19:31 - Division on Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G) - Ayes: 266 / Noes: 141 - Motion G1 agreed.
20:12 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 150 - Motion H1 agreed.
20:24 - Division on Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K) - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 195 - Motion K1 disagreed.
20:36 - Division on Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L) - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 148 - Motion L1 agreed.
20:48 - Division on Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N) - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 147 - Motion N1 agreed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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),”.”
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)
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.
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).””
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.
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)