Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, as your Lordships will know from my register of interests, I am currently the leader of the London Borough of Bexley. That means I have an involvement with both the Local Government Association and London Councils. What my entry does not say that I am now the longest-serving leader of the London Borough of Bexley and that, before I was leader, I was the first cabinet member for children’s services in our borough.

Your Lordships might ask why that is important. Over that period, during which we were the first authority in London and only the second to Leeds in the country—as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will attest—to achieve two outstanding ILACS Ofsted inspections. We also have a very good reputation for our local schools, which include four grammar schools, and we take in many young people from neighbouring Labour boroughs whose parents aspire to a better education for their young people. In this contribution, I will focus my comments on the children’s social care aspects of the proposed Bill.

Over the years, I have had the absolute pleasure to work with some fantastic local authority officers, including some superb directors of children’s services, or deputy directors who have gone on to become directors. I will not name them, to save their blushes, but they will know who they are. These are the people we all trust to make the right decisions, on a daily basis, to keep our young people safe and keep families together, if possible—but, if that is not possible, to ensure that the children who come into our care are prepared for the future. They are statutorily responsible and, if anything goes wrong, they are often held to account for the decisions taken.

Over the last few weeks, I have had exchanges with a number of senior practitioners whom I respect, and they are really concerned about the consequences of some aspects of the Bill. I know my noble friend Lady Barran has had similar conversations. So, my contribution to this debate will probably be very different from many others, as I have first-hand experience of seeing for myself the passion these professionals have for our children in our borough, to keep them safe, as well as having aspirations that they become successful, independent young people. They also have to forecast and take ownership of budgets, often with little control of implications. I am sure that some Members will be interested to know that you can have a young person move into the borough for whom you need to find care that can cost as much as a room in the Savoy for a week.

The conversations we have had suggest that there are some good aspects to the Bill, some of which will reinforce the good practice already taking place in some areas, or plug some of the gaps in current legislation, but fundamentally support the principle of meeting children’s and families’ needs, as they emerge, at the earliest possible time. But there are some major concerns about other aspects of these proposals. I know that we will get to the detail when we get further into the amendments, but some of the main concerns are that some of the proposals are unfunded.

The Josh MacAlister review said that £2 billion was required to implement the reforms in his care review. There is currently £290 million, and that has been agreed for only one year. This shows just how far away we are from what is required and what has been given to local authorities. Most of this will have to be funded from already tight local authority budgets that have become even tighter as a result of the Government’s national insurance contribution increase. Mandating that all child protection functions be held within multiagency teams marks a major shift from the current practice. While the intent is to foster stronger collaboration and clearer accountability, professional bodies and academics have warned of a number of potential unintended consequences if the model is implemented without careful safeguards. One of those consequences is budgets and, of course, in addition to actually determining future funding for social care for both adults and children should be, there is real concern about cost shunting, especially given that there are already suggestions of cuts to safeguarding budgets by local police and health communities.

There have been 10 pathfinders, but, as has been said, the key findings from those pilots have not been published and, as you would expect, the word on the street is that there have been issues with those pathfinders. Surely the sensible thing is to share that information and consider the findings before agreeing this Bill.

The intention might be to have clearer decision-making, improved information sharing, and unified threshold application, but the unintended consequences could be: a dilution of professional expertise; confusion over legal accountability; weakened local authority leadership; loss of focus on early help and prevention; operational bottlenecks and inflexibility; undermining universal services’ safeguarding role; implementation disruption; inconsistent models; and legal and human rights risks.

I know I come at this from a different perspective from many—but not all—in this Chamber, but I know that none of us would want to see young people being put at risk from ill-thought-out legislation.

I am sure that many noble Lords—this has been referred to—saw the letter in the Times yesterday from Eileen Munro, a very respected person in the field. When such people say that they are concerned about some aspects of the Bill, they deserve to be listened to, and we need to respect what they have to say. I hope the Minister will do so.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the proposed new clause and to support, in particular, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, it contains the key word “improve”. One of the purposes of a purpose clause is to set out very clearly for the courts how legislation should be applied and to what end it is achieved. It will be a matter of debate—I am sure the debate already happened at Second Reading—whether measures in here will improve things: that is a matter for debate. But if we have this, I hope that my noble friend Lady Barran will put it to a vote on Report, so that all the House in its conscience, when it is determining what parts of the legislation we retain, change or drop entirely, comes back to the central purpose: what is this doing to improve the outcomes for children?

I say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that the Title of the Bill should really be “Some Children’s Wellbeing”, because clearly it does address well-being for some children. I suppose I am sharing my frustration—not that I am challenging the guidance of the clerks, although we can have a debate about it—that the scope of the Bill is actually pretty narrow in considering how to improve the well-being of children. I would hope that proposed new subsection (1)(a) would allow us to consider further matters which are not addressed in this Bill about the well-being of all children, which we are here to consider.

I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech—far from it—but there are undoubtedly omissions in the Bill about things such as child maintenance, which would certainly contribute to powers that have already been passed by Parliament but have not yet been commenced by Governments. I say “Governments” deliberately because I am conscious that applies not just to this Government. Those powers could be commenced by adding a clause to this Bill, but it is not within its scope at the moment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

183CC: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
Review: child maintenance enforcement(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review considering whether the overall wellbeing of children is being harmed by the non-commencement of section 34 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 (transfer of arrears) and the uncommenced sections of both the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 and the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023.(2) If the review considers that the overall wellbeing of children is being harmed by the non-commencement of those provisions, the Secretary of State must, within two months of the publication of the review, make a statement setting out the Government’s position on the commencement of those provisions.”

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I start by saying that it is great to see my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott in the Chamber on the Front Bench. She and I worked together when we were in the Department for Work and Pensions, and I have to say that she was an exceptional Minister for the Child Maintenance Service. What motivated us all was improving the welfare and well-being of children.

I start my intervention by flagging that, frankly, I had quite a lot of arguments or disagreements—I do not think you are allowed to argue in the Lords—with the clerks about the scope of this amendment. The clerks consistently reiterated that trying to do something to make it easier for children to get child maintenance was not connected to the well-being of children because nobody could guarantee that the child maintenance payment would go to the child. I pointed out that, for example, Healthy Start does not go directly to the child; the money still goes to the parent, and the parent can buy a certain amount of food, which you hope will go to the child. I am flagging this now because the intention was to bring a particular amendment about commencing certain legislation, and I will talk to that now.

One of the important things is a recognition—it has been referred to already in previous groups—of the impact of poverty on children. Something like nearly double the proportion of families with a single parent are in poverty—I think that is relative poverty—compared to two-parent families. From my perspective and the research that we did, and from looking into this with my noble friend, we felt that aspects of the cost of living were simply not being addressed and that we needed to get a lot more parents to start paying for the upkeep of their child.

One thing that has been a success overall is that, for just over a decade, 1 million children have been accounted for in arrangements made through the Child Maintenance Service. The split is roughly that 60% of those are in what is called Direct Pay and about 40% are in what is called Collect and Pay.

Direct Pay is where a calculation is made by the Child Maintenance Service and one parent is supposed to pay that to the parent who has the child mainly in their care. For whatever it is worth, there is an annual recalculation, but the department does not monitor precisely what happens there. As regards Collect and Pay, I note the Government’s intention today. I will not get into the merits of the decision announced today by the Government about Collect and Pay; I am happy to leave that for another time.

We have a situation in which there are approximately 390,000 children there. In the quarter to December 2024—the most recent statistics that are available—43.6%, basically 44% of children, did not get a single penny. That is 170,000 children. It is fair to say that they got some contribution: about 45.6% got paid 90% or more, but 22% received anywhere between, basically, zero and 90%.

I am also conscious that the Select Committee on which I serve is doing an inquiry into child maintenance, so I do not intend to delay the consideration of the Committee, because I am sure we will come back to child maintenance in more detail at another time. One key thing that may not be realised is that in these arrangements where the interlocutor is the Government—whether through arranging the Direct Pay calculations or Collect and Pay, where money is taken from one parent and passed to another—we should think about some of the issues that that has caused. I welcome what the Government have done, or will do at a certain point, in changing the benefit deductions so that child maintenance now comes at the very top, but the two issues that I am referring to were sufficiently concerning when I was in government.

That is why we supported what were basically handout Bills, which passed through this House. One related to domestic abuse and the other to moving to something where you could have an administrative liability order. After commissioning Dr Samantha Callan, who has also given evidence to the Select Committee, we brought about a Bill that came through this House. I cannot quite remember whether it was shepherded through by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, or the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, but one did one and one did the other.

I was a bit concerned by the answers given by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about why, in particular, the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act had not been commenced. She started to get into a variety of complications about how complicated it is not only to identify but to justify with evidence whether somebody is a victim of domestic abuse, which concerned me. I appreciate that today the Government have decided to scrap Direct Pay and move everybody on to Collect and Pay, so that will uncover any situation where there is domestic abuse, but I am not sure how long that is going to take, so we still have a real problem. I would love to see it commenced.

On the other aspects and the liability order, this is why we put in place, or helped to facilitate, the child support Act. That was done to make enforcement quicker. Let us be candid. Approximately £700 million is owed to parents. There are a variety of ways in which that can happen. However, one of the ways particularly seems to affect self-employed parents who are due to pay. Without entirely repeating the legislation, the intention of the Act was to speed up the process of getting a liability order. At the moment it takes nearly six months to go to a magistrate, having exhausted multiple other avenues. The outcome of this was supposed to be to reduce that to a maximum of six weeks. I am really concerned that this Act has not been commenced. There are a variety of reasons, I am sure, including something to do with Scotland. However, we should get on with it. A variety of things have been said today about children’s well-being, on phones and other issues that have already been addressed on aspects of poverty strategy. This is a real action that could unlock a lot of money for young children, and I believe that we need to get on with it.

More broadly, I am conscious of the fact that only the Government can do a lot of this administrative liability. That is not just because they are the only ones who can do this sort of order; it is actually in law. If you have an arrangement through the Child Maintenance Service, you cannot then go to the small claims court yourself and say, “This person owes me money”. Everything has to be done through the hands of the Child Maintenance Service. This was one of the devices to try to speed that up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, managed to persuade those in a position to be persuaded that this amendment should have the opportunity to be discussed this evening. There is something refreshing about the idea of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, rightly pursuing people who owe money for their children and who have that responsibility. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Sherlock and the current Secretary of State will be equally relentless in making sure that families are paying for the children for whom they have responsibility, and that is quite right.

I know from what the noble Baroness said that the intention of this amendment is to probe and push on the progress being made with each of the pieces of legislation that she talked about. I hope to provide some reassurance on that.

First, the powers within Section 34 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act enable debt owed to parents or the Secretary of State to be transferred to other parties, including debt collection agencies. This power was introduced as an option to deal with the £3.8 billion debt burden that had accrued under the former Child Support Agency. A proportion of that debt was owed directly to the Secretary of State, and I am assured that the issue of Child Support Agency debt has now been resolved. The Child Maintenance Service has strong and effective enforcement powers, including imposing prison sentences for non-payment.

On the specific point about debt collection agencies, there is no evidence that using debt collection agencies would actually secure more child maintenance than current enforcement powers. In fact, a previous trial absolutely demonstrated that, so there is no evidence that commencing this power would have a positive impact on children’s well-being.

Secondly, the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 introduced powers that, once commenced, would enable an administrative liability order to be made against a parent with outstanding child maintenance arrears. As the noble Baroness says, this introduces savings in court costs and time. I am pleased to confirm that progress is being made to implement the necessary legislation to bring this power into force as soon as possible. The Government are working with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service and the Scottish Government to establish a process for implementing ALOs, and plan to introduce regulations to Parliament by the end of this year.

The Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 recognised that direct pay may not always be appropriate for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The Act intended to provide them greater protection when using the Child Maintenance Service, by allowing them to move to the collect and pay service but only where there is evidence of domestic abuse. The Government recognise that removing opportunities to use the Child Maintenance Service to inflict economic abuse will benefit the well-being of children. However, many victims and survivors would be unable to provide that necessary evidence as required by the Act. For those who could, there are risks that providing evidence of their experience of abuse and reliving events could lead to further trauma.

That is why the Government today published our response to the consultation, Child Maintenance: Improving the Collection and Transfer of Payments. It sets out plans for reforms to introduce a service that protects all parents from financial abuse and, importantly, includes no requirement for victims and survivors to provide evidence of their circumstances. These reforms, therefore, go further than the provisions contained in the 2023 Act to protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse. They will have a positive impact on children and their well-being, as more child maintenance liabilities will be enforced, leading to more money going to children, which I know is the objective of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in moving this amendment.

I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment, although she has already identified that she has other ways to put pressure on the Government to ensure progress, and I have no doubt that she will continue to do so.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

In consideration of what the Minister has said, of which I am conscious of certain aspects, I am pleased, in particular, to hear that the Child Support (Enforcement) Act should come into effect by the end of the year. I will take up some of the other matters to which she referred directly with the responsible Minister. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 183CC withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
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.