Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

These cost-cutting government targets are a good thing. Targets can galvanise. That is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made. They need to be clear and measurable, and the basic targets are measured anyway. These figures are available and we are clear what we mean by “deep poverty” and “living in poverty”. Those definitions are out there and have been out there. You can get on and understand them. At a high level, these could actually be very useful in just pressing forward. The Government, if this is what they want to do, ought to put some measurement in place, as other noble Lords have said.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is a warrior and passionate advocate for the unemployed and the poor.

I have a slightly different take on this. Yes, targets and strategies are important, but how often do we say that we will sort this issue out by establishing targets and strategies? Actually, what is important is doing something. It is no good just agreeing a target or strategy; it is about doing things, having policies and carrying out actions which make a real difference.

I am quite ashamed that we live in the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world, yet only the other day, the LGIU published information which said that, even with breakfast clubs and free school meals, teachers are increasingly feeding and clothing their pupils when they come to school. The fifth or sixth-richest country in the world and we are doing that. I am ashamed that there are a million young people not in a job, employment or training. That cannot be right in the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world. We need to take actions.

I congratulate the Government on doing away with the two-child benefit cap. That is an action which will make a huge difference. Some of the other policies that Governments quite rightly trot out, such as introducing breakfast clubs or doing this on clothing, are important but are not the big things that will make a difference to child poverty.

In the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world, it is also frightening to realise that 21% of adults live in poverty. So, it has to be—I hate using the word, but I will do it—a holistic approach. It is about making sure that people have jobs. If you have a well-paid, proper job, that helps your family and children. If you have a decent house, not with mould, damp or whatever it is, that helps your child, family and self-esteem. If you have decent schools, as the Bill is trying build on the work of the previous Government, that is life-changing as well.

So let us see actions: not more targets or strategy, but something happening.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his relentless focus on tackling poverty through the Big Issue and Big Issue Invest, investing in social enterprises, social purpose businesses and charities trying to end poverty and reduce inequality in the UK.

Your Lordships’ House is united in its determination to address child poverty and the range of complex issues that drive it. While we fully recognise the firm intent behind this amendment, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition retain a number of reservations, which we shared in Committee. We unequivocally hold a desire to reduce child poverty, but the issue is deeply complex. We have concerns that legally binding targets determined by central government risk overlooking the local and regional variances in the causality and the experiences of child poverty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, highlighted in Committee, the pursuit of targets can often shift the focus on to particular statistics rather than people’s lived experiences. Central government must be able to adapt to ever developing needs and realities, in addition to enabling local authorities and organisations—which are often better placed to understand these esoteric local challenges—to act accordingly.

We will therefore welcome seeing the details of the Government’s child poverty strategy when it is published in the autumn, including new monitoring and evaluation arrangements to track progress, which, with the right strategy for delivery, should yield results. We once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his dedication to this vital issue. While we cannot support the amendment directly, we strongly welcome the intentions behind it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

108: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Action to promote the wellbeing of children in relation to harms-based access to social mediaIn section 11 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (children’s risk assessment duties), after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Providers of regulated user-to-user services that are likely to be accessed by children, including such services as are designated by OFCOM as social media services for the purposes of this section, must submit as part of the children’s risk assessment a proposed minimum age of access to their service.(6B) The default and expected minimum age for access to a social media platform shall be 16 years.(6C) OFCOM must publish guidance defining the types of service to be treated as social media services for the purposes of subsection (6A).(6D) Providers of regulated user-to-user services that are likely to be accessed by children and social media services designated for the purposes of this section must keep the proposed minimum age of access under review and must re-evaluate it—(a) at such regular intervals as may be specified by OFCOM; and(b) where there is any substantial change to the service’s design, functionality, algorithms, business practices, or risk profile. (6E) Where the minimum age of access is set at 16 or below, providers must use a form of age assurance that is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not a particular user is of age to use the service.(6F) A provider may propose a minimum age of access above or below 16 where it—(a) can offer sufficient evidence that it 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.(6G) In assessing a proposed minimum age under this section, Ofcom must have regard to—(a) the children’s risk assessment submitted by the provider;(b) Ofcom’s existing risk and harms framework under this Act;(c) the potential impact of the service on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children;(d) the extent to which the service’s design, functionalities, or features may encourage addictive or compulsive use; and(e) the use of algorithms for content recommendation, amplification, or targeted advertising.(6H) Ofcom must produce guidance setting out—(a) the evidential requirements for children’s risk assessments relating to minimum age determinations;(b) the criteria by which Ofcom will assess whether a service’s minimum age is appropriate; and(c) the intervals at which minimum age assessments must be reviewed.(6I) Where Ofcom determines, having regard to the matters in subsection (6G), that a proposed minimum age is insufficient to protect children from harm, it may require the provider to apply a higher minimum age of access, provided that the minimum age does not exceed 18 years.(6J) Ofcom will take enforcement action in relation to this section where—(a) the provider has failed to submit a suitable or sufficiently up-to-date children’s risk assessment;(b) the evidence submitted does not sufficiently justify the provider’s proposed minimum age;(c) the provider has failed to comply with a requirement imposed by OFCOM under subsection (6I); or(d) the provider has failed to introduce age assurance that is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not a particular user is of age to use the service.(6K) Where Ofcom considers that a failure to comply with a requirement under subsection (6I) presents an urgent and significant risk of harm to children, it may apply directly for a business disruption order under this Act.”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would take a harms-based approach to user-to-user regulation, meaning that children’s access to platforms would be based on the level of risk of harm attached to said platform.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

We on these Benches are strongly committed to safeguarding children and protecting them from the risks of the online world. As we recall, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, proposed an amendment that was a straightforward ban on social media. The Government are proposing a three-month big conversation, from which we will, perhaps, come together and agree a way forward.

On these Benches, however, we believe that it is not as simple as that. A blanket ban is not that easy. We think that some aspects of social media are very important for young people and very supportive of young people. Rather than a blanket ban, we would want to see the dangerous elements of social media banned.

Of course, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was carried. It will come back at ping-pong. I hope that will be the opportunity—I promise to come to every meeting—for the parties to come together and agree a way forward. In the meantime, we on these Benches would like to test the opinion of the House on our Amendment 108.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 117, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and Amendment 119, which was so powerfully and scarily introduced by my noble friend Baroness Boycott.

These clauses came from a very real attempt by the Government to limit parents’ spending at a time when the cost of living is so high. I spoke at great length at Second Reading and in Committee about how important school uniforms are. I talked about a 14 year-old girl whom I taught and most of whose pregnancy was hidden by her blazer. It is important, particularly for girls, that changing shapes are hidden during school. It promotes equality and unity.

Amendment 117 is particularly good about sport. I remember the first time we were given a full kit with all our numbers on it in Dyson Perrins CofE high school’s under-15 rugby side. It made us feel unbeatable—until we got beaten. Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, we need to make sure that they are not going to poison us. Local businesses often sponsor kits for local football teams; it seems churlish and idiotic not to accept it.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I speak briefly in support of Amendment 114. Throughout my teaching career, I taught in the most deprived communities on Merseyside, and I always observed that the parents with the least were the ones who took the greatest pride in how their children were attired. I pay huge tribute to them.

I understand where the Government are coming from on this: uniforms cost a lot. However, as I said in Committee, this is not the way to do it. There are so many “ands”, “ifs” and “buts”. For example, a uniform in the school colours that consists of a kilt, a braided blazer and a jumper can cost a fortune compared to five items that are simply branded. It is quite difficult to know how to move forward, but the old way of doing it was probably better, whereby you could obtain a uniform grant, and many local authorities still do that.

We all share the same goal of making school uniforms affordable for every family, but good intentions without practical wisdom can lead us precisely where we do not wish to go. I fear that if we are faced with a three-item cap, this could happen. Let me speak plainly about what happens when policy meets the playground. The Schoolwear Association tells us that 85% of retailers believe schools will drop branded PE kits entirely to avoid breaching the cap. When that happens, families do not suddenly pay less; they pay more. They turn to Nike or Adidas, the commercial brands that cost nearly double what specialist school suppliers charge. An £11 school PE top becomes a £20 branded alternative.

It gets worse. Schools in the West Midlands are already dropping particular sports from the curriculum because the new guidance prevents them having school-specific sport kits for those activities. One school that was mentioned in the Times last week has adopted as its school kit “casual sportswear”. As I say, that is not really a school uniform, but it is very expensive to wear, and no doubt the branded sports kit as a school uniform—albeit three items—can be far more expensive than a five-item school uniform.

We risk pricing children out of sport entirely, not through expensive uniforms but through their absence. The child whose parents cannot afford the expensive commercial kit will become the one left on the sidelines. The very children we seek to protect become more visible in their disadvantage, not less.

We have learnt, sometimes painfully, that good legislation must be workable legislation. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, offers us a different approach, one that focuses on actual cost rather than arbitrary numbers. It gives schools clarity about what they can require families to spend, while allowing children the opportunity to be in branded clothing.

I am also in favour of the very important amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. My only observation is that many clothing items of course come from China, and it would be difficult to get the Chinese Government to stop child labour, never mind putting chemicals into items, but it is an issue that we as a society should certainly look towards.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, we have listened with interest to the valuable contributions during this debate, and we thank all noble Lords who have both spoken to and tabled amendments in this group.

Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to fulfil the Government’s commitment to lowering the cost of school uniforms, but by a monetary cap rather than a limit on branded items. The principle of focusing on the actual cost to families, rather than on the number of branded items, underlines His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s support for both this amendment and for Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Both these amendments seek to address the real issue at the centre of the Government’s concern: bringing down the cost of school uniforms.

It surely makes sense that items provided or loaned free of charge to a pupil should be excluded from the restriction on branded items, on the basis that this imposes no financial burden on families and gives schools greater flexibility, while acknowledging that they already try to help pupils where possible.

I turn to Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which seeks to extend the VAT zero rating for certain items of pupils’ school uniform to the age of 16. As was noted in Committee, children’s clothing and footwear designed for children under 14 years of age already attracts a zero rate of VAT if they meet specific conditions. We would therefore be grateful to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to address the issue of raising the zero VAT threshold from 14 to 16, which would address noble Lords’ concerns.

Amendment 119, in the name of my noble kinswoman Lady Boycott, seeks to prohibit school uniform items which contain PFAS chemicals. Amendment 119A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, similarly requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the health implications of school uniforms. While existing guidance asks schools to consider sustainability and ethical supply chains, my noble kinswoman is entirely correct: we must also consider health concerns. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about what work the Government will commit to when undertaking these many important issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, new Section 434A(6)(b)(i) asks the local authority to consider

“that it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school”.

But no child attends school: they attend a school. They might attend the school where the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, works—fine—or they might go to the school depicted in episode 2 of “Adolescence”. That would have me hoicking my child out in a millisecond, and there are a lot of schools like that.

My noble friend’s Amendment 175ZD is therefore an important potential addition to the Bill. There should not be a presumption that any school is better than any home education, but that is where we are heading with this bit of the Bill. We are putting a duty on local authorities to judge and giving them the presumption that the child should be put into school. It is like buying IBM when I was young: it is the safe choice. If local authorities allow someone to be home educated, they are taking all the risks on themselves, but if they chuck the child into school, any school, there are no risks. So all the emphasis on how a local authority officer should behave is focused on pushing a child into school, whatever the circumstances.

That is a deep fault in the Bill, and Amendment 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is the right solution to it. There should be some court oversight of the judgment of local authorities, otherwise there is a complete imbalance. We know how local authorities behave; they drive into the easy answers because that is life—I only have 70 years’ experience of it. Going for the safe answer is the natural, human thing to do, and you are asking a huge amount of a local authority to expect it to stand up against that. We must produce a countervailing force somewhere in the Bill. I would choose Amendment 122 from the amendments on offer, and I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of moving in that direction.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we have come a long way on the issue of home education and safeguarding. I want to start by thanking the Minister for her comments at the beginning of this group. I was also taken with the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, who reminded us that education is compulsory, but schooling is not. We want all our learning and education, whether it is in school or at home, to be the best that can be provided. We want our schools to be safe and we want children who are home educated to be safe.

I remind the House of where we currently stand. Any parent can take their child out of school just like that: no notification or form-filling, they just take their child out. They take them to their home and apparently, hopefully, maybe or definitely home educate them—we do not know. There are some parents who are absolutely determined that their children get the best home education that they can give them. However, we also have situations at the other extreme, where, for example, unregistered fundamentalist religious schools have been closed down. They home educate children in small groups, because they are allowed to, and nobody knows what is going on in those schools. That cannot be and is not right.

You can have a home educator who brings people in to enthuse and inspire; you can have home educators who link up with other home educators and organise summer camps or particular field trips. That is wonderful. However, at the other end, you can have a home education system where an individual is brought in to teach the children who might, for example, be a paedophile, and we would never know, because there are no safeguarding requirements. That is not the way that our education system should work. Our children, whether they are at home or in school, should be safeguarded and properly taught. They should learn and be inspired, enthused et cetera.

I am of conscious of three amendments that are really important. I like the idea—although that is the wrong word—of Amendment 125 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I want to see us move more and more to where home educators regard local authorities not as interferers but as people who can support and work with them. One of the things that we need to understand is why parents want to home educate, and, if they choose to go down that route, how we can support and help them. A pilot scheme, where we have a conversation with parents before they go down the route of home education, is not interfering, bullying or suggesting that they do not do it, but listening to the concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support my noble friend’s Amendment 157A. One of the fundamental things that can come out of this register is proper information for Parliament on what is happening in home education, and I very much hope that we will receive that.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I hope I will be able to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on YouTube. Was it a goose, did he say?

Our creative industries are hugely important to this country—we are world leaders—and children and young people play a huge part in their success. One of my ex-pupils, Josh Bolt, was a regular on “Last Tango in Halifax” and, sadly, “Benidorm”; I know that the schooling side worked for Josh.

We are so lucky to have in this House people who have real expertise in particular areas. Obviously, the noble Baroness brings it in relation to the performing arts sector, so we have to listen with great care to what she says. During the coalition, we promised a review— I think PACT was involved—and that decision in 2014 needs to be looked at again. If young people are acting or performing, we need to ensure that they are safeguarded and that their education is there. We also need to ensure that the system does not prohibit them making a valuable contribution, not least to their own career development. I hope the Minister will say some warm and wise words on those amendments.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Minister always says warm and wise words—well, some of the time.

--- Later in debate ---

The regulations that are in force, from exam boards and the council for qualifications, and, on the human rights side of things, the way local authorities operate are not meshed well to deliver this. There is a lot of good will but no impetus. My suggestion to the Government is that the logical consequence of the Bill, where we are saying that we want home educators to reach a standard but we are then denying them the ability to do that in any sensible way, is that we put some impetus behind solving this problem. We will get there; it will not be hugely expensive, but it needs the Government to set the direction.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support the very important amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. It would be very easy to say, “You chose to be home-educated, so you go with the fees and everything involved”, but we are talking about children and young people here. We are talking about their future and, whether they are home-educated or taught in a school, they deserve the best possible opportunities.

We started today’s sitting on Report with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about targets and about children in poverty, basically, and not all children who are home-educated are from posh, middle-class situations. Many of them are from deprived communities, from working-class communities, and they need support in two ways. One is that they need help in terms of access to exam centres and doing their exams and, secondly, they need some finance. If we really want to start this new dawn of partnership with local authorities and home educators working together, what a wonderful way to start that off by making a real positive gesture. The Government talk all the time, quite rightly, about how important it is to give all children and young people opportunities. They talk about developing skills. Well, if they do not have the opportunities because they do not have the money or cannot access an exam, they are just wasted.

My final point is that I have often thought that, if all those children who are home-educated suddenly went back to school en bloc, it would cost the state hundreds of millions of pounds. So, come on: for a few pence the Government could actually make a real gesture to these families, and that would be the start of a new relationship, a new dawn.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of the view that the government amendments seem entirely reasonable, and we therefore support them. While we understand the intentions behind the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, we cannot support them. These issues were addressed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I will not repeat those arguments on Report.

Similarly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, we believe that local authorities simply do not have the capacity right now to be committing new funding, however small. So, while we understand the noble Lord’s intentions, we cannot support his amendment, but we welcome the opportunity to hear the response from the Government on the critical issues highlighted by all noble Lords thus far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I do not read this amendment in the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, does, but I will come to that. I start with renewed thanks to the Minister for the time that she and her officials have given to me and thanks to the right reverend Prelate for tabling this amendment.

This Bill exemplifies how we are setting clear expectations of the standards that we should set for people who choose to educate their children outside the school system. We should not be ashamed of that. This is an honourable and right thing to do. My main answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is that, if they are not achieving home education, they are in trouble. There must be home education which is up to the standard we think it should be. If not, it will be in contravention of this Bill.

However, that does not appear to be the problem, at least with the Haredi communities that I have been in correspondence with. We have principles—and they have principles—about how children should be educated. The Prime Minister and others in government have made much of their respect and care for our Jewish communities. It would not be consistent with those statements to tip hundreds of families within the Haredi community into conflict with the state and courts without doing our best to reconcile their views on education and ours.

However, tipping them into conflict is what this Bill in its raw form does, as the Government’s own impact statement accepts. The Haredi community, for all the differences between its ancient traditions and our secular ways, is entirely worthy of our care and respect. It is law-abiding. It makes a positive contribution to our economy. Its children lead productive and fulfilling lives. There is clearly a lot of good going on.

We should therefore step back from the punitive approach that this Bill allows for and enter a process of building a mutual understanding. What does Haredi education achieve in practice? What exactly are their religious red lines? What aspects of Haredi education do we want to see improved? What is the best way of getting that? We have clearly put the Haredi community, or substantial parts of it, in a state of fear. The Government are pushing through this Bill unamended, asking the Haredi community to trust in the department’s good will to devise regulations it will be able to work with. This surely is the time for a clear statement from the Minister that the Government are committed to reaching an outcome that allows both sets of principles to be observed.

I understood from the officials we met that yeshivas to be regulated as IEIs under this Bill are not to be expected to provide the whole of a child’s education. This is most welcome and a cornerstone of eventual agreement. Yeshivas provide religious education; their children’s general education is provided through the elective home education system and should be held to the same standards as we are holding all elective home education to. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that understanding.

Discussion will throw up some areas of fundamental agreement, such as safeguarding, where the focus will be on getting the mechanisms right, and other areas of deep disagreement. We should be determined to resolve those disagreements. My limited experience of listening to the Haredi community and my long experience of listening to the DfE gives me a lot of confidence that we will see a positive outcome for both parties. We should set a reasonable timescale for this process. A couple of years, as discussed with officials at our most recent meeting, will be a period long enough not to cramp discussion and short enough for it to be clear that those discussions must reach a conclusion. We should involve all the main strands of Haredi thought. The DfE has been here before in successfully setting up an elective home education working group in an environment of strong and diverse opinions. Such a working group would build confidence within the Haredi community that it was heard and understood. A Minister should be involved, as some of the questions to be resolved clearly require the application of ministerial judgment.

We should understand the depth of our misunderstandings. We find it hard, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, illustrated, to believe that children will have the energy and focus for a good general education if the school day is full of religious studies. But as the right reverend Prelate said, they do not return home to their devices, computer games and all the other things that distract our children; they lead a much more focused life—they clearly do. If you look at the outcomes, the people they grow up to be, they clearly do absorb, very effectively, a good, broad general education. If we express our wishes in terms of the results we desire, not in terms of structures created for other purposes, I believe that we will build mutual understanding and trust. We should listen to the Haredi community’s exposition of its principles and explore how those principles can be upheld, at the same time as we uphold ours. I very much hope that the Minister will, in her reply, commit her Government to such a course.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, faith schools play an important part in our country’s education and are to be valued, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, rightly said, we also believe that all children should have access to a broad and balanced curriculum. If we accommodate changes for one religious faith group, that should be available to any faith group or religious group that wants the same. We have, as a country, probably created one of the most successful multicultural, multifaith communities in the world. We should cherish that, but we should also be aware of the dangers that potentially lie ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a quick question for the Minister on Amendment 184, which she described towards the end of her speech. I agree with the purpose of this and most of the details, but I am not quite sure what is meant by “excluded material” or “special procedure material”. Is that anything to do with data protection? If it is an unregistered school, would the inspector be able to go in and seize, copy or have access to a register or pupil progress file without having to go and get a warrant? If they gain access and then have to go and get a warrant before they can see the register or the pupil progress information, they are not going to be able to do their job effectively—but that hangs on what is meant by “special procedure material” and “excluded material”. Does that include things such as school registers?

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has taken the words out of my mouth. This is an issue that I have felt strongly about for a number of years. I know from talking to Ofsted that one of the barriers has always been getting the evidence. I presume that the Minister has had detailed discussions with Ofsted and that, as a result, this wording fulfils what needs to be done. I hope the Minister will confirm that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening to the concerns that we raised on this side, both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House, about the scope of Clause 40. We feel that it is much improved and are grateful to the Government for listening.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Perhaps I could come back to my noble friend Lady Morris on the details of that particular question; I am sorry that I cannot respond to it now.

I welcome the welcome provided to the Government’s amendments in this group. I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that we have had extensive discussions with Ofsted about the provisions we are proposing here to make sure they enable Ofsted to do what this Bill is strengthening its ability to do.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

When the Minister gets back to her noble friend, could she also copy us in with that information? It would be quite useful to understand as well.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will, as I think is normal when I write to noble Lords about issues that have come up in the debates, copy in anybody that fancies it and probably place a copy in the Library as well for good measure.