Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I am standing up to make a speech absolutely on the fly now. I have taken some legal advice and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, says there would be no adverse impact from this. So I add my support to Amendments 469, 470 and 502F. As a teacher, I think the history of education in this country is that it has gradually dawned on us that children have rights. If I may give a bit of hope to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I think we do listen to children much more now.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, touched on the idea that we are very good at setting up conventions—we are extremely diligent signatories and very good penholders—but we are not usually very good at following our own advice. The Children’s Charity Coalition has said that the Bill currently lacks explicit measures to ensure that children’s rights are systematically considered in law and policy-making. That is a lot of children’s charities that think that. We have heard from Team Cross Bench, which I thought put some extraordinary power behind these amendments, but perhaps I may quote my legal adviser, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on this one: these are appropriate and overdue.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I have not particularly participated in this Bill, but I am always interested when noble Lords seek to incorporate various treaties we have signed into domestic law. The reason I say that is because of my experience in a variety of ways of having been a Minister. Paragraph 1.6 of the Ministerial Code, which is not a new obligation on Ministers, states that Ministers have to comply with the international agreements into which Governments and previous Governments have entered and which have usually been ratified by Parliament. The need to think about these sorts of issues, particularly around children, is already embedded into how policy framework strategies are deployed.

“From the mouths of children”


is in the Psalms and in the Gospels. That element of truth comes through: it is absolutely vital that children’s voices are heard. This is why things such as the Children Act 1989 was really important, about aspects of that.

However, I am really concerned, and I share the concerns that my noble friend Lady Spielman expressed, about whether these need to be incorporated as a whole into domestic law. Only a handful of other countries have done this: Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and, to some extent, or to the full extent of its devolved powers, the Scottish Parliament has decided to do the same—although noble Lords may be aware of the rulings after there was a referral to the Supreme Court which removed certain aspects of that legislation, partly because it counteracted the primacy of this Parliament in legislation and other matters.

However, as regards thinking through, I fully respect the long connection with education of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. Both my parents are teachers. I do not have children, so I do not have the same experiences there, but I am aware, from when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, of absolutely how much, just from the DNA, in effect, of being normal human beings, we would consider aspects of impacts on children.

The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, said the difficulty about the conversations is that they get legalistic. Well, that is the whole point. We are talking about the law. If I think of Amendment 502G, perhaps there would have been a different ruling with the Michaela academy recently on whether somebody could pray at school or not. I think also of keeping schools open. I know there is an element of it being discussed in Amendment 502M. I encourage the people who have been distinguished general secretaries of unions to think of parents perhaps starting to sue schools for not staying open when there is some snow. The snow may not be stopping the children getting to school, but it might be stopping a couple of the teachers, so the decision is then to close down education for a whole day or more, not on behalf of the children but because they cannot get some teachers there. I referred to “legalistic” because that is where you start getting into disputes, going to court, trying to settle outside—all these other issues.

That is why I completely understand why ratifying that treaty was so important. That becomes guidance, a framework and an actual way of doing things, but it does not then become necessarily—I believe we have incorporated certain parts of the convention into domestic law—a straitjacket in effect on how we kind of evolve in terms of policy. There are risks, and I know that there has been another Supreme Court ruling trying to discourage judges and indeed people from bringing judicial reviews trying to change policy. But that is exactly where we get into issues that we can see in other legal cases that are often in the courts.

Obviously, I respect the distinguished legal experience of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, but I would have thought that the public sector equality duty, which recognises religion and belief, would already capture perhaps some of what he is trying to incorporate in his amendment.

I do not want to delay the Committee too much longer, but I think this is a case of “Be careful what you wish for”. What has happened for children that now makes it necessary to do this? The children were ignored when they were being groomed and when they went to the police. Children have been ignored in other situations. That grooming is still ongoing; I hope the police and the CPS are more alert as well. But going back to the substance, I hope that the way that the UNCRC has been effectively incorporated into how we go about our affairs as Ministers, as Parliament and as public servants should be sufficient. However, I will continue to try to understand the deficiency that we are trying to address by this wholesale incorporation of this into our domestic law when I genuinely do not believe it is needed.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I will just swiftly respond to the noble Baroness. During the 14 years that her party was in office—I witnessed this first hand, because I am a retread, as I got re-elected back in in 2014—there was a series of Bills, some of which I mentioned I have been involved with, where children are directly involved and affected. Repeatedly, those Bills arrive here after—as per usual—minimal scrutiny down the Corridor, by design. It is manifestly clear that the detailed needs, requirements and rights of children have not systematically been thought through and embedded in the legislation, which is why we have had to go through lengthy debates to try to tease that out. I am proud to say that, in the majority of cases, faced with strong cross-party arguments in favour, the Front Bench of the noble Baroness’s party, repeatedly in different Bills, acceded to the strength of those arguments and amended the legislation to put children’s rights in there. Whatever the Ministerial Code may say, unfortunately that was not filtering its way down into the way that Bills were being drafted. Your Lordships’ House did its work very well, but what some of us are hoping and asking for is a situation where that requirement becomes less frequent and is abnormal rather than, I am afraid, substantively normal.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I would say in return— I was trying to keep my speech brief—that I hear what the noble Lord said. He talked about being unsuccessful in keeping it brief. That is because we have had a lot of stuff about legalism. I am giving direct experience of government—I appreciate what the noble Lord said. I can give more examples. One reason why children get the flu vaccine every year is primarily to protect adults—the teachers and school workers—to stop the spread of flu. It is not really to help the kid. All sorts of things happen today that are actively encouraged to be done to the child in a way that should not be harmful.

I come back to the legislation and the point that is relevant. The Secretary of State for Education has the leading responsibility in government to have that horizon-scanning of every bit of legislation that affects children. If there have been deficiencies, I recognise them. I am not convinced that the incorporation of more law into domestic law is going to be the way to achieve that. I encourage the Minister in her reply to give confidence. Even if the noble Lord feels that the last Administration were deficient, I am sure that the current Administration will say that they are very much on top of it.

Frankly, it is a bit like when I was at DWP. I had primary responsibility for disabilities, so it was my job, working with my officials, to keep scanning legislation for how it would impact people with disabilities. That was not always very popular with other departments, which kept telling us to keep our noses out, but that is what we did. I am sure that that is what the Department for Education is intending to do. That said, I know that my noble friend Lady Barran was assiduous in her support of children, and I am sure that the Minister for this Government has continued to be so as well.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

I quickly respond to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made. The wording in my amendment is not my wording; it is already in the convention. I am not trying to incorporate it into our law, because it is already incorporated. That ship has sailed, really. All I am doing is pointing out its relevance to a Bill that I perceive as seeking to restrict parental choice in various ways. To pick up on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made, I entirely respect what he said about the importance of being aware that parents may make wrong choices. The assumption built into this provision of the convention is that they are entitled to make what they consider to be good choices. Otherwise, you would take away all rights of parents altogether, if you make the assumption that they are not. On children’s rights in respect of schools, it is their parents who have chosen to send them there. That was the parental choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I want to come back on two points. First, I suggest that the analogy with the ECHR and the Human Rights Act is not a good one, because the Human Rights Act imposes duties of outcome. It requires adherence to the convention. The amendments before the Committee require “regard to”, which is a world apart from duties of outcome. Secondly, on administrative burdens, I pose this question: if it is too burdensome even to have regard to the convention, what is the point of us being a member of it?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I inferred from what the noble Baroness said that she thinks I do not believe children should have vaccines. I do. In fact, there is an active element in me that considers that we should prosecute parents who do not give their children the MMR vaccine because of the potential outcomes. I am not saying that is a policy I would adopt overnight, but it is worrying that so many children do not have the MMR. But on a broader point, I hear what the noble Baroness said, and of course that is what will be written in the HSA and in PHE, but I can assure her that I am aware that this is a primary element of trying to reduce the transmission of flu. I have no doubt that, if children get flu, it can be serious. It can be serious for any individual. That was one of the driving forces and why it is aimed in particular at children in primary schools. It is widely available and is significantly designed to reduce the transmission to adults.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

This has been an important debate on these amendments. I want to start by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is not able to be present. Her husband is not at all well. She added her name to Amendments 469 and 470. I am going to keep my comments brief. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right: I can almost see Baroness Massey on my shoulders. When I first arrived here, although she was of a different party, she immediately collared me, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and gave me a briefing on children’s rights. That was the first time I met Doreen Massey. At some stage, when we come to our senses on this, her importance on this issue will come to mind.

I also wanted to mention the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about the importance of the child being heard. For far too long, we had the old adage that children should be seen and not heard. Sadly, that filters through the whole of society in all sorts of ways. It is not just parents and public bodies. I remember my wife being heartbroken when a black boy in her secondary school was fostered by white parents. At the time it was quite rightly thought to be the case that culturally it is better if foster parents have the same heritage as the child. The boy, who was 12 or 13, was adamant that he wanted to stay with his white foster parents. Nobody listened to that boy. Nobody in the local authority, in the school or in social services listened to that boy. If we say we want to hear the voice of the child, it is a nice phrase to use, but we have to make it work in practice and it has to filter through the whole of what we do.

On the convention on human rights, I just do not understand this, and I would like a detailed letter from the Minister. It is 12 years since my noble friend Lady Walmsley and Baroness Massey talked to me about this. Why can we not follow Wales and Scotland? Let us do an impact assessment. Do we just not want to do it? Well, then let us have the honesty to say that. Or, if we do want to do it, what are the reasons why we cannot? I would like to know. Perhaps the Minister, when she replies, could tell us.

I do not have anything else to add to what has been a wide-ranging discussion. This issue is crucial, of course. The clue is in the Bill’s title, is it not? If we are talking about the children’s well-being Bill, everything that we and the Government do in legislation should look at the impact on children. That is an eminently sensible move. So, I hope Government will support Amendments 469 and 470, either now or if they are brought back on Report.

I was tempted to, as we sometimes say, respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. I am afraid I just do not agree with her comments, but perhaps now is not the time to do that. Perhaps we can have a private conversation on some of the things that, to be honest, got me quite angsty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the issue of apprenticeships is really relevant to improving the life opportunities of young people. I respect what the noble Lord, Lord Layard, has done in tabling this amendment, which is supported by many distinguished people. Noble Lords should recognise that the introduction of T-levels was intended to provide education in a more controlled atmosphere, as opposed to young people —children—going out to work, legally of course.

T-levels—which, by the way, required a ministerial direction issued by my right honourable friend Damian Hinds because they were against the advice of civil servants—are a good way of trying to make sure that young people get that opportunity without necessarily having to be forced into the world of work. I may be overinterpreting the noble Lord’s amendment.

The other issue employers face is the balance between how you treat children in your workforce and how you treat adults. In my experience at the Department for Work and Pensions, that was a key difficulty in considering how to encourage young people into work. I note that the amendment is very specific, referring to the ages of between 16 and 18.

On my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment, which would promote provision of places up to level 7, thought is being given to how young people can then qualify as solicitors and the like by embarking on this path. However, I somewhat agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey: schemes were developed that effectively skewed away from the entry roles that we still need young people to get into. Regrettably, due to the Employment Rights Bill, we are seeing fewer and fewer such opportunities for young people. It is a real worry that, despite the Government’s best intentions, we will see NEETs going up rather than down.

I support the sentiment of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Layard. I fear it will be difficult fully to put into practice exactly what he wants, but I encourage the Government to continue to do whatever they can to make it as straightforward as possible for young people to get apprenticeships and, more importantly, for employers to take young people on as apprentices.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak as a design technology teacher, a veteran of the IfATE Act, an officer of the APPG on apprenticeships and a member of the House of Lords Social Mobility Policy Committee.

I think we all agree that apprenticeships are vital to this country. It is rather sad that this subject seems to have led to a general exit from the Chamber, but I think that is more because it is lunchtime. I welcome the defence industrial strategy and its new apprenticeship and graduate clearing system, which I know BAE Systems was heavily behind. We have seen Skills England start, and we hope upon hope that it is the answer. This is an incredibly important and nuanced subject, and I am afraid I do not think these amendments are the answer.