Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Commons consider the Amendment to be unnecessary in light of existing statutory guidance about bringing a child protection plan to an end and steps already being taken to strengthen multi-agency decision making relating to child protection.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, K and K1. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school. For each, I will set out the rationale for why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I will speak first to Motion A relating to Amendment 2, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection plans for under-fives when care proceedings are initiated or a care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin, the child protection plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision.

The Ofsted inspection framework reflects this statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable. This is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded.

We expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans ending. These teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know the circumstances of the child well, so they are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children’s services should get involved only when needed, this is already provided for in the statutory framework.

Motion B relates to Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requiring that the Secretary of State delay an evaluation of the families first for children pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency child protection team measures come into force.

Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs to happen now. Delay is unacceptable. The Government will set out implementation plans covering the next phase of children’s social care reform following Royal Assent, including information about the planned pathfinder evaluation.

This summer, we expect to publish interim findings that are informing national rollout. Clause 3 also includes powers to make regulations about the functions of multi-agency child protection teams. The regulations will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and will reflect learning from the pathfinders and national reform rollout. Regulations are not expected to come into effect until 2027, but the system is rightly changing now and we must not hinder this.

I turn finally to Motion K, relating to Amendment 44, and Motion K1, relating to Amendment 44B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The amendment in lieu would require parents to obtain permission from their local authority before withdrawing their child from school for home education if their child is currently, or has ever been, the subject of care or supervision order proceedings, unless the child has since been adopted. We share the noble Baroness’s commitment to ensuring that every child is safe. However, we remain unconvinced about extending the consent requirement further. Children who are the subject of such proceedings would almost always fall within existing protections, either through a child protection plan triggering the Government’s proposed consent measure or as a looked-after child whose education is already determined by the local authority through their care plan.

We recognise concerns about children previously subject to proceedings potentially being vulnerable. That is why we have extended the consent requirement to children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years and extended the school attendance order power to these children who are already being home educated. This approach maintains the high threshold for consent to child protection action, recognises that children may be vulnerable if they are withdrawn from school within five years after a plan ends, and balances this with the reality that families can and do change.

On Report, the noble Baroness referenced the review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif. We have already amended the Bill to respond directly to its recommendations. We will pilot mandatory meetings before any child in a pilot area can be removed from school for home education, and the new power for local authorities to request to visit home-educated children in their homes will benefit the children that the noble Baroness is most concerned about. Importantly, our wider children’s social care measures also strengthen information sharing, improve early preventive support, create new multi-agency child protection teams and strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. It is for these reasons that the Government disagree with these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I thank the Minister in her absence for the meetings we have had away from your Lordships’ Chamber. Clearly, protecting our young people is close to all our hearts and is something that we will keep a watching brief on. We have looked at the Government’s proposals. Early on, when I arrived at your Lordships’ House, I worked with the Children’s Commissioner and a briefing was sent to all noble Lords in June last year about something I was trying to bring forward on Report to try to make young people’s lives better. On that occasion, I failed to convince noble Lords on both the main two Benches and, as we live in a democracy, I chose not to pursue that.

I wish the Government well with their intentions. Clearly, as the opposition here—the smaller opposition—our duty will be to continue to hold the Government to account on the reassurances they have given us in briefings and, more importantly, on what they have written to us both from your Lordships’ House and the other place. These Benches are not minded to oppose what the Government are proposing, but we are putting them on notice that we will continue to watch the progress and we wish this Bill well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments regarding Motion A and the commitment to strengthen statutory guidance, and for the publication of interim findings in relation to Motion B for the multi-agency child protection teams. To the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I say that there are multiple pathfinders, and the one to which he referred—the one he was worried that my amendment might delay—was a different pathfinder from the one to which my amendment referred. It is easy to be confused with so many paths going on.

I turn to my Motion K1, and again acknowledge that the Government have done the right thing by introducing a new power for local authorities to withhold consent to home-educate a child where there are significant safeguarding concerns. Noble Lords know that we spent time testing the limits of what these concerns might be, in Committee and on Report, to ensure that they are proportionate. That has been informed in part by the tragic death of Sara Sharif, whose father took her out of school.

As we heard, in response to our debates, the Government broadened their initial definition of children who are eligible. Then, on Report, we tested the appetite of the House for a much wider scope, but this was rejected in the other place. Last night we all received a letter from Ministers that covered the response to the Sara Sharif safeguarding practice review. I have read the letter several times. I find it extraordinary that, although I explained to the Minister on Monday that my amendment would simply cover children who had been in the care system, there is no mention of those children or my amendment anywhere in the letter—unless I missed it. Either officials and Ministers do not understand the significance of care proceedings, which I find very hard to believe—particularly of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today—or there is no political will to engage with this subject. I feel uncomfortable saying this in the House but, reading the letter, that is what it feels like. Either way, it is a very unfortunate oversight.

As the Minister knows, in the hierarchy of safeguarding, the greatest concern is for children who are in care or care proceedings, where the state judges that they cannot stay safely with their birth parents. These children are at greater risk than those on a child protection plan, but the Bill as currently drafted, and the Government’s rejection of my amendment to the Motion, leaves this specific gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, you could have two children: one who was returned to their parents three years ago, having been in care, and another who came off a child protection plan three years ago. If the parents of both children want to take them out of school, the local authority cannot have a say on the first child, but it can on the second. I am guessing that the Minister does not feel entirely comfortable about that.

When the Minister says that almost all children will fall within existing proceedings, that is almost all children except Sara Sharif. Sara Sharif was on a child protection plan at birth, but she was never on a child protection plan again and there were two sets of failed care proceedings. She is precisely the child we should all be thinking about this evening.

I will finish by quoting the Secretary of State, who made a Statement on 13 November last year when the safeguarding practice review was published. She said:

“The whole country remembers with profound sadness the tragic murder of Sara Sharif by her father and stepmother in August 2023. Aged just 10 years old, the unimaginable cruelty of Sara’s death at the hands of those who should have been her first and brightest source of love and care shocked us all … The introduction of compulsory children not in school registers will empower local authorities to better identify children who need support and protection, as will the accompanying duties on parents of eligible children and out-of-school education providers”.


I emphasise the following:

“The measures will ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/25; col. 31WS.]


Outside this place, people will judge us not by what we said but by what we did. Let us be crystal-clear: without my amendment, these measures will not ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests. When the next serious case review happens—and sadly it will—I hope the House will remember this debate and the chance we had to do the right thing tonight by supporting my amendment when we come to vote later.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I am exceptionally grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I recognise the commitment and contribution they have all made during the passage of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for not pursuing any of the points further, as he said.

To address the main points raised, as I said in my opening speech, I fully recognise the importance of what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve with Amendment 2 on the discharge of child protection plans. I hope I have provided reassurance that, although the statutory framework already requires robust multi-agency oversight of child protection plans, we will strengthen expectations for reasons to be recorded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

The Minister needs to respond.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I cannot express my sadness enough about the issues that the noble Baroness raises, but I am seeking to reassure her and the House that the provisions we are bringing in will be sufficient as we move forward. That is the issue. I think the Minister she referred to from the conversation on Monday was the Minister in the other place, not me. I am sorry that she is not satisfied with the letter, but I know that he went into meticulous detail and I am confident that he responded.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am sorry, but the meticulous detail in the letter did not refer anywhere to children in care or those who had been in care proceedings. It referred to my previous amendment and children who were classified as being in need. I will let the noble Baroness progress.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Perhaps if I continue with my comments, the noble Baroness can intervene if appropriate.

I reassure all noble Lords that the child would almost certainly be caught by the Government’s proposed consent measure due to a child protection plan, or by being a looked-after child, and therefore education provision would be a matter for the local authority to decide. Family hubs also provide support through targeted multidisciplinary support for vulnerable children. However, I want to reassure noble Lords that, as we move into implementation of the policy, we will continue to engage with noble Lords. Should it become clear that the proposal to extend consent to children who are currently, or were historically, the subject of care or supervision orders or proceedings would strengthen the policy substantially and improve protection for this wider group of children, we would, of course, be open to considering how it could be delivered.

Where a care or supervision order is no longer in place, and the child was not subject to a current protection plan or had not been in the last five years, it would be appropriate to require consent. Children who have returned home after a care or supervision order are already supervised by the local authority, and where the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, child protection plans apply. The information-sharing duty included in the Bill will make sure agencies are talking to each other when there are concerns about a child, ensuring appropriate escalation. Using historic Section 31 orders as a blanket trigger could unfairly brand families long after risks have reduced.

The independent review into Sara’s death was clear that there were long-term, broader multi-agency failings that resulted in Sara not receiving the level of protection she needed. Extending the consent requirement to all children who are ever subject to supervision order proceedings was not actually a recommendation of the review. Instead, it highlighted the need for stronger multi-agency practice, information sharing, early identification of risk and better decision-making. Those are exactly the reforms that this Bill delivers. Of course, for further reassurance, we will include specific sign-off of child protection plans for children entering proceedings, in consultation with multi-agency child protection team regulations.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her contribution on the matter of evidence for multi-agency child protection teams. I hope she is now reassured and that I have set out how the findings from the independent Families First for Children pathfinder evaluation will be used and shared. We are also confident that there is strong evidence from evaluations on multi-agency safeguarding hubs, strengthening families and supporting families programmes and youth offending teams, which all demonstrate how effectively multi-agency working improves outcomes for children. Most importantly, I remind the House once more that the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means there is already adequate provision in place for parliamentary scrutiny ahead of the regulations coming into force.

On Motion K1, which would expand the home education consent requirement, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. The Government are committed to ensuring that every child receives a safe, suitable education. The Bill’s current requirements strike the right balance, extending them to all children who have ever been the subject of care or supervision proceedings. They would capture children already benefiting from appropriate checks and would not risk indefinitely stigmatising families who have made sustainable changes. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, but, having worked with families in this space, I can say that this is an issue. Stigmatisation is a very real thing for many families.

I recognise, of course, concerns that the current consent requirement would not have prevented Sara Sharif being removed from school. However, the home education measures are one part of the system that safeguards children, and we have also made significant changes to reform and strengthen child protection in the Bill. The Bill strengthens the wider children’s social care system and the children not in school measures, which directly responds to some of the recommendations and adds targeted safeguards where children can become less visible. Of course, I recognise the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that home-educated parents very often have a great deal to offer from their experience in this area.

In closing, I urge noble Lords to resist Motion K1 and I commend Motion A.

Motion A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.

16A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion C and shall speak also to Motions D, E, F and F1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, sibling contact, regional co-operation arrangements and deprivation of liberty. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I will speak to Motion C, relating to Amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerning a proposed review of the per-child funding level for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Government have confirmed £55 million for the support fund in 2026-27, with continuation into 2027-28. A 12-week public consultation on adoption support is under way, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses. We therefore cannot accept this.

Motion D relates to Amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, the amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities. There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between a looked-after child and any sibling with whom they are not living. This is why the Government do not support this amendment.

Instead, we propose Amendment 17B in lieu, to add siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations on local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole, half and step-siblings where this is consistent with their welfare: a duty that already exists for contact been children in care and their parents. I acknowledge Liberal Democrat Peers’ constructive engagement, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and acknowledge in the other place the honourable Member for South Shields, Emma Lewell. Both have tirelessly campaigned for many years on the importance of relationships for children in care, and I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment.

Motion E relates to Amendment 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. This amendment seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that health partners play a vital role in improving outcomes for looked-after children. However, existing duties under Sections 10 and 16E, 16G and 16J of the Children Act 2004 already require local authorities to co-operate with relevant partners, including ICBs, to promote children’s well-being. These duties will continue to apply to authorities entering into regional co-operation agreements. Following helpful discussions on Report, and with the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, it is clear that these duties could be implemented more consistently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, we very much welcome the Government’s amendment in relation to sibling contact and hope very much it makes a tangible difference in practice. I will speak briefly to my Motion F1, which relates to how we can provide the highest-quality care for the most vulnerable children: those who are deprived of their liberty. As we have already debated, this must involve the local authority and the integrated care board.

The Minister will be very familiar with the difficulty of getting health to the table, even if the door is often held wide open by the local authority. But of course the cost of them not being there is borne by children, whose cases end up being repeatedly delayed because of disputes between health and social care as to who is responsible, who are moved from placement to placement without any join-up, and who attend emergency services without up-to-date information about their needs. My amendment would go some way to addressing this.

However, I am encouraged by the Minister’s promise—which is what I wrote down in very large letters, anyway—that the integrated care board involvement would be “locked in from the outset”. If that is what the Government are going to do, and if the Government are going to create some innovation funding opportunities to see true integrated work between health and social care, then I am grateful to the Government and look forward to following how that develops in practice.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her comments, and also say that I am totally confident she will keep a good check on how this goes forward. I am very appreciative of her role.

The Government recognise the vital role of adopters and kinship carers and the need for timely, appropriate support. That is why we are continuing to fund the adoption and special guardianship support. The department is also consulting widely on the future of adoption support, with over 600 responses received already and consultation events planned after Easter. Therefore, with the ongoing work, we do not believe a further review is necessary.

I note all of the comments from around the Chamber recognising the importance of the work we have done in adding siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act. I am sure that makes the Government’s commitment absolutely clear and I very much welcome the support of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We are committed to best practice in helping children to see their siblings; it is a huge step forward for the experience of so many young people.

I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for highlighting through his Amendment 19 the importance of health involvement in the creation of regional co-operation arrangements. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I was very fortunate in having very good relationships with health colleagues, and I know through that the potential of when we get it right. I fully agree that integrated care boards need to move forward. The statutory mechanisms will be strengthened through the detailed guidance we will publish, alongside the expression of interest for the next wave of regional care co-operatives. I reiterate that this will require relevant ICBs to state their commitment as we go forward. I hope that gives noble Lords the reassurance they require. A financial incentive is an excellent way of moving forward. Therefore, we do not believe the amendment is required.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A, and do propose Amendment 17B in lieu—

17A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.

17B: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Sibling contact with children in care
In section 34 of the Children Act 1989 (parental contact etc. with children in care)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(ii) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “; and
(e) any brother or sister (whether of the whole or half blood) or step-brother or step-sister (whether by marriage or civil partnership) of the child.”;
(b) in subsection (4), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”;
(c) in subsection (8), in paragraph (za), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.

19A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of existing arrangements that ensure local authorities work together with integrated care boards in discharging functions for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.

Motions D and E agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 21A.

21A: Because the Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion F1 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 42, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 42A.

42A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 41 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.

Motion J agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 44, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 44A.

44A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K. I beg to move.

Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.

102A: Because the Amendment imposes inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to determine school admission numbers under clause 56 and the clause already provides for regulations to make provision about the matters the adjudicator must consider when making a determination about a school’s admission number.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.

Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)

[Baroness Barran]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 102.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 105, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 105A, and do propose Amendments 105B and 105C in lieu—

105A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.


105B: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—


“Allergy safety policy for pupils at schools

After section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 insert—


“100A Allergy safety policy


(1) The arrangements made under section 100 by the appropriate authority for a school to which that section applies must include an allergy safety policy.


(2) An “allergy safety policy” is a policy for the management of allergies affecting pupils at the school (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).


(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about matters that must be covered in an allergy safety policy.


(4) The appropriate authority—


(a) must, at least once every year, review the school’s allergy safety policy;


(b) must make such changes to the policy as it considers appropriate following a review.


(5) The appropriate authority must publicise the school’s allergy safety policy in the form of a written document by—


(a) making the policy generally known within the school and to parents of pupils at the school,


(b) taking steps, at least once a year, to bring the policy to the attention of all pupils at the school and parents and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment), and


(c) publishing the policy on the school’s website.


(6) In meeting the duties under this section, the appropriate authority must have particular regard to guidance issued for the purposes of section 100(2) that relates to the management of allergies (including anaphylaxis) in schools.


(7) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.


100B Regulations about allergy safety


(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose duties on specified persons in connection with the management of allergies affecting pupils at schools to which section 100 applies (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).


(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision about—


(a) the keeping of, and access to, medicinal products and medical devices on school premises and at other places where pupils at a school are under the lawful control or charge of a member of the staff of the school;


(b) procedures for identifying, and managing risks to, pupils with allergies;


(c) provision of training on the recognition and management of allergies for teaching staff, non-teaching staff, persons providing catering services at the school and such other persons as may be specified;


(d) recording and reporting of incidents.


(3) Regulations under this section may require the appropriate authority for a school to which section 100 applies to designate a specified person to have responsibility for specified matters.


(4) A person on whom a duty is imposed by regulations under this section must, in meeting the duty, have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.


(5) In this section—


“appropriate authority for a school” has the same meaning as in section 100;


“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.


(6) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.”


(2) In section 342 of the Education Act 1996 (approval of non-maintained special schools), after subsection (5) insert—


“(5ZA) Regulations made by virtue of subsections (2) and (4)(a) must impose—


(a) a requirement for an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) to be in place at a school,


(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and


(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),


and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.”


(3) In section 94 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (independent educational institution standards), after subsection (3A) (inserted by section 37(2)(b) of this Act) insert—


“(3B) Standards prescribed by virtue of subsection (1)(c) must include standards that have the effect of imposing—


(a) a requirement to secure that an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) is in place at independent educational institutions,


(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and


(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),


and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.””


105C: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about allergy safety in schools;”

Motion M agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 106A.

106A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of the existing guidance about mobile phones in schools.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.

Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)

[Baroness Barran]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 106.”