Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Young of Acton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Acton]

207: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to keep schools open for in person attendance(1) So far as reasonably possible, public authorities must ensure that, during the period of any civil emergency, schools are kept open for in person attendance by children and young people.(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision about how public authorities should discharge the duty under subsection (1), including provision specifying—(a) steps that a public authority may or must take to comply with the duty, and(b) actions that a public authority is prohibited from taking.(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) A power to make regulations under this section includes the power to make—(a) consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes.(6) A public authority must not, in response to a civil emergency, take or facilitate any action (including making regulations, issuing directions, issuing orders, giving guidance, or making recommendations) that—(a) results in, or encourages, the closure of schools, or(b) otherwise prevents or restricts lawful attendance at such institutions or premises by children and young people,unless the requirements of subsection (7) are met.(7) Before taking any action of the kind described in subsection (6), the public authority must first, unless the urgency of the civil emergency precludes this—(a) request the advice of the Children’s Commissioner on the likely impact of such action on the children and young people who will be affected by the action,(b) provide the Children’s Commissioner with full and complete information about the nature of and reasons for the proposed action, and(c) have due regard to the Children’s Commissioner’s advice in determining whether to proceed with the action.(8) If any action of the kind described in subsection (6) is taken prior to seeking the advice of the Children’s Commissioner due to urgency—(a) as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within seven days of taking the action, the public authority must provide the Children’s Commissioner with full and complete information about the nature of and reasons for that action;(b) the Children’s Commissioner must then promptly, and in any event within 14 days of the action having been taken, provide the public authority with its advice in relation to the impact of that action on children and young people;(c) the public authority, having due regard to the Commissioner’s advice, shall determine whether the action continues to be justified or whether it should be revoked.(9) If action of the kind described in subsection (6) continues beyond 14 days, and in relation to each such period of 14 days thereafter, the Secretary of State must—(a) lay before Parliament a copy of the Children’s Commissioner’s advice, and(b) seek approval from both Houses of Parliament for the continuation of the action.(10) If Parliament does not approve continuation under subsection (9)(b) within 14 days of the advice of the Children’s Commissioner being laid before Parliament under subsection 9(a), the relevant action automatically lapses, and any measures (including regulations, directions, orders, guidance, or recommendations made in support of or continuance of the relevant action) become legally void.(11) Where under any of the above provisions the advice of the Children’s Commissioner is sought, the Children’s Commissioner shall set out in writing his or her advice on the following matters—(a) the foreseeable impacts of any closures of schools on the affected children and young people,(b) any reasonable actions that could be taken to mitigate those impacts,(c) whether the anticipated benefits for those children of the closures identified by the public authority appear to him or her to outweigh the foreseeable impacts of closures for those children, and(d) any other matters which appear to him or her to be relevant.(12) The Children’s Commissioner is entitled to require the public authority or the Secretary of State to provide such further information, assistance, and resources as he or she considers necessary in order to set out his or her advice on a particular action and the public authority or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall provide such information, assistance or resources as soon as reasonably practicable.(13) For the purposes of this section—“children” means persons under the age of 18;“civil emergency” shall include any emergency situation which could constitute an emergency for the purposes of section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or which has otherwise been identified as a risk in the UK’s National Security Risk Assessment. For the avoidance of doubt an emergency need not be the subject of measures taken under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to be a civil emergency for the purposes of this Act;“closure” in relation to schools, means any action to discourage, restrict or prevent in person attendance at those institutions or premises by children and young people who would ordinarily be entitled to attend, or any sub-group or class of such children or young people;“open for in person attendance” in relation to schools, means being open for the attendance by all of the children who would ordinarily, and but for the occurrence of a civil emergency, be entitled to attend those institutions or premises, during their normal hours of operation;“open for in person attendance” does not include the provision of online learning or other remote learning services nor the keeping of such institutions or premises open for physical attendance only for a sub-group or class of those children or young people who would ordinarily be entitled to attend;“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 save that a court or tribunal is not included for these purposes.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to enact a statutory duty to keep schools open for in person attendance in future public health and other civil emergencies, unless Parliament expressly approves, and continues every two weeks to approve, any closures.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust. Amendment 207 would create a statutory duty to keep schools open for in-person attendance in future public health and other civil emergencies for all pupils, not just vulnerable children and children of key workers, unless Parliament expressly approves any closures and continues to do so every two weeks.

We await the conclusion of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, which is looking at the Government’s response to the pandemic’s impact on children and young people in module 8. I will come to some of the evidence submitted to the inquiry in due course. I think it is now widely accepted that closing schools during the pandemic for all children, save for a tiny handful, was a mistake. The evidence that it had a catastrophic impact on children is overwhelming.

I am thinking of the research and analysis published by Ofsted in April 2022, when my noble friend Lady Spielman was at its head, based on inspection evidence which highlighted delays in children’s speech and language progress and a negative impact on their personal, social and emotional development. I am thinking of research published by the IFS, the Education Endowment Foundation and the Social Mobility Commission which detailed the persistent and highly damaging impacts of school closures in exacerbating inequalities and reversing progress previously made in narrowing the attainment gap. I am thinking of the irrecoverable learning loss highlighted in a report by the University of Oxford in January 2023.

I am thinking of work done by the Centre for Social Justice which showed that some children who were told to stay at home during the pandemic never reacquired the habit of attending school, with severe absences—defined as missing at least 50% of lessons—tripling compared to pre-pandemic levels. This means that 172,938 English schoolchildren were severely absent in the summer of 2024. Incredibly, the number of persistently absent children—defined as missing at least 10% of lessons—climbed to 1.6 million last summer. I am thinking of the data accumulated by Children & Young People Now about the deterioration in children’s mental health since the school closures, with 1.3 million schoolchildren being referred to mental health support services in the school year 2023-24—a 71% increase on the pre-pandemic year of 2018-19.

Some will argue that these costs, while undoubtedly high, were outweighed by the benefits of infections averted and lives saved, but children were at negligible risk from Covid-19. According to the ONS, in England and Wales, between March 2020 and October 2022, 88 deaths were registered as due to Covid-19 for children under the age of 18. That is 0.05% of the total number of Covid deaths in the same period. To put that figure in perspective, between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022, 644 children died from accidents.

In any event, closing schools did not make children any less likely to become infected. A study published by the Public Health Agency of Sweden in 2020 found that infection rates were no higher among schoolchildren in Sweden, which closed sixth forms but no other schools during the pandemic, than they were in Finland, which closed all schools.

What about adults? Did closing schools protect them? We are in the realm of counterfactuals here, but the evidence from Sweden is that no, keeping schools open did not mean that more people were at risk of becoming infected and dying from Covid. According to the ONS, Sweden’s overall excess mortality between March 2020 and July 2022 was negative—lower than the pre-pandemic average and far lower than in the UK, where schools were closed. In fact, Sweden’s excess mortality during the pandemic was the lowest of all European countries save Norway. Incidentally, Norway closed schools, but the Prime Minister at the time later apologised for doing so.

The costs of closing schools were almost incalculable and the benefits non-existent. It was a catastrophic error. Nevertheless, this amendment would not rule out ever closing schools again during future health, public health or civic emergencies. All it would do is make it a statutory requirement, before schools are closed, to seek the advice of the Children’s Commissioner for England on the likely impact of such action on the children and young people affected by it and to have due regard for that advice.

I note that in her evidence to module 8 of the Covid inquiry in the autumn of last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner at the time, said that keeping schools closed while other areas of society were open during the pandemic was “a terrible mistake”. She described the Government’s approach as showing an

“apparent lack of any serious recognition of the short-term and long-term harmful effects”

of school closures, particularly on disadvantaged pupils.

In addition, this amendment would make it necessary to secure the approval of Parliament if schools were to remain closed, with such approval needing to be renewed every two weeks. That would address one of the problems that Gavin Williamson, a former Education Secretary, raised in his evidence to the Covid inquiry last autumn—namely, that the decision to close schools in January 2021 was rushed and ill-thought-out. If, in future, Secretaries of State made similar mistakes, Parliament could correct those mistakes within two weeks.

Noble Lords may be inclined to forgive the various bodies involved in the decision to close schools during the pandemic because they had limited information about the risks that Covid-19 posed, and posed to children in particular. I am not so inclined. I believe we did know enough at the time about the negligible risk that coronavirus posed to children, and the authorities involved in the decision to close schools were given ample warning about the terrible harm that closing schools would do to children’s learning, social development and mental health, with a particular impact on disadvantaged children. Whatever our view of that mistake, I think we can now agree that it was a mistake. We should take whatever steps we can to avoid making it again. This amendment would be a vital first step. I beg to move.

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who has made a compelling case. We should be ashamed, as a nation, of the way we allowed schools to close repeatedly and for protracted periods, and the almost casual way in which that was allowed to happen.

As my noble friend has set out, this amendment is hugely important but very moderate, in that it deliberately would not preclude the possibility of closing schools should it be deemed necessary but would require some process and mechanisms to be put in place that would require consultation and thought to be given. Should the closures be continued for more than a very short period, it would then require parliamentary approval to be given. My noble friend made a compelling case, so I do not need to speak for long.

I just make the final point that it is self-evident that the substance behind this amendment is more important than any of the other issues relating to schools that we have debated and deliberated upon—because none of those matters at all if schools are closed and children are not receiving an education or the social benefits of their time in school and all the other effects that my noble friend has enumerated.

I suspect that my noble friend will not be testing the will of the House on this so I really hope that the Minister, in responding, will give reassurance about the seriousness with which this is taken and that even without this as a statutory requirement, the Government will seek to observe that kind of process and ensure both proper consultation and parliamentary approval if these actions were ever to be contemplated again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I apologise, but my assumption was that all the departments working together would keep Parliament informed of the decision. However, I do not think we can pre-empt at this time how quickly decisions will need to be made. We just need to make sure that we do not create serious disadvantage by putting in legislation something that might undermine our ability to respond at pace and appropriately in circumstances that we perhaps cannot envisage now. With that, I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank my noble friends Lord Brady and Lady Spielman for cosponsoring this amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her excellent contribution.

I will make just one point in response to some of the points raised. It is important to learn one lesson from our response to the pandemic. That lesson is that we are pretty poor at learning lessons from previous pandemics. We had a pandemic preparedness strategy, and we prided ourselves on being better prepared for a pandemic than almost every other country. That pandemic preparedness strategy was based on the findings of public inquiries into previous pandemics and epidemics, and it was junked within two weeks in the febrile, panicky atmosphere and the heat of politics. The compelling desire to be seen to be doing something overrode the lessons we had supposedly learned from previous pandemics and epidemics. Sweden, on the other hand, which broadly speaking followed our pandemic preparedness strategy, did far better.

I am a little reassured by the words of the Minister about responding in a more intelligent, systematic, thoughtful way next time, but once the conclusions of the Covid-19 inquiry have been published, the Government need to give some thought to how those will be conveyed and how they will be meaningfully observed by a future Government, in the absence of legislating and giving Parliament the kind of role it should have before critical decisions affecting the most vulnerable people in our society are made. With that, I will of course withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 207 withdrawn.