s?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think I have responded to that point. I have pointed out that one of the most appropriate things that schools can do—recognising that misogyny and abuse are not innate to children but are learned, including through the internet—is to help teach children different attitudes and to reinforce the decency that I think we all know most children and young boys have. To support schools to do that, we are investing through the provision that I talked about earlier, providing new guidance through the relationships, sex and health education guidance and supporting our teachers and parents to be able to do that.
Schools and Universities: Language Learning
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this timely and thoughtful debate. I add my thanks in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing it. Across the House, there has been striking consensus on two points: first, that the decline in modern foreign language learning in our schools and universities is deeply worrying; and, secondly, that the shortage of qualified language teachers is a central and urgent cause of that decline.
Language learning is not a luxury add-on to the curriculum. It is fundamental to our economic competitiveness, cultural understanding, diplomatic reach and national security. In an increasingly competitive global economy, linguistic capability is a core economic asset. Research commissioned by the former Department for Business, and subsequently cited by the British Academy and others, has estimated that the UK’s language skills deficit costs the economy around 3.5% of GDP, as we were told by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in opening the debate. That equates to around £40 billion in lost trade annually, reduced export performance and missed investment opportunities, driven in part by an overreliance on English and a shortage of people able to operate confidently in other languages.
Many British companies that export have demonstrated more productivity and resilience than those that do not, yet surveys of small and medium-sized enterprises consistently show that language barriers are among the most common obstacles to exporting. Businesses report losing contracts, failing to enter new markets and relying on costly intermediaries because of a lack of staff with the necessary language skills. This is particularly damaging for SMEs, which form the backbone of our economy but often lack the resources to compensate for that language gap.
There is strong evidence that language skills enhance individual and national productivity. Graduates with foreign language skills enjoy a measurable wage premium during their working lives, often estimated at between 5% and 10%. This reflects their higher employability, access to roles and a range of life skills, as my noble friend Lady Smith said in talking about lifelong learning. When multiplied across the workforce, these individual gains translate into significant national economic benefits.
The United Kingdom now seeks to deepen and diversify its trading relationships with our European neighbours post Brexit. I want to comment on the “French weekends” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. A close friend of mine, Antoine, who works for the French Government on the Erasmus programme, is watching this debate keenly, because he is keen to expand connections between France and the United Kingdom, particularly around the French language. I was particularly moved by that.
The Government’s own trade ambitions depend on people who can negotiate contracts, understand regulatory systems, build long-term relationships and operate with cultural fluency. Language skills are not a “nice to have” in this context; they are our economic infrastructure. Yet uptake at GCSE and A-level, as we have heard from many noble Lords, remains stubbornly low, university language departments continue to close, and schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, are increasingly unable to offer a broad and sustained language curriculum. This threatens to create a two-tier system in which language skills and the economic advantages that flow from them are concentrated among the most privileged, while the wider economy suffers from a shrinking skills base.
We cannot reverse these trends without addressing the supply of teachers. As several noble Lords have made clear, domestic recruitment alone is not currently meeting this need. The pipeline is weak, retention is fragile and workload pressures are driving skilled teachers out of the profession. Against that backdrop, it is simply self-defeating to erect additional barriers to recruiting qualified modern foreign language teachers from overseas, particularly when the economic cost of inaction is measured in tens of billions of pounds each year. That is why the question of visas and migration policy is so important.
Language teachers are, by definition, internationally mobile professionals. Many are native speakers, and bring with them a cultural knowledge and linguistic authenticity that directly improves teaching quality and student outcomes. In economic terms they represent not a cost but a long-term investment in the skills base on which future growth depends. Yet the current system remains slow, expensive and, in many cases, actively discouraging. That is why on these Benches we believe that there is a strong case for targeted visa waivers or streamlined routes specifically for modern foreign language teachers, and I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. These roles should be treated as shortage occupations not just in name but in practice. Schools should not be deterred from appointing excellent candidates because of prohibitive fees, bureaucratic delays or uncertainty over status, especially when the economic returns of stronger language capability are so well evidenced.
But visas alone will not be enough. Sustainability must be the watchword. Overseas teachers need proper induction, professional support, and a clear route to settlement if they are to stay and build long-term careers here. We must ensure that their qualifications are recognised swiftly and fairly and that schools are supported in navigating the process. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the broader ecosystem. Teacher supply is inseparable from student demand. Pupils are less likely to study languages if provision is patchy, courses are withdrawn midway or teaching is delivered by non-specialists. Universities, in turn, cannot sustain language departments if school uptake continues to fall. This is a vicious circle, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and one that the UK can ill afford economically.
I was particularly struck by contributions highlighting the impact on less commonly taught languages. They are often first to disappear when staffing becomes difficult, yet these are precisely the languages in which the United Kingdom most needs capacity. Languages such as Arabic, Mandarin, Japanese, Russian, Portuguese, Polish, Turkish, Urdu and Persian are spoken in regions accounting for a substantial and growing share of global GDP. Further, when it comes to the issue of security—I see that the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Robertson, are here—having individuals who can speak Arabic, Mandarin, Russian and Persian will be crucial in years to come. Weak provision in these languages undermines our ability to trade, attract investment and operate effectively in strategically important markets.
This is not simply an education issue, nor is it simply a migration issue; it is an economic and security strategy issue. Will the Government commit to working across departments to develop a coherent approach, one that recognises the proven economic and security value of language skills, values international expertise and places long-term sustainability at its heart? From these Benches, we stand ready to support pragmatic, evidence-based measures to rebuild language learning in this country. That includes fairer visa routes, better support for overseas teachers, stronger incentives for domestic trainees, and a renewed commitment to languages as a core part of a broad and balanced education.
If we fail to act, we risk presiding over a slow erosion of one of the UK’s greatest strengths: our ability to engage confidently, respectfully and effectively in the wider world. That would be a loss to not just our education system but our economy, our global standing and our society as a whole. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the strength of feeling expressed across this House and respond with the urgency and ambition that the situation so clearly demands.
Jobs Market: Wider Economic Implications
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Viscount will know that we have a number of what we call sector work programmes to develop skills and support people into many areas of our economy, including hospitality and retail, and many others. I come back to the fact that there are challenges across the globe. The UK unemployment rate is firmly below the EU 27 average. The UK has the third-highest employment rate among the G7—higher than Canada, the USA, France and Italy. I fully accept that these have been challenging times but there has been a reduction in demand across the globe, for a range of reasons. I am confident that things are looking good. We are seeing, for example, that vacancies have stabilised. We are seeing interest rates coming down and businesses getting more certainty, not least from the fact that we now have an Employment Rights Act.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Lib Dems next, please.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am more than happy to speak to Alan Milburn, given my long experience of working with NEETs. The question I will ask the Minister is about His Majesty’s Government having two key priorities. One is around net zero and the other is building 1.5 million homes. I want to know: what is the strategy around young people and apprenticeships? I ask this because I spoke to a young person studying at Sheffield College who is doing an electrician course. He is really stressed out that he is unable to get the apprenticeship course he needs to get properly qualified and contribute to the economy, because otherwise he told me that he will look for a job in McDonald’s.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am not going to diss looking for a job in McDonald’s, but I do not want to see anyone unable to pursue the things that they want to do. The noble Lord is absolutely right. We have invested £600 million in a construction package and are working closely with the industry. We have a strategic relationship team in DWP that works with key sectors to try to make sure, if jobs come on stream, that our people get them. We want young people and people who are not in the labour market to get them—those who are struggling with economic inactivity. I am grateful to him for raising that.
Special Educational Needs: Investment
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As the noble Earl knows, or should know, primary numbers have been falling since 2019, which is why our additional investment—the 10% pay award for teachers, which applies across primary and secondary schools and which will bring in additional teachers—has, as I have already identified, increased the numbers of teachers in secondary and special schools, which is where they are particularly needed. It is already being effective, as is this Government’s commitment to keeping teachers in the classroom, not just attracting them in the first place.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, given that one of the big challenges for local authorities has been school transport for SEND children, what assessment has been done on how quickly these school places will be delivered? More importantly, has any work been done on the potential savings for local authorities, because this is one budget that is really challenging for local councils up and down the country?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The 50,000 additional places that will be funded through the £3 billion that we announced last week are on top of the 10,000 new specialist places in mainstream and special schools, supported by the £740 million that we invested this year. That goes back to the point I made earlier: this is not about saving money, but it is about saying that, for many children, they will be best served in local schools with specialist provision to care for them and help them to thrive alongside their friends. A side benefit of that is that we will no longer need to be transporting children long distances at great cost for education that they could more effectively receive closer to home.