Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Commons Reasons and Amendments

17:16

Motion A

Moved by

[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.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion K1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for our very useful meeting yesterday, and, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state school teacher.

When we talked to the Bill team yesterday, I thought that they almost seemed to use the language of this amendment. As we have heard, the Sara Sharif review says that the overview is at fault, not the system; but this amendment seems the very way of tightening oversight without, as has been mentioned, penalising adoptive parents and children, where the concern was about a previous iteration of their life. This seems to be the crux of the amendment. The Minister actually said the Bill says that “almost all” children fall within the Bill. I think this tightens it up, so hopefully all children will fall within the purview of this Bill.

Moreover, it seems to me that, in the Bill as it stands, the local authority could not require a child who left local authority care and returned to their family, say, three years ago, to attend school, while they could for a child who came off child protection three years ago. I do not understand that at all. At the moment, I am not clear about the Bill as it stands. I think Motion K1 makes it much clearer, and I implore the Government to accept this.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has just said. As a family judge, I had a number of cases where children had been on protection orders—and, in particular, supervision orders—and I vividly recall an appalling case in Liverpool where there was a continuing supervision order that was utterly disregarded. I called the Director of Social Services to explain it, and she was absolutely thinking that it did not really matter; so everything that can be done to put added pressure on making sure that children who are home educated are kept under proper supervision by local authorities seems to me to be absolutely crucial.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I will confine myself briefly to supporting Motion B. It is commonly agreed now that the pilots of the pathfinder model in selected family courts have been a success and represent the way ahead. This model has been shown to reduce delays significantly and has forced the focus on to making things better for the child concerned, rather than on the parents’ disputes and confrontations. That model has developed sufficiently well, in that the delay in moving it on into the mainstream should really now be avoided. It means that the very recently announced expansion into child-focused courts will be welcome.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I will o speak to Motion K1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. The Government are rightly acting to give local authorities the power to prevent children subject to a child protection plan being withdrawn from school. However, the scope of the Bill is clearly too limited, even with the amendment to give effect to a backward extension of five years for child protection plans.

I will briefly remind noble Lords of the characteristics of the children we are talking about. Clearly, they have all experienced abuse or neglect, but even apart from this we are talking about an exceptionally vulnerable group. Nearly three-quarters of children in care have special educational needs—often conditions they were born with that can make them particularly challenging to bring up and to educate—and often complicated physical or behavioural needs as well. Alongside that, these are children of parents whose ability to care for and protect their own children has already been shown to be inadequate, at least for a time. Even after a care order or child protection plan has been discharged, these are, in the main, children with serious challenges and complicated needs, whose parents have limited capacity. They are very often fragile families needing a lot of support and with a strong likelihood of further social care intervention being needed in future.

Therefore, there should be local authority consideration of proposals to home-educate any child who has been in care, had a supervision order or is under a child protection plan: first, to make sure that the child will actually get the education and support they need at home; and, secondly, to make sure that the child can safely be removed from view. Once a child is home-schooled, it may not be seen by any adult from outside the family for years. That may have been exactly the thing that was keeping that fragile family in balance.

17:30

The letter sent to Peers yesterday rejecting the Lords amendment bizarrely referred to the current proposal as protecting children from stigma. But there is no stigma in attending a state school, so to deny local authorities the ability to review elective home education in these cases seems worryingly self-denying. I therefore believe that the logic of my noble friend’s Motion is powerful and should be accepted.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to see that, in Motion K1, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has reduced the issue to being about only Section 31 and that she has provided a carve-out, as it were, for adoption. Imagine if you adopted a two year-old who had been in care and, 10 years later, you have to jump through another bureaucratic hoop, so I am very pleased to see that. I am sorry that the Government do not have that provision within their current approach.

When I raised this in an amendment—I think it was on Report—the Minister told me that in such a case, it would be a pure formality: that, in relation to an adopted child, the local authority would simply pass it through. In your Lordships’ House, we all know that what is a formality for the local authority can be a real worry and threat for the individuals involved. It is a threat of people passing judgment on them, and that is a really important point. However, this is not the only example of people who will be inappropriately caught within this amendment and within the Government’s current approach.

I want to give one example, which is known to both the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Minister. It is of a young boy who was abused and raped by his father. With the permission of his mother, I will read out or paraphrase a short extract from an email she sent to the Government. At the time when the care plan was created for her son, she said, he

“had made detailed disclosures of serious sexual abuse”

to the mother, to four police officers, to two doctors and a social worker

“yet the police had still not arrested the perpetrator and the family court offered … no protection”.

Under those circumstances, she said, the chair of the initial child protection conference agreed with herself, a doctor, a nurse and a police liaison officer that he should be placed on a care plan

“until his rapist had been arrested. This was done, and, I suspect, helped to speed up the arrest”,

she said.

This seems to be yet another classic case of somebody who should not be subjected to the retraumatising of going through this process again, with the possibility of receiving a school attendance order. That mother has been protecting and looking after that child, and making decisions on the way forward for the child. Being second-guessed in this way seems to me totally inappropriate.

The Minister is presumably opposing Motion K1. I would like to ask her how the Government will deal with these two issues of adopted children. In the other example, as that mother said to me, the family is not the same family as it was when the child was taken into care. It seems to me that it should be easy enough to get some kind of carve-out to pick out the point that it is only when the same circumstances pertain rather than when the child is essentially living in a different family. What guarantees will the Minister give to ensure not only that adopted children are not affected by this policy but that others, such as in the example I have used, are not affected?

I turn to the other point of Motion K1, which is that it is about anyone who has ever been in care, for whatever reason. My background is in health, and we recognise that health screening is a good thing, but sometimes it can do more harm than good. There is a danger and a parallel here, and in some of the rest of this Bill. In our zeal to do the right thing, we are in danger of doing more damage than good. If we look at the large number of people who will have to be considered—and at the enormous resources, and at the trauma that the process may put people through—I suspect that may be the case.

Let me be clear: I am in favour of a simple register. In a society where too many children disappear or are indoctrinated or abused, it is right that we should be able to identify where children are. Of course there will be rogues, but we should not treat every parent as suspicious. A very experienced local education authority officer told me that, with regard to safeguarding, they normally react to an issue or a sign, and for home education experienced home education officers know the signs. However, he added, this Bill treats everyone as guilty until proven innocent, and it is in danger of doing more harm than good.

My point in raising these issues is to ask the Minister how she will deal with the particular points that I raised about adoption, and about other people who would be inappropriately treated as though they were still in care. In addition, I ask how she will set about making sure that in the next stage of this Bill—namely, the setting of regulations that carry these things through to their impact—the Government will address some of these points and make a truly proportionate response to safeguarding.

There are plenty of home educators who are very happy to help them in this and have great experience in doing so. The vast majority of home educators, as we know, are reluctant ones. I speak partly because a member of my family adopted two children some years ago and sent them to school, but has reluctantly taken them out to home-educate them, at great sacrifice to her and to her family. That is the case for very many home educators. In passing some of what we have passed here, we must be careful to tell them that we do not think that they are all criminals, and that this needs to be a proper and proportionate response.

[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.

17:45

To pick up on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, children who have previously been on child protection plans may leave their birth parents’ care, as he is fully aware and outlined in his comments, but many continue to receive support to meet their needs and support placement stability, with education being a central consideration in this. It is right, therefore, that these children are included in the consent requirement if they have been on a child protection plan in the last five years, because school can be a protective factor for these children in ensuring that they maintain stability and do not become vulnerable to other types of harm, such as extra-familial harm.

However, that said, we recognise that the child’s new carers will have been through rigorous approval processes already, and we will make clear in statutory guidance that we expect local authorities to make use of the relevant information they already hold on birth parents and adoptive, kinship or foster carers through existing assessment and approval processes to help make the consent decision. In practice, this will mean that, in most cases, the consent process is expedited for these families.

The introduction of multi-agency child protection teams will also be critical in strengthening decision-making. Going further than the amendment, the teams will make robust decisions for every child needing protection regardless of age or where they are in the system.

Extending the consent measures to children who are currently the subject of care or supervision proceedings is unnecessary. Risks to the child are managed through statutory care planning processes. The local authority will be involved with these families, and there should be either a child protection plan or a care plan in place to support the child day to day. These children would almost certainly either be caught by the Government’s proposed consent measure due to a child protection plan or be a looked-after child and, therefore, education provision would be a matter for the local authority to decide.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness acknowledge that in the case of Sara Sharif and many other children—she will be aware of the report into the 41 children who were home-educated and were either killed or seriously harmed—the current system clearly does not work and that this small but important loophole could be closed by my amendment? I would be grateful if she could confirm that that is this case.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, may I pick up on that point?

[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.

Motion B

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.

5A: Because learning from the Families First for Children Pathfinder will be published and inform regulations under clause 3 and the Amendment would unnecessarily delay implementation of the legislative framework in the clause required to deliver multi-agency child protection teams.

Motion B agreed.

Motion C

Moved by

[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.

18:00

On 5 March, my noble friend Lady Smith and my noble friend Lady Merron, the Minister for Women’s Health and Mental Health, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, setting out the Government’s plan to strengthen collaboration. That includes asking ICBs to confirm in writing their commitment to working with RCCs as a condition of funding. Updated programme guidance issued alongside the expression of interest will set out clearer expectations on joint working; should the House not insist on this amendment, which would otherwise require a different approach, the Government will issue this guidance tomorrow. This builds on learning from the pathfinders in Greater Manchester and the south-east, and officials continue to work with the Department of Health to ensure alignment with ongoing ICB reforms.

I turn to Motion F, which concerns Amendment 21, and Motion F1, which relates to Amendment 21B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The Government agree it is imperative that support for children deprived of liberty is fully integrated across social care, health, education and youth justice services. Existing statutory mechanisms already allow local authorities and health partners to pool funding; several areas are using these powers effectively. We strongly encourage all local authorities, integrated care boards and partners to use these tools to improve support for these vulnerable children.

As set out in the aforementioned letter, a multi-million-pound national programme of work is under way, led jointly by the DfE and NHS England. This work has strengthened the evidence base through detailed studies of children’s journeys and needs, as well as a peer collaborative of areas trialling integrated approaches. Following our helpful and constructive discussions on Report, for which I thank noble Lords, we have launched a national community of practice, giving professionals a single place to explore research, emerging models and training resources. The next phase of work, beginning later this year, will be delivered within regional care co-operatives, with ICB involvement locked in from the outset. It will support earlier intervention, more skilled practitioners, a single and coherent understanding of each child’s needs, and, crucially, a smoother journey between services. This co-ordinated programme is building the foundations of a more coherent, preventive and evidence-based system.

For these reasons, the Government do not consider legislative change necessary and do not support these amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion D and briefly to Motion F. I place on record the fact that I am extremely grateful to the Government for bringing forward Amendment 17B in lieu, in response to the amendments that I tabled in Committee and on Report. It is a major step forward in strengthening and protecting children in care’s relationships with their brothers and sisters, including half- and step-siblings. I am particularly grateful that the wording of the government amendment is broad and inclusive—something I very much support, as we discussed in earlier stages. I thank the Minister, Minister MacAlister and the Bill team for their very constructive engagement on this issue.

Over the years, I have heard directly from care-experienced children and young people about the absolutely crushing impact of not having consistent or adequate contact with their siblings. Sometimes their siblings are the only other people who know, who understand, who have shared experiences of what they have been through and the emotional distress it has caused them. They are the ones who can provide mutual support; it is a lifelong bond. So this amendment is a really important step forward in ensuring that contact with siblings is given the same weight in legislation as contact with parents.

Getting to this point has felt like a long journey. I place on record my heartfelt thanks to the colleagues across the House and in the other place who have supported us in getting through this process. I also thank two charities, Become and the Family Rights Group, for their unwavering support; they have campaigned on this issue for many years. It is vital that this change, which I hope we will see in legislation, drives practice so that all children who are separated from their siblings are supported in having the contact with their brothers and sisters that they need, whenever it is in their best interests to do so. I will be monitoring this with great care.

I turn briefly to Motion F and the deprivation of liberty. It is quite a complex subject, so I will not go into all the ins and outs, but I think we can all agree that the needs of children who are deprived of their liberty is something to which we need to give serious thought and attention, particularly in understanding better the increasing use of deprivation of liberty orders. I commend the work that the Nuffield Observatory has been doing in this area, because these children’s needs—including the help and support that they need, however they are funded—clearly require a package that involves health, social care, education and sometimes criminal justice. It needs to be effective. It needs to be a fully integrated package of health and support; at the heart of this is how that would best be delivered.

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to see the letter to which she referred, which was sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, about what is going on in this area. I read very carefully about what is happening in relation to the deprivation of liberty. I am encouraged that the work the Government are taking forward now has a national programme to try to understand the evidence better and to understand the options around things such as pooled budgets and the like. As I understand it, there are pilots taking place, with some more in train. Importantly, there is funding to test better-integrated, joined-up working and ideas for pooled budgets, improved collaboration, et cetera. It is encouraging that that is taking place.

My understanding—I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm this—is that that work is being backed up by £15.5 million of DfE funding over the next three years. I would also be grateful if, given the concerns that have been raised in this area, the House could be provided regular updates on this programme, including on the outcomes and the key findings that it is delivering.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I gently remind all noble Lords that, if they wish to speak, they should do so before the Official Opposition wind up, and that they should not be repeating lengthy arguments that have already been debated in Committee and on Report. Should they speak, they should speak briefly and to the amendments.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I was going to be brief in agreeing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just said and in welcoming Motion D, because the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu, which relates to sibling contact, is to be welcomed; indeed, it is a pleasant surprise. It promotes the local authority’s duty from the schedule to the Children Act to Section 34 of the Act, and reinforces it as a positive duty to allow contact between siblings; at the same time, it gives the court a major say in the type of contact, the level of contact and how it should progress.

Through their amendment, the Government have recognised in primary legislation the real significance of sibling relationships, particularly when siblings have to be separated and have differing needs. These are children whose parents have failed them, and the most important relationship left to them is with a sibling. The courts and legal professionals are familiar with the working of Section 34, which will now govern these cases, and the amendment will be a valuable, beneficial addition to it.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I chaired a Select Committee on adoption some years ago and very much welcome this sibling amendment. It is absolutely excellent. I remember we met a number of children who were in care. One boy of 15, with four younger brothers and sisters, said to us, “No one tells me how my brothers and sisters are getting on—I brought them up”. This is excellent, and the Government are very much to be congratulated on it.

[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.

18:15

Turning to Amendment 21, we understand the complexity of the pooled funding arrangements. I reiterate that there are existing statutory mechanisms; we just need to ensure through our guidance that they are actually put into place. The National Health Service, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice are working together very closely now, and we need to make sure that included in this are plans to address systemic barriers and therefore the strengthening of integration. As I have said, it will be locked in throughout. This will of course include testing the effectiveness of the pooled funding arrangements within the existing legal framework, and I can confirm the £15.5 million amount mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. Given the existing statutory mechanisms and the co-ordinated cross-government programme, all linked to improving practice, and the Government’s plans to test practical approaches to pooled funding and integrated support, we therefore believe the amendment is unnecessary for inclusion in the Bill.

In closing, I urge noble Lords to support Motions D, E and F, and resist Motion F1.

Motion C agreed.

Motion D

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)”.”

Motion E

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.

Motion F

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.

Motion F agreed.

Motion G

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 38 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A, 38B, 38C and 38D in lieu.

38A: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 214 insert—
“Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services
214A Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring providers of specified internet services—
(a) to prevent access by children of or under a specified age to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services;
(b) to restrict access by children of or under a specified age to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes—
(a) provision about the steps that must or may be taken by a provider for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(b) provision about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) provision about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
(3) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) includes provision requiring a provider to limit—
(a) the amount of time per day, or over the course of a specified period, for which children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(b) the times of day at which children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service.
(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(c) includes provision for a requirement to be an enforceable requirement for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 7.
(5) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision applying any provision of this Act (with or without modifications);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions;
(f) make consequential provision.
(6) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (5)(f) may amend or repeal primary legislation.
(7) OFCOM must, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) carry out such research or provide such advice as the Secretary of State may request for the purposes of making regulations under this section, and
(b) do so by such time, or within such period, as the Secretary of State may specify in the request.
(8) As soon as reasonably practicable after providing advice under subsection (7), OFCOM must publish the advice.
(9) In this section—
“primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.”
(3) In section 225 (parliamentary procedure for regulations), in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) regulations under section 214A(1),”.”

38B: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services
(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 8 (child's consent in relation to information society services), after paragraph 2 insert—
“2A. The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) amend paragraph 1 so as to change the age for the time being specified in that paragraph (but not to an age lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years);
(b) make provision in relation to services specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations for a different age to apply for the purposes of paragraph 1 (but not lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years).
2B. Regulations under paragraph 2A are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”.
(3) After Article 8, insert—
“Article 8ZA
Child’s consent in relation to information society services: age verification
1. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about verifying—
(a) that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being specified in Article 8(1);
(b) in the case of a service specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under Article 8(2A)(b), that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being applicable by virtue of those regulations in relation to that service or description of service.
2. The provision that may be made by regulations under paragraph 1 includes—
(a) provision imposing requirements on persons specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations;
(b) provision about the steps that must or may be taken by such persons for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) provision about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(d) provision about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
3. Regulations under paragraph 1 may—
(a) make provision amending, repealing, revoking or applying (with or without modifications) any provision of the data protection legislation (within the meaning given by section 3(9) of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions.
4. Regulations under this Article are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
5. In paragraph 1, the reference to information society services does not include preventive or counselling services.””

38C: Clause 66, page 124, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) section (Power to prevent or restrict access by children to certain internet services);
(ab) section (Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services);”

38D: Title, line 9, after “schools;” insert “about preventing or restricting access by children to certain internet services; about the age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data in relation to information society services;”.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to Motion G, I will also speak to Motions G1, G2, N and N1. Lords Amendment 37 requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that prohibit under 18s from using VPNs. Amendment 38 requires the UK Chief Medical Officers to publish advice about children’s use of social media and requires us to make regulations to prevent under-16s from accessing user-to-user services within 12 months.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his continued commitment to these important issues. Protecting children online remains a priority for this Government. The noble Lord’s amendments require us to legislate for an under-16 ban on social media. Many noble Lords have declared that they do not support an under-16 ban but are supporting this amendment to push the Government to do more. I assure the House that the Government will do more, meaning there is no reason to support this amendment.

The Online Safety Act introduced one of the most robust systems globally and we have already taken action to build on it. We have created new priority offences under the Act and we are closing gaps for unregulated chatbots. We know many people support a social media ban for under-16s, but other respected voices are concerned it is not the right approach. That is why the Government’s consultation is the responsible path forward. The consultation seeks views on the areas raised by the noble Lord’s Motion and beyond, including harms from gaming and AI chatbots. We have already received over 30,000 responses from experts, parents and young people. It is right we assess these properly, but we are clear we will take further action.

Turning to VPNs, I understand the noble Lord’s concerns, but I believe that a consultation is the best way to consider the issue. We are determined to act swiftly on the issues once the consultation has concluded, and we will respond by the end of the summer. That is why we have tabled amendments enabling us to act quickly and decisively on its findings through regulation-making powers. We fully recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny in this process, and I can confirm that any regulations brought forward will require a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

Amendments 38E, 38F and 38G, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would introduce a new duty of care on the providers of internet services and regulation-making powers to be introduced within six months. The amendments propose a review of Ofcom’s powers. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued dedication to these issues. The Online Safety Act introduced enforceable duties on platforms to protect their child users, but we have always said there is more to do. Already the Government are building on the Act, including through their consultation, which addresses the types of services and considerations set out in the noble Baroness’s amendment. The Government’s amendment provides the legislative means to achieve this, and I reassure the House our intention is to act swiftly.

On enforcement, Ofcom has the Government’s full backing to use all the considerable enforcement levers at its disposal. The Act includes a statutory post-implementation review, which must consider the effectiveness of these powers. We will not hesitate to strengthen the law if it is needed to keep children safe.

I therefore hope noble Lords will support the Government’s amendment, which provides a responsible, evidence-based and workable route to the outcomes we all want to achieve. We have been clear that it is not if we act but how.

I will move on to Motion N, relating to Amendment 106, and Motion N1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who insists on this amendment. Amendment 106 would prohibit the use and possession of mobile phones during the school day. However, we know that the majority of schools already have policies that prohibit mobile phones, so the issue is not about new legislation. What changes pupil behaviour is enforcement backed by a whole-school approach to behaviour management.

We have published strengthened guidance. We have asked our network of attendance and behaviour hubs to provide targeted support to schools. From April, Ofsted will inspect schools’ mobile phone policies. For example, evidence that mobile phone use is contributing to behaviour issues, bullying, mental health issues or belonging will make it likely that the expected standard for attendance and behaviour is not being met, and this will be reflected in Ofsted’s final reports.

To conclude, I am grateful for the constructive engagement and hope noble Lords will support the Government’s amendments and reject the alternative amendments proposed. I beg to move.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

Leave out from “its” to end and insert “Amendment 37, do insist on its Amendment 38 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A, 38B, 38C and 38D in lieu.”

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion G1, concerning my social media amendment, as an amendment to Motion G, I will support the spirit of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

I believe we need a dual-track approach. I pay tribute to those noble tech Lords, many of whom are here tonight, who worked so tirelessly on the Online Safety Act, but now it clearly needs updating and strengthening. Nobody could have foreseen the pace of technological change that has taken place in recent years. I believe that, in relation to children, we should have a dual-track approach to social media, which puts the onus squarely on the companies to make their products safe for children, as we would with any other product, using safety-by-design principles.

I have been a director of tech companies in California. The Californian techies are some of the most able, innovative, entrepreneurial, wealth-creating and job-creating people in the world. However, in the cavalier approach that they have taken to harmful content online for our children, they have gone way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts. We need to act now in a way that is truly effective—and of course we know that many of these techies do not let their own children anywhere near social media.

I do not need to spend much time talking about the clear evidence and causal link between social media and harm to our children, but I was horrified to hear the right honourable Liz Kendall say on the radio a few weeks ago that there is no proven causal link. Where has she been? This shows just how far behind the A ball the Government are in their thinking and why we can have no faith in the outcome of the consultation.

I provided noble Lords with an evidence document compiled by health professionals and others, showing the harmful effects of social media from 50 examples. Every day, I receive more research from around the world from experienced academics, health professionals and others to the same effect. This includes evidence from whistleblowers at social media companies about their company’s own internal research, showing clearly, based on the very extensive data available to them, the harms to children of social media. In recent days, the chief executive of Pinterest, a social media company with 600 million customers, has said that we are living through the largest social experiment in history and that social media, as it is configured today, is not safe for children under 16. As the Prime Minister of Greece said recently, when announcing measures similar to those dealt with in my Motion, as so many other countries have done, “The evidence is unambiguous”.

Only minutes ago, a court in Los Angeles found that Meta and Google were negligent and intentionally built addictive social media platforms, after a 20 year-old woman said that her early use of social media was addictive and made her depression worse. This comes after a court yesterday in New Mexico found that Meta is harmful to children’s mental health and fined it $375 million. These cases will likely influence the hundreds of similar cases now winding their way through the US courts.

There has been some comment in the press and by honourable Members in the other place that children’s charities are not united in their approach to protecting children online. I am delighted to be able to tell noble Lords that I have had extensive discussions with charitable and civil society organisations across the sector and there is broad agreement that an age-based restriction on harmful platforms should operate alongside full-throated enforcement of and increased potency of the Online Safety Act.

I turn to the consultation, and it is a shocker. It does not even satisfy the Government’s own consultation principles that such exercises should be clear and accessible—it has 62 questions, which I understand many parents have given up on after answering just a few—or that it should be targeted at appropriate stakeholders, as opposed to severely prejudicing parents’ ability to contribute. It has no structured engagement for front-line professionals such as clinicians, social workers and police, with no transparency as to how evidence would be used. The Government may have 30,000 responses but, given the length of the consultation document, I very much doubt that that represents a cross-section of society or the national conversation that they want. Market research professionals tell me that this would not begin to pass muster in a market research study. Some questions require technical or specialist knowledge, there is little information on how responses will be weighted between different groups, and it goes out of its way to emphasise, in square boxes, the benefits of social media without balancing sufficiently the disbenefits.

I turn to Commons Amendments 38A to 38D, and in particular Amendment 38A, which contains a very broad power enabling the Government to make changes to any Act of Parliament. There are many noble Lords here who are far more capable of pronouncing on this than I am.

This consultation and the amendments that the Government have tabled represent a blank cheque, with no definite timescale for action and no obligation to do anything. I have no doubt that no action has happened with the gender identity in schools consultation results—when they eventually came—and that they will require further lengthy consultation. I strongly suspect that this cheque will come back marked “insufficient action”.

Lastly, I pay tribute to the 21 bereaved parents who support my amendment, many of whom are here in the Public Gallery. I thank them for their hard work, their commitment and the fact that they are here—but I wish they were not, because I wish they did not have to be. I do not want to stand here in six or 12 months’ time, banging the same old drum, with even more bereaved parents in the Public Gallery. I urge noble Lords to support my amendment by agreeing to my Motion G1. I beg to move.

18:30

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lord Nash and Motion G1 following his amazingly powerful speech. I also suggest that Commons Amendments 38A and 38B be rejected on constitutional grounds as they would give Ministers unacceptably wide Henry VIII powers. I declare my membership of the Constitution Committee, but of course I am not speaking on its behalf.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to seven features of these amendments. First, there is the power to amend other Acts of Parliament. Secondly, powers are given to the Secretary of State to restrict access by children of an age to be determined by the Secretary of State. In other words, it is not for Parliament to determine the age.

Thirdly, these amendments apply to any internet service, site, feature or functionality. It is not restricted to social media, which of course is my noble friend Lord Nash’s main objective. Rather, it applies to any internet service, including news services and search engines; that is unacceptably wide. Fourthly, and as importantly, nothing is said about the criteria on which these powers are to be exercised. There is no mention of harm, or of any rules or other constraints on the power of the Secretary of State.

Fifthly, there are provisions that enable the Secretary of State, in effect, to impose curfews—one must not listen at night or at certain times of the day. Sixthly, there is the power to impose time limits, such as half an hour a day, 40 minutes or two hours. These are very wide powers. Finally, there are provisions about mandating digital ID checks and setting an age of consent somewhere between the ages of nine and 13.

The essential point is that no Executive should have the power to restrict access to the entire online space, by children or anyone else, without clear limits defined in advance by Parliament in primary legislation, specifying in particular the age at which and the grounds on which such restrictions should apply, the limits of such restrictions and clear safeguards to protect democratic scrutiny. The correct approach is for the Government to continue with their consultation. When they have the information that they need, taking account of my noble friend Lord Nash’s criticisms of the consultation, and are fully equipped to deal with this, they should bring back to Parliament a Bill in which all these important matters are properly defined. The powers in question should be properly framed, rather than being rushed through, as they are now, on a Henry VIII basis.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy; I will reiterate the points that they have been making.

The amendments pose the question of how best to make meaningful change to online safety law for our children. We must choose between two possible options. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, proposes in Amendments 37 and 38, is to make the changes through primary legislation, setting out the nature and extent of the changes to online safety in this Bill, with the finer details left to regulations. The second option, as the Government propose in Amendments 38A to 38D, is by delegating to the Executive the nature and extent of the changes to online safety by means of sweeping Henry VIII powers. These powers would enable Ministers to modify any provision of the Online Safety Act 2023, amend or repeal any provision of primary legislation to make consequential changes, and amend, repeal, revoke or modify any provision of our data protection legislation.

The first option is transparent and gives the decision on the nature and extent of the changes to Parliament by means of the strongest method of scrutiny and accountability in our constitution—primary legislation. Those changes would have to be implemented by the Secretary of State within a boundary set by Parliament in the primary legislation. The second option requires blind faith that the Government will in fact do anything at all—and, if they do, it means accepting a lesser form of scrutiny and accountability in the form of secondary legislation, which can be debated but not amended. It is very much a “take it or leave it” approach to whatever the Government come up with.

For example, the secondary legislation that the Government might at some point bring forward could provide that what is unsuitable for children on social media is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State, taking into account the extent to which the platform in question displays what the Secretary of State considers to be political bias, gender-critical views, the promotion of religious beliefs et cetera. There would be nothing in the primary legislation to constrain the Secretary of State when deciding which services should be restricted for children and how. Parliament would then have to either accept the secondary legislation in its entirety or reject the whole package.

For my part, I overwhelmingly prefer the first option. Whatever one’s view on the substance of what we are debating, it is a seismic and controversial cultural change for our children and parents. It imposes significant legal constraints on internet service providers and puts heavy monitoring and enforcement duties on Ofcom. The public need to have reassurance that the nature and extent of this huge change have been decided in the most robust way for which our cherished parliamentary democracy allows—unquestionably, that is primary legislation.

The Attorney-General, in his much-lauded Bingham lecture in 2024, said that “excessive reliance on delegated powers”, including

“Henry VIII clauses … upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law … but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”,

and raises

“real questions about how we are governed”.

Does the Minister agree with her Attorney-General and, if so, how does she reconcile that with Amendments 38A to 38D?

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, although the Government’s amendments have been put forward as a signal of their determination to act, sadly they commit to nothing. They simply buy the Minister a bit more time and the opportunity, at some unknown moment in the future, to push through a compromise half-measure with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. I am appalled at this thought on this crucial issue. The Government are asking Peers to take a gamble on our children’s safety. They are placing their faith in a consultation that delivers nothing but more and more delay.

Regulating social media companies and keeping our children safe online are among the most defining challenges of our time. That is why we should vote for the cross-party amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which would raise the age to 16 within 12 months for the most harmful platforms—to be written into law before the summer. It is the safest option for our children at this time.

The Government’s complex, 62-question consultation is heavily framed towards the positive benefits of social media rather than towards the horrific harms which front-line professionals report every single day. On age assurance, the perceived downside is emphasised over obvious benefits. There is no clear process for managing conflicts of interest within the technology industry. How can this consultation be trusted? Reliable findings are precisely what this issue demands.

It is also worrying that the Government have introduced a Henry VIII clause which would give sweeping powers via secondary legislation, leaving little or no opportunity for this House to consider or scrutinise such measures. It would mean that the Government could dodge any scrutiny of their ultimate choice. This cannot be allowed to happen, because we would not be able to amend it. We would be able only to accept or reject it in full.

We are gambling with our children’s lives. That is why I strongly believe that the cross-party amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is the safest, most common-sense option. We must not forget that every single day that we delay, more harms are done to the nation’s children. Do we want that? Their mental and physical well-being are under relentless attack. Let us not delay but do what we can to prevent this attack happening as soon as possible. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, Motion G2 is in my name. I shall speak also to all the other amendments in this group.

I think we have acknowledged that everybody in this House wishes to protect children, but there is a vast difference of opinion in respect of our approach and the Government’s sense of urgency. If I understood the Minister’s argument in setting out the Government’s position, it was that Ofcom would take responsibility and that it had sufficient powers. Many of us were in this Chamber earlier when the chasm between Ofcom’s powers on paper and its ability to impact on survivors was laid bare. If people do not feel the impact of the law, and if the lived experience of children and the ability of parents to get help are not properly impacted, the law has failed. This is central to the problem and to the debate that we are having here tonight.

I think the House knows that I prefer to speak not of banning children but of banning products which are poorly designed and unsafe to have access to our children. That may appear to be a subtle point, but it is hugely important, because access to children must be conditional on treating them fairly and safely. Equally, many of us would like to see age-appropriate services, designed by companies with children in mind, be available to children. Motion G2 sets out that conditionality. Experts and campaigners across the sector contributed to its drafting—in short form, it is what we want from government. Frankly, it is what the Government promised when in opposition.

Since we last debated this issue, barely two months ago, researchers found that AI chatbots are becoming one of the most dangerous technologies for promoting violence against women and girls. The Internet Watch Foundation reported a staggering 26,000% increase last year in the number of AI-generated child sexual abuse materials. Specialist police email me to alert me to offenders using TikTok’s virtual gift system to incentivise children to perform sexual or compromising acts. Alexa+ has arrived in the UK, despite American parents raising their concerns about very young children being lulled into close friendships and about inappropriate language, including it asking to look at a child’s underwear. While we consult, children are harmed in real time. We cannot afford to wait.

18:45

We have heard already that the government amendment gives the Secretary of State extraordinarily broad powers, but it does not offer a timeline, a promise of scope or a model for individual redress, for parliamentary oversight or for improvements to enforcement. It relies on the existing systems and processes, which are slow and bureaucratic and do not hold companies to account.

Motion G2 offers another approach, by filling the urgent gaps identified by dozens of online safety organisations. It amends the OSA to include an overarching duty of care. It removes safe harbour, if a risk has already been identified by Ofcom or by the company itself. It is ludicrous that a company can be deemed safe even when the regulator or the company have already identified a danger. It takes a more precise approach to which services are in scope, and it includes a requirement to consider childhood development stages, because while public focus tends to be on tweens and early teens, researchers are increasingly concerned about very young children and older teens who need our attention too.

The amendment also limits the Secretary of State’s powers and introduces a super-affirmative procedure which provides Parliament with an opportunity for scrutiny. Finally, it introduces a right to injunctive relief in cases of serious and imminent risk of serious harm. It requires the Secretary of State to review Ofcom’s business disruption powers and introduce new measures, again subject to the super-affirmative procedure.

This amendment was drafted with input from experts across the online safety community. It tackles their concerns and, frankly, provides Parliament with the oversight it needs. Most importantly of all, it offers a way for the Government to act more urgently. It shows that government could—if it would—take a power in a way that is agile but gives Parliament proper scrutiny. It sets out the scope of what consultation should look at. It is not too late for the Government to do something different. I commend it to the House as a road map for what constructive and incisive leadership looks like.

A number of noble Lords, the so-called Lords tech team, have worked with all UK Governments for more than a decade and a half, in times when there was less evidence and less public concern. If we had managed to get everything that we had argued for, we would already have red lines for AI and have prevented addictive products. We would already have mandatory risk assessments for CSAM and privacy standards for edtech. We would have spared bereaved families years of distress in trying to get information from the courts, and chatbots would have already been covered by law. We did not get everything we wanted, but we did work together and this Government have shied away from doing that.

We are at ping-pong, so I will not outline the problems of a consultation that has already launched but will instead write, with other noble Lords, to the Secretary of State. Suffice to say: the questions are leading; the footnotes do not always reference what they are attached to; it talks about evidence without giving reassurance as to who will supply it, even as concerns about the way that evidence is framed and commissioned abound; and it is profoundly incurious about the gaps and inadequacies of Ofcom’s codes and enforcement.

The Government are in danger of simply adding duties to a regime that is already not working. It is not good enough. We all hoped that the Government would recognise the strength of feeling and the specific issues we raised on Report and come back with something that better reflected the urgency and answered the crisis that we are in. But, sadly, they chose instead to grab the headlines. Today, it is a pilot programme. Last time, they announced a consultation and a power for the Secretary of State. It was the same again when we debated chatbots. Even this afternoon, they announced another review. When the reviews are done, the actions follow either slowly or not at all. So, it is with some frustration that I say to the Minister that the digital behemoths cannot be governed by headlines alone, nor will consultations keep children safe. The Government have a duty to act.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, spoke powerfully to his amendment, and I will support him in the Lobby. His amendment represents the overwhelming feeling of parents and many of us in the House that it is neither sustainable nor right to push the can down the road and determine the outcome with no oversight.

As for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on a bell-to-bell ban, I talked with a group of children about it and a 14 year-old said to me, “It’s a no-brainer”. So, I will also support the noble Baroness in the Lobby on that. The fact that it is subject to a vote at this late stage is really, truly extraordinary.

The Government still have the option to come to the table and work together to make an adequate settlement for children online. Children deserve better than a ban on social media; they deserve safety wherever they are online. They deserve more than safety; they deserve the right to flourish, free play, freedom of thought and freedom to participate in a world that is designed for them. The Government have the opportunity to do that. But taking vast powers with no plan is the worst of all worlds.

I hope that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, lands back in the Commons, as it surely will. At that moment, the Government can think once again.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I add one point to the powerful speeches that have been made in support of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. It is very important that noble Lords understand that the Minister is inviting the House to support Amendments 38A and 38B, neither of which imposes any obligation whatsoever on the Government. Those amendments simply confer a power on Ministers to introduce regulations. If those government amendments were approved, it would be entirely consistent for Ministers thereafter to do absolutely nothing whatsoever. Given the gravity of the mischief that we are addressing and the urgency of addressing that mischief, that seems to me to be an entirely unacceptable position.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I pick up on one issue that the Minister mentioned in her opening speech. To paraphrase, she said, “If, after consultation, there is a decision to act”. I hope that she is getting the sense tonight that the House is already very much of the opinion that it is not an if; it is a call to action, which has been made so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.

As we have already heard from a number of noble Lords, having spent many hours debating online safety issues in this House, we have seen progress with the Online Safety Act, but more is to come. There is a simplicity in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash. We should send it back to the House of Commons and ask them to think about it again. If the Government decide in the Commons that they are still going to resist, disagree to the amendment and send it back, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that there is a way forward so that it is not, as we have just heard, left to regulators or the Government to decide to act if they feel like it. There is a power in the Bill before us—we do not have to wait for the next online safety Act—to protect young people from harmful content online.

I urge Ministers to take the opportunity offered by the Bill being amended again this evening and going back to the other place—as I suspect it will—to really listen and engage with those of us who want to act now to protect young people from the harmful material that we absolutely know is, as we have heard, doing them no good online.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the government consultation, but I am distressed by how very wide its scope is and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, how very vague the outcomes seem to be.

The arguments that I put forward in my AI chatbot amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill also apply here. These amendments will allow the Secretary of State to age-gate any internet service or function. She will be able to determine at what age and by what methods a platform can be restricted. Any regulations under these powers will not be able to be amended by Parliament. All the arguments made by noble Lords last week about the severely limited parliamentary scrutiny of regulations are just as concerning this week with these amendments.

I support the Government carrying out a consultation on a social media ban for under-16s. Evidence of the effect of such a powerful measure needs to be examined and responded to. But I urge the Minister to look at the important changes that would be made to the Government’s amendment by Amendment 38E from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

The government consultation needs to have parameters, which are provided by her amendment, as she has already set out. Many are issues that do not seem to have been covered by the Online Safety Act—addiction, different developmental ages, unsolicited contact and live-streaming. The restriction of these harms to children could be rapidly implemented under the amendment by the prospect of tech companies facing business disruption measures. These are the enforcement measures that so many of us campaigning against online harms have been calling for. All these issues would be considered not in a consultation without time limit but in one that must conclude within six months. I call on the Minister to take on board the concerns expressed in Amendment 38E and put them into action.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, as mentioned earlier, Google and Meta were today found in the Supreme Court of California to be guilty of causing pain and suffering to a plaintiff who had brought the case. The jury has initially ruled that $3 million in damages will be paid for that pain and suffering. The jury is now considering punitive damages for malice and fraud. I put it to your Lordships’ House that today we are the jury. We have heard about the malice and fraud that these companies are visiting on so many of our children and, indeed, on their unfortunate parents. We as the jurors should deliberate today and give a resounding verdict.

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief, because others have spoken so eloquently. I support my noble friend Lord Nash in his heroic efforts to stop social media for under-16s, and I support the spirit of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as well.

I feel that I must represent the army of parents out there who are bitterly disappointed that the Government are failing to act decisively and quickly. A consultation is always code for a fudge. We have been there; we know what that is. The Government’s amendments are presented as action, but in reality they offer very little certainty. They create space for delay and a future compromise that may arrive with limited scrutiny, as we have heard so eloquently put.

We are being asked to accept a risk, and not an abstract one. It is a risk with our children’s safety and it offers an olive branch—a wholly inappropriate olive branch now, with all the court rulings that we are hearing about—to social media companies that have already done so much damage to our children and their childhoods. They must be absolutely delighted with this compromise that the Government have come up with. I predict that, over the coming months, there will be a PR blitz about how great they are, how concerned they are with safety and how much safety by design they are putting into progress—all of which will no doubt have to be policed by us, the parents.

Instagram’s recent effort, which I am sure it wants a medal for, was to alert parents who have put the highly complicated safety notices on that their child is searching for self-harm material. Here is an idea: let us stop them seeing that material in the first place. Like so many families, we are constantly negotiating this space: what is allowed, what is not, what feels safe, what suddenly does not feel safe. Something that seems harmless can very quickly change. The point that the Pinterest boss made is very powerful, because a lot of these sites that feel harmless are in fact constantly trying to sell content to our children.

19:00

This is also straining relationships within families and changing how childhood feels for parents and children alike. The joy of growing up and of raising children is being steadily eroded. It is little wonder that many young people are deciding that bringing children into the world is now just too challenging with so many things that we face. Without a complete end and a total reset, we are just going to get more of the same and it will not be good enough. Like water, these companies will always find the cracks. There is too much money riding on it.

Finally, the consultation itself does little to reassure. As others have said, it is long and complex. It is widely described as being too difficult to complete. I am particularly troubled by some elements. Asking children as young as 10 to judge whether features such as sending explicit images should be restricted does not feel like a serious or responsible approach. There are also very important unanswered questions. How will responses be assessed? Whose voices will carry weight? As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, mentioned, how will conflicts of interest be managed? The Henry VIII powers further concern me, not just as a Member of this House but as a parent. We absolutely must have proper scrutiny on this issue going forward. What would happen should there be a change of Government to one who take a very different view of online safety?

Our children are navigating a period of profound emotional and neurological development. They are working out who they are and where they belong. To layer on top of that the intensity of social media with constant feedback, exposure and comparison is simply too much. They are not equipped for it; nor should they be expected to be. So I sincerely hope we back my noble friend Lord Nash’s Motion.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I too support very strongly the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am not going to say anything about it because it has been very well said already by other Members of this House. I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. I thought he put it, as so often, very powerfully. I will add one point to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said, with which I entirely agree. Parliament—both this House and the House of Commons—is being marginalised. These Henry VIII clauses are an extremely good example of this marginalisation, and it is time the House of Commons understood it, as we understand it very well in this House.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I was going to talk about the consultation, which is fundamentally not fit for purpose, but other noble Lords have covered that well, so I want to make a couple of other points about the way in which the Government are failing to understand the impact of social media on our children, as exemplified in the press today by this latest quick and dirty pilot on 300 children and young people, which would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. What on earth are we going to learn from that when there is extensive literature, not least from Australia, that we can look at without doing something on which we are apparently going to base part of the government response? It is ludicrous.

The Government are taking a very narrow view of social media. They are locked into the psychological aspects of it, which are hugely important, but they are failing to look at the wider aspects and the direct harms that are being reiterated time and again by professionals in schools and clinics and by the families who are sitting up in the Gallery now. It is disrespectful to the trauma of those families and to the people who are suffering direct harm to continue to grab headlines with these cheap efforts to say that we are piloting something that will give us no information at all, when the strength of feeling in this House and outside this House is manifestly clear. I will again be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I also support the approach outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am not trying to deprive other noble Lords of the chance to speak, but the idea that we go to the Front Benches because we have all heard these arguments before is not fair, because the Government have put before us the widest set of proposals that are completely new and came out of nowhere.

I am rather disappointed not to be supporting the Government. When we discussed this on Report, I did not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to ban social media for under-16s, despite how powerful his speech was, because I thought that the Government had a sense of proportion. Everybody here is saying, “What is the point of consultations? They are all a waste of time”. That is good for people who are in Parliament to admit. There are a lot of consultations around, on all sides, and we all know—

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

Nobody here is saying that consultations are all a waste of time. What we are saying is that this particular consultation is deeply flawed in its construction.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

People from different political parties have pointed out that we all know that consultations are a way of kicking the ball down the road and are not serious. Call me naive, but I am just saying that I thought they were.

It is very important, as we make the decisions about this, that this is not a competition about who cares most about children online. This is a discussion about how we deal with it, and that should not be so frenzied that we get into a situation where we are reckless democratically or we make decisions in a way that is informed not by evidence but by emotions and quite a highly charged atmosphere.

When the original amendment was tabled, it was very late in the Bill’s progress on Report in the Lords. More recently, there has been controversy about that. The way we make laws matters. There has been controversy, for example, about whether it was right to use the Crime and Policing Bill to push decriminalising late abortions, which I did not object to in principle. I have some sympathy with these very important law changes being tagged on to another Bill. We need to consider that the parliamentary process needs to allow scrutiny. Yet many of the same noble Lords who, for example, raised a justifiable critique on the decriminalisation of abortions seemed happy to bring forward another huge law change—the under-16 media ban—on Report on this Bill, so late that it curtailed proper scrutiny. I had a lot of sympathy with the Government—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Baroness has said a couple of times that my noble friend Lord Nash introduced his amendment on Report. It was tabled in Committee and on Report and it was debated at Second Reading. Maybe she would like to correct her remarks.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I had a lot of sympathy with the Government’s position on Report of trying to think about whether we could use consultation before embarking on drastic measures. I am just disappointed that the Government have brought forward at such a late stage these amendments that potentially give draconian powers to control the internet in general in the form of delegated powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, have explained why that is so dangerous.

Can the Government explain why they are asking us to legislate so comprehensively pre the completion of that consultation? If there is this rapid pilot of 60 children, about which I share the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, what is the point in us knowing that if we as legislators will not be able to deal with it? The Minister said that we would all get a chance to vote, but that is not what we want. We are being asked to hand over these major powers without any opportunity for meaningful debate about the outcomes of the consultation or the pilot.

The use of a statutory instrument means that there will be no chance to amend proposals or raise principles or practical concerns about unintended consequences. The Government’s “Delegated Legislation Toolkit” in their Guide to Making Legislation sets out the clear rule of thumb that

“the more significant a legal change, the stronger the presumption that it should be set out in primary legislation”.

I agree. It emphasises:

“Delegated powers are unlikely to be appropriate … because there has been insufficient time for … policy development”.


I worry about the rhetoric from all sides of “Think of the children”, “We have to do something”, “a sense of urgency” and so on. I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who I know has not rushed in here with little thought. Since I have been here, and long before that, she has been thinking about it.

I cannot help but feel that there is a huge amount of confusion even about what evidence there is. Every time I hear this evidence being cited and look at it myself, it is just not black and white. I do not want us to be rushed into making the wrong decision because, in all the evidence I have looked at, there is no correlation between screen time, social media—

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Can the noble Baroness say why the bar for evidence in this area of policy is after the event? Most critical industries have to abide by standards and they have to prove that a product is safe. Why are we, with all the bereaved families standing in the Gallery, talking about the lack of evidence on a day that a court case in the US has found the evidence against the companies? It does not make sense.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Baroness is perfectly reasonable to raise that. It is certainly contested in academic studies, even if it is, like, “Never mind the evidence, the product should be safe anyway”. I am suggesting that evidence-based policy requires evidence and that, when the evidence is at least contested and there is no direct correlation between screen use and mental health, we should pause. I am saying that because I think that teenagers and young people using the online world can be both virtuous and full of vice. Therefore, I do not want a ban on all 16 year-olds going on the internet. It is as straightforward as that. I have explained that before, so I am not going to—

[Lord Nash (Con)]

It is a long way from a ban on all teenagers going on the internet. It is highly selective for those apps that are clearly harmful.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I do not want to delay, and I have written a lot more.

At the very least, to finish off, I would have thought that, before Parliament embarks on such drastic measures in delegated power form, handing these powers over to the Government—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that they were only powers and the Government were not going to act on them, and I thought, “Good, I don’t want them to act on these particular powers because these powers are very far-reaching and we have no control over them”—should we not at least look at what has happened in relation to the ban in Australia? More than 50% of children—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness just wind up? We need to move on.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I keep being interrupted. In Australia, after the ban more than 50% of children are still using social media. Teens are being pushed underground, away from mainstream platforms into darker corners of the internet, without safeguards and with zero moderation. It is risky and dangerous behaviour. Rather than having adult help and guidance in negotiating the online world and recognising its virtues, not just its vices, they are just being banned.

Finally, I also think we need to be open that it is not just children who will be affected by both sides of these amendments. We know that there will be detrimental effects on the civil liberties of all UK internet users, of all ages, because they will lead to mandatory biometric age checks and/or digital ID requirements that will apply to the whole of the UK population, whatever age they are. I appreciate that whenever we talk about children and protecting children, civil liberties and freedoms are pooh-poohed and wafted away. I happen to think that it is important for the children we are rearing and socialising to understand that a free society requires somebody, somewhere, remembering that freedom and civil liberties are worth fighting for.

19:15

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, there have been very few speakers from the Labour Benches and I want to make sure that those who are supporting the amendments before the House today understand that, within this party, it is not exactly as was set out by the Minister. There are those of us who are very keen to support the movement that we can detect today in the thinking of this House. I want to be quite clear that I am not alone in that.

I want to say three things. First, part of the problem we have here is that we are running towards the end of a Session that does not have the right Bills, which makes it very difficult to get the issues we want into play. Secondly, there is no guarantee that there will be Bills in the next King’s Speech that will allow us to continue the debate and move forward at the pace we want to. The feeling that the House has, and I am sure I speak for all of us when I say this, is that something has gone wrong with the legislative structure that we have in place in this area and, in line with what so many people have said today, we need to find a way of getting into our laws the sorts of measures that are needed to take us forward on this.

I offer the Minister the following option: the only way we can get this in play, continue it and get to the right solution is to back the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I think we should do that. I do not agree with all that he is saying, and he knows that because I have talked to him about it, and I do not think bans are generally a good thing, but it is the only way to get in play a chance to look again at the other amendment that is before us today on this issue, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I know that she has worked hard on trying to get a form of words into her amendment, which she will not press, that would take the Government to a place where I think they will be comfortable, limiting the powers they want to take, focusing on the areas that they have not yet covered but which they must cover in terms of the way in which we relate to our regulator, and doing it in a way that is expedient and effective and will get quickly to the help that we so urgently need. I urge the Minister to think carefully about that and to support us as we move forward.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, we really must get to the Front Benches.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, to sum up this debate briefly, I have nothing new to add. I merely agree with certain noble Lords who have already spoken. As for the Government’s approach, Henry VII’s son is all over it, and that is never a good thing for a Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on that. The approach I and many on these Benches would have preferred is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but what we are dealing with here is something that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has done with considerable success and skill: namely, seize the argument and throw it back to the Government to see what they are going to do. I suggest that the Government listen very hard to us. What they have proposed is not meeting it for this House. What we want to do is to get something effective in play. I hope the Government will listen. We will be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in the Division Lobby if he decides to come forward.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I shall say a few words on smartphones and Motion N1 in my name. I acknowledge that the Government have made efforts in their new guidance on mobile phones, but their approach does not go far enough to meet the needs of pupils, parents or teachers—hence the need for my amendment. I thank Generation Focus and Health Professionals for Safer Screens, who have helped many of us have the privilege of listening to a range of head teachers and educational psychologists who have been able to share their experience.

Their views are absolutely clear. First, they are calling for a statutory ban so that they can be clear with the minority of parents that smartphones have no place in school. Evidence from the University of Birmingham shows that head teachers are spending literally hundreds of hours that they do not have dealing with the implementation of individual school policies. Clearly, that is not a good use of their time.

Secondly, they want a clear focus on smartphones. I noted that the Minister referred to my amendment as the “mobile phone amendment”. Of course, that was the slip of the tongue, but it is important because it is the connection to the internet in general and to social media in particular that is causing such a huge problem in relation to safeguarding incidents and suspensions in our schools.

As I said on Report, smartphones are the gateway drug to social media. One head teacher reported in a round table that we held recently that prior to having a ban in their school for children in year 7—that is, children aged about 11—almost a quarter of all suspensions in the school were for children in year 7, and they were linked predominantly to smartphone use. That is unrecognisable from a few years ago, when it was an exception to suspend a pupil in year 7.

Thirdly, those schools which ban smartphones are seeing a delay in the age at which a child receives one. Brick phones and Balance Phones do not pose the same threats to attention, concentration and safety. This has implications not just at school but on the journey to and fro, and at home. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly raised concerns about children with special educational needs. The evidence from the medical profession is that it is precisely these children who are made most vulnerable by having a smartphone, and teachers are quite clear that it is not appropriate for a child’s special educational needs to be met with a personal device. I shared that with the noble Lord before this debate.

I am absolutely baffled by the Government’s resistance to my amendment. I am grateful to all noble Lords across the House who have supported it so far, and I hope that the Government will change their mind.

I turn to the amendments relating to social media and children. Some of your Lordships will have read the extraordinarily brave letter this morning from Ellen Roome, mother of Jools Sweeney, and other bereaved parents, many of whom are behind me in the Chamber tonight. Given the weakness of my tear ducts, which some of your Lordships have already witnessed, I will not attempt to read any of it out, but whatever noble Lords’ views, I commend it to them to read it. It is one of the most dignified and brave letters noble Lords will read.

On these Benches, we stand firmly behind my noble friend Lord Nash and his Motion G1. His Motion establishes unequivocally that there should be restrictions on harmful social media for children under 16. It leaves the details of implementation to secondary legislation and, of course, the results of the Government’s consultation could be put to good effect in informing these regulations. It places the onus on the social media companies to change their products to being safe for children to use rather than leaving everything to an already overwhelmed regulator to resolve.

I recognise and welcome the spirit in which Motion G2 is framed, building on the great expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the other now affectionately known “tech Lords”—not to be confused with the tech bros—and other noble Lords. This expertise has been forged over many years of working on these issues, showing the Government how they can improve on their current approach.

During the passage of the Bill, the House has shown great collaboration across all Benches and yet the Government appear unwilling to engage with any of us. The Minister has access to extraordinary legislative and sector expertise and to all the most expert stakeholders, who are coalescing around a proactive and effective approach. I urge her to use us.

My noble friend Lord Nash mentioned Bill Ready, CEO of Pinterest. In closing, I would like to pick out some other remarks that he made. In May last year, he said:

“Now is the time to apply the same creativity and innovation that built the social media ecosystem to the vital task of protecting kids online. And if we can’t do this effectively, we lose any credibility to oppose a ban. As both a tech CEO and a parent, I know that legal compliance is not the same as safety … Our industry has had years to mitigate these harms, but has time and again failed. The time for self-regulation has passed, and if tech companies don’t change, then the path should be obvious to lawmakers. We need a clear standard: no social media for teens under 16, backed by real enforcement, and accountability for mobile phone operating systems and the apps that run on them”.


This evening, that path is obvious. It points directly to supporting my noble friend’s amendment.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive and heartfelt contributions made in the House today. We have heard a wide range of views, and I reiterate my thanks to noble Lords who have engaged so closely with Ministers in recent weeks as we work through these complex questions. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not only for the expertise that she brings but for her comment that all in this House share a commitment to children’s well-being online. It is this that motivates us all.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has set out the reasons behind Amendments 37 and 38 and why he wants to see swift action. I fully understand those intentions. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I said that it is not if we act, but how. It is the intention of the Government to act. The question is how.

The noble Lord’s amendments would require us to act before the consultation is concluded and would commit the Government to a specific set of measures that may not ultimately represent the most effective or proportionate way to protect our children. That is why the Government cannot accept Amendments 37 and 38; it is not because we do not agree with the objectives but because legislating could risk unintended consequences. It would mean acting before listening to what the consultation tells us and to what parents and children need.

Some 20,000 parents have responded to the parent-specific survey. We are extremely keen to assess and hear what parents and children say. Additionally, these amendments are restricted to user-to-user services under the Online Safety Act. It is hugely important that we seek views across other services. We know that children use other mechanisms, such as AI chatbots and gaming, which are not consistently caught by the definition of user-to-user services.

I just want to say that we are taking the consultation extremely seriously, as we are the national conversation. Alongside the publication of the consultation, we announced that a parallel academic panel will be formed, and this panel of experts will assist in assessing the development of the evidence base, drawing on the international expertise that many noble Lords have mentioned today, for example from Australia, to advise us as we take these matters forward.

Many noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—have rightly pressed the question of pace and swiftness of action. The reason for the Government’s amendment in lieu is exactly that: to provide a clear and deliverable route to take forward what we want to do, informed by the results of the consultation. The consultation closes in May and we will respond by the summer to set out next steps. That means we can act within months, not years.

The use of those powers and the parliamentary scrutiny of them were mentioned by many noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Carter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we absolutely recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the expertise that parliamentarians in both Houses provide. Each of these powers will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which will ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny before we enact policy changes. We feel that the delegated powers the Bill proposes are justified and proportionate, and we have sought to provide as much detail as we can to support their scrutiny.

Lastly, on Amendment 106, on mobile phones in schools, our position is clear: mobile phones have no place in schools. We believe this is primarily an issue of enforcement, and that is why we have set out the strengthened guidance and why we are supporting with our network of attendance and behaviour hubs. We are backing head teachers to take the necessary action.

In closing, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment, which gives us power to take effective, evidence-based action, and to resist Amendments 37, 38 and 106. We share a goal: the question is simply how best to achieve it. Our amendment is the right one and I hope that noble Lords will join us in supporting it.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister has to say, but I have also read the consultation very carefully and listened to the statements made publicly by the DSIT Secretary of State. I can only conclude from those that the Government have no real commitment to do anything serious about the harms that our children are experiencing on social media, and I ask the House to agree to my Motion G1. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my social media amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)]

I must inform your Lordships that, if Motion G1 is agreed, it pre-empts Motion G2.

19:31

Division 2

Motion G1 agreed.

Ayes: 266

Noes: 141

19:43

Motion G2 not moved.

Motion H

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41A.

41A: Because the Commons consider that imposing a monetary cap on branded items of school uniform may have undesirable effects.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion H, I shall also speak to Motions H1, J, L, L1 and M. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to school uniforms, published admission numbers and allergies. For each, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I turn first to Motions H and J, relating to Amendments 41 and 42, and Motion H1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The amendment in lieu, Amendment 41B, seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. I thank the noble Lord again for raising the important issue of uniform costs. We will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it.

However, our manifesto commitment is clear: to reduce the cost of uniforms by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require. This approach is overwhelmingly backed by parents, with the Children’s Society finding that 78% agree with such a limit. We believe that a cost cap would not create the same level of parental savings as a numeric limit. It is complex and burdensome for government and schools, and it risks appearing protective, while failing to constrain actual costs. It creates a financial target and could encourage schools to increase the number or price of their branded items. It risks strengthening supply and monopolies, reducing parental freedom and increasing costs. A numeric limit opens the market, giving parents greater choice and affordability.

A cost cap would entail unnecessary regulatory complexity and assumptions about retail pricing for size variations, promotions and parents’ purchasing of spare or replacement items. Enforcement would create significant burdens for schools, forcing annual reviews of uniform policies and prices, and drawing them into disputes between parents and retailers about prices and compliance. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and easily enforceable, and statutory guidance can make it clear that high-cost items should be avoided.

I turn to Motion L, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion L1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which insists on this amendment. The amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number, or PAN, following an upheld objection. We have committed to update the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school quality and parental choice are paramount in any decision on a PAN. We have set out more detail on our planned approach in a paper deposited in the House of Lords Library yesterday, including plans for new statutory principles that will ensure that the availability of high-quality school places is central to decision-making, and that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places should be a last resort.

We already expect schools and local authorities to co-operate to ensure that admission numbers give parents a choice of high-quality local school places close to home. However, this amendment would impose inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to deal with those instances where this does not happen. An individual school’s decisions can impact school quality and choice across an area, especially at a time of declining pupil numbers. This can impact both urban and rural communities. This measure will ensure that, as a last resort, an independent decision can be taken, with choice and quality for all children at its centre.

I turn finally to Motion M, relating to Amendment 105, which was tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools. I am therefore pleased to confirm that we have tabled our own amendment in lieu to place allergy safety on a statutory footing. It is intended to enshrine Benedict’s law in primary legislation, securing robust allergy safety measures.

I pay particular tribute to the tireless efforts of Helen Blythe, in memory of her son Benedict, and the members of the National Allergy Strategy Group. Helen, her husband Peter and their daughter Etta are here today in the Chamber. Parents should be able to send their children to school in the knowledge that they will be safe there, regardless of any medical condition or allergy.

Our amendment in lieu requires schools to have and regularly review allergy safety policies, and to publicise and publish them on their websites. In doing so, schools must have regard to statutory guidance, which has been co-produced with many expert stakeholders. Our amendment in lieu also creates regulation-making powers permitting the Secretary of State to place specific duties relating to allergy safety, including the content of policies, stocking adrenaline devices and securing allergy awareness training, and to record and report incidents.

This amendment applies to all schools in England. It provides for the same requirements to be placed on independent and non-maintained special schools. The noble Baroness’s amendment set clear timescales for its implementation; I reiterate our commitment that our new statutory guidance will be implemented from September 2026. We further commit to commencing the duties contained within these clauses as soon as possible, and to introducing the regulations as soon as possible, noting that we have undertaken to give schools at least a term’s notice of any new duty.

We believe that this will deliver the key protections for children with allergies and the flexibility for our requirements to evolve as clinical advice changes. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley]

Moved by

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 41B in lieu—

41B: Clause 29, page 50, line 21, at end insert—

“551ZB School uniforms: review of limits on branded items


(1) The Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of measures intended to limit the cost to parents of branded items of school uniform required by the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use during a school year.


(2) A review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—


(a) whether a monetary cap on the total cost of branded items of school uniform could provide a greater reduction in costs for parents in comparison to an item-based cap,


(b) the impact such a monetary cap would have on pupils at—


(i) primary schools, and


(ii) secondary schools,


(c) the impact a monetary cap would have on schools and their uniform policies, and


(d) what further measures could be effective at reducing the cost of school uniform.


(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the coming into force of section 551ZA, lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1).””

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, my Motion H1, as we heard earlier, is around the issue of a monetary cap on school uniforms. I will not rehearse the arguments that we have had already in Committee and on Report. However, if the Government are minded to continue to push for a numbers cap, as opposed to a monetary cap, on which your Lordships’ House voted before, I say to them that, ultimately, they should leave all the options open. If their numbers cap does not work, they should therefore have the option to revisit this.

The numbers cap is not my preferred option. I still would like them to consider the actual monetary cap, but what is wrong with coming back in, say, 12 months’ time when they do their review? Supporting my Motion H1 today would allow them to say, “Okay, we thought this would work and it doesn’t”. If it has not quite met the intentions of their aspirations in both their manifesto and this Bill, there would be an alternative provision that your Lordships have voted on previously. That is why I wanted to move this Motion. I do not want to prolong the debate, because we have had a bet on that we were going to keep our contributions to a minimum, so I shall stick to below two minutes.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion M. I support the amendments in lieu, Amendments 105B and 105C. I would like to thank the Ministers; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is here speaking tonight but perhaps he would pass on thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the House of Commons for their engagement and the fact that they have listened on this issue. In particular, there are details in these amendments which I think the Government had talked about putting in regulations, but it has given real assurance to those who care passionately about this amendment to have these matters on the face of the Bill.

I thank all the noble Lords who signed the original amendment and spoke in favour of it. I also thank Alicia Kearns MP, who led the campaign in favour, but most of all, as the Minister has said, the thanks should go to the tireless campaigners, particularly Helen Blythe. If she is looking for alternative things to do, she would make an excellent legislator in this House. She has been indefatigable in her pursuit of Benedict’s law; it is a pleasure to welcome both Peter and Helen to Parliament today and, I think, friends of Benedict as well.

Helen Blythe was clear that this should not just be statutory guidance, although that was a great step forward, and that legislation was needed. I welcome the fact that the change will come in from September of this year. In her article for The House magazine—this was just before the vote in the House of Commons—Helen said:

“We are closer than ever to allergy-safe schools. Progress has been made. The government has shown it takes the protection of children with allergies seriously. The question now is whether we can secure that progress in a way that guarantees equal protection for every child in every classroom, for children like our son. Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”.


I think the Government have risen to the challenge in putting down this amendment. As the Minister will know, there is a little question about funding, but I know that the department is very aware of that and will work for schools, which, as we all know, have budgets under pressure. But again, I am very pleased to be able to support the amendments in lieu that the Government have laid this evening.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, please bear with me again; I will keep to the two-minute limit. I too speak in favour of Amendments 105B and 105C, tabled in lieu in Motion M, and in doing so declare my interest as COO of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for all her work on behalf of all those children living with allergic disease and their families. Tonight, I want to briefly emphasise the importance of these amendments, which are testament to the efforts of the noble Baroness but also to the Benedict Blythe Foundation and Helen and Peter’s work. I want to read out a couple of the hundreds of positive comments that the Natasha foundation received when the allergy community learnt of the Government’s intention to bring forward statutory guidance on allergy safety in schools. The mums said:

“This is a gift to allergic families”;


“As an allergy mum I can’t tell you what amazing news this is. This will save lives and help so many children feel safer in school”;


“This will mean so much to so many parents and children in this country living with allergies”;


“This will change everything for my family, my son has multiple food allergies. This is a life changing moment”.


These words demonstrate the impact on people’s lives the Government can make when they listen, engage and work collaboratively with charities and Members from all sides of both Houses.

My noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath cannot be in her place today but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, we too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the other place, along with their civil servant teams, who have worked constructively with allergy charities over many months. Of course, there is always more to do and we look forward to continued discussions with the Government on what practical support and funding will be available to enable schools to effectively implement this guidance. But to conclude, these amendments in lieu will help to keep children safe in schools and help to ensure they are better protected, and more included in school life.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion L1, and I am looking round to see where everybody is.

The Minister described Motion L1 as a “last resort” and, when we met them yesterday, the Bill team seemed to think that the example of a highly successful school next to a school that is struggling is quite unlikely. But I know from my own experience what it is like, both professionally and as a parent of two children. This seems to be an efficiency drive that ignores both parents and children. While I admire the intent, as a parent I would be deeply unhappy if access to my preferred school was closed in order to even up numbers. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, be minded to take this to a vote, I would go with her.

20:00

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with this reinstatement of her original Amendment 102. I speak as the chairman of an academy trust; I have faced the dead hand of the bureaucratic tidying-up exercise. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton: just last year, it was suggested that we restrict our PAN at two of our best schools, so that failing schools nearby could be kept going. The inconvenience of having to enact cuts to their own schools, faced by local authorities in particular, is such that it is much easier for them to go after another body that has to bear the financial burden.

I accept that the letter, which arrived amazingly at the 11th and a half hour last night, makes some attempt at compromise. If the Government were serious about protecting improving schools, however, they would go with the amendment that is being proposed.

I can tell your Lordships’ House how hard it is to improve previously failing schools. The Minister may be interested to know that failing schools already receive a huge subsidy in what is euphemistically called “lagged funding”. In the year following a falling roll, they receive the full amount that they were been paid in the previous year with more children. The opposite effect occurs for improving schools with rising rolls. So this year, we are educating nearly 240 children for free in my trust, which is nearly £1.5 to £2 million. Next year, that will be 300 children. The question, then, is how difficult does the noble Lord want to make it to improve previously failing schools?

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, I stand to support the Government in their attempt to create a situation where there is an adequate regulator for school admissions. At a time of greatly falling rolls, particularly in primary, this is especially important, and even more so when there is going to be a much broader curriculum as a result of the curriculum assessment review. It will be important that all schools can teach this broad curriculum. To do so, we need to have children in those schools. As I said in Committee, the problem with schools that simply expand is that very good schools can be left unable to operate.

I also have a question for the Liberal Democrats on the opposite Benches: in Committee, they supported the opposition to the local authorities having a say as an admissions adjudicator. The last Lib Dem election manifesto of 2024 promised parents and the public that local authorities would be given the power and resources to act as strategic education authorities for their area. This included responsibility for place planning, exclusions and administering admissions, including in-year admissions and SEND functions. I simply ask whether that is still the Lib Dems’ position. If it is, will they be supporting the Government’s position?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, on these Benches we share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, about the rigidity of the Government’s approach to trying to control school uniform costs. Indeed, we would have been quite happy if he had wanted to bring back his previous amendment unchanged. We also warmly welcome the Government amendment in relation to children with allergies in school, and I echo the remarks made by others across the House to recognise the incredible work of the Benedict Blythe Foundation—in particular, Benedict’s mother Helen—that has culminated in this amendment today.

My Motion L1 simply supports the rights of parents and pupils to attend the school of their choice and get the best possible education in an area. We understand the financial pressures faced by schools that are dealing with falling rolls, but the way to address them is not by reducing choice, nor by cutting places in the most popular local schools. Furthermore, if the Government are to be successful in closing the disadvantage gap, which we all want to see, they will need these schools and should not be shrinking them.

In the letter that the Government sent to Peers last night, they set out the principles they intend to follow in the updated regulations and School Admissions Code. I accept that the Government have moved and have tried to clarify their position. It is a pity that this arrived so late and that there has been no time to discuss any of this with Ministers, despite having requested meetings since early February. I am very open to discussing further with Ministers but, as drafted, I do not think that the proposed wording is as watertight as the intent of my Motion. In particular, the language of “long-term sufficiency” seems to give more wriggle room than is needed. At this stage, it is also hard to see the point of the measures in the Bill, given the statement that we have just heard from the Government. The Bill’s own impact assessment is clear that it will limit the ability of good schools to grow. We are in a bit of a muddle of policy-making now, with a different position in the Bill, a different position in the letter, and a different position in the White Paper.

As long ago as the 2002 Labour Party conference, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair asked:

“Why shouldn’t there be a range of schools for parents to choose from? Why shouldn’t good schools expand or take over failing schools or form federations?”


This remains a relevant question today, more than 20 years on. I only wish that the Government would listen to the views of their former leader, whose reform laid such important foundations on which subsequent Governments have built, and which have contributed significantly to rising school standards. The fundamental principle that we have set out in earlier debates on school choice is a crucial one, and it should not be eroded.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. I start by addressing the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. To be clear, and as I said in my opening speech, we will of course monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it. One of the concerns I and the Government have is that the cost cap effectively creates a target price, incentivising price rises for any school currently below the cap. Many schools could in fact brand more items, reducing savings for parents, and it would be more complex for parents and place unnecessary burdens on them. So I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position. I think a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, it will deliver savings more quickly—which is what the Children’s Society survey says is overwhelmingly backed by parents—and it is of course a commitment in our manifesto.

Lords Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can set a lower published admission number. We want a system that ensures that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have committed to updating the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school standards and parental choice are central to any decision on PAN.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged, we have been developing proposed changes to the code and associated regulations, considering stakeholders’ views and the important points raised by Members as the Bill has progressed. I note what the noble Baroness says about the timing of the publication, but our proposed framework, which was deposited in the House Library yesterday, contains at its heart new statutory principles to help ensure that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places will always be a last resort. We will conduct a full public consultation on the proposed changes, and the updated code and regulations must be laid before Parliament.

Finally, I turn to allergy safety. I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Government’s amendment. I will repay the compliment by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her work on this. I will certainly pass her gratitude on to my noble friend Lady Smith and my honourable friend in the other place, and her acknowledgement of their work. I pay tribute to the people who have really made the difference: the campaigners who have worked so hard to ensure that this is implemented. Given the critical importance of allergy safety, we will seek to continue to work collaboratively, and we will continue to do so as we develop the regulations and prepare to implement the new duties.

To close, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment on allergies in schools, to support Motions H, J, L, and M, and to resist Motions H1 and L1.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support. I am still not convinced; the Government need to have another option at the end of it. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

20:12

Division 3

Motion H1 agreed.

Ayes: 200

Noes: 150

20:23

Motion J

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.

Motion K

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

[Baroness Barran]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 44B in lieu—

44B: Clause 30, page 51, line 23, at end insert “, or


(c) conducting proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision) in respect of the child, or has ever initiated such proceedings in respect of the child (other than proceedings which resulted in the child’s subsequent adoption).””

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I beg to move Motion K1.

20:24

Division 4

Motion K1 disagreed.

Ayes: 163

Noes: 195

20:35

Motion K agreed.

Motion L

[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.”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I beg to move Motion L1.

20:36

Division 5

Motion L1 agreed.

Ayes: 207

Noes: 148

20:46

Motion M

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.

Motion N

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.”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I beg to move Motion N1.

20:48

Division 6

Motion N1 agreed.

Ayes: 205

Noes: 147