Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thought that I was walking into a kind of kumbaya, with peace breaking out, but, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, perhaps I got that wrong.
I was going to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nash, with whom I profoundly disagree, on having achieved something of a victory. I was also going to congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Smith, on reaching some kind of compromise—at this point in ping-pong, we might all be relieved about that—but I do not understand the Government’s position. So I want to ask the Minister a genuine question in good faith.
We have heard a lot about the fact that this measure could not be implemented because we had to wait until the consultation was over. What if those who were consulted on the Government’s plans for a social media ban for under-16s—experts, NGOs, parents—do not agree that age functionality restrictions for under-16s represent the best approach to keeping teens safe? What if they raise worries about the anonymity and privacy of over-16s and adults, as well as a fear of digital ID? Some of the 55,000 people who responded certainly raised the problem of censorship mission creep.
I ask that because, does this not pre-empt the outcome of a consultation that the Minister assured us the Government could not do? Is there not therefore a danger of undermining evidence-based policy in general, to be so pragmatic? Might it imply that public consultations are just going through the motions and that politicians are not really listening to the public at all? What do those of us who have concerns about this under-16 ban do if some of our warnings are ignored before it has even happened, never mind afterwards, when I am sure we will see that some of our fears are actually true? If, by the way, this was only about keeping children safe, or if I thought it was the best way to keep children safe, then fine—but not everybody thinks it is.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind words and for the statement. I thank the Government for their active engagement in the matter of social media, albeit rather last-minute, and for making a binding commitment to impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16, to be focused on addictive features, harmful, algorithmic-driven content, and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy and have led to so much harm and a number of deaths.
This is very welcome to the millions of parents, voters, teachers, health professionals and others who have been asking for it, and it is exactly what my amendment would have achieved. I would just ask the Government to get these lines to all Ministers, so that when they are on the airwaves, they stick to them, rather than giving long and rather confusing answers—because it is to this statement that we will be holding the Government to account to deliver on as soon as possible.
I thank all noble Peers from across the House who supported my amendment, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger, Lady Benjamin and Lady Cass, who put their names to it originally. I also very much thank my team, Ben and Molly Kingsley of Safe Screens, Bella Skinner and Becky Foljambe of Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Simon Bailey and Ed Oldfield. I also thank Annabelle Eyre and Henry Mitson, who have advised me on the process. Having taken five Acts through your Lordships’ House as a Minister, I have discovered how different the gamekeeper-turned-poacher process is. I also thank Susannah Street and Connie Walsh in the Public Bill Office for being so available to help me navigate the intricacies of the amendment process.
Above all, I thank the 27 bereaved parents who have campaigned so tirelessly alongside me, particularly Ellen Roome. They did not have to do this; they did it so that no other family would have to live through what they have lived through, and they have ensured that, as a result, every child in the country will be safer because of their work, and I thank them for it. I do hope that the Prime Minister will meet with them, as they have requested, very soon.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I share the noble Lord’s concern about timescale. I see no reason why the Government cannot act faster than the longstop they have allowed for, and I understand and have heard their statement that they intend to do so. I also share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about Ofcom. Having met recently with Ofcom and heard the long-winded and convoluted process it has to go through before it can stick anything on the social media companies, I was confirmed—if I needed any confirmation—in my view that we have to put the onus on the companies to get their houses in order by restricting children’s access to harmful features, rather than hoping we can regulate our way out of this problem.
However, we need to improve substantially the Online Safety Act and to strengthen Ofcom’s ability—and, if I might say so, its capacity and boldness. It is disappointing that the rumour is there will be nothing in the King’s Speech which would enable us to do this. I hope we can live together to fight this battle another time, but so far as this Bill is concerned, I feel the moment has passed.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, during the short time we have been debating a ban on social media for under-16s, several countries have brought in or are discussing such a ban. Even China is due to bring in restrictions on the use of mobile phones and social media. Those who argue that our children will be at a disadvantage for not accessing social media should realise, that most children will be in the same boat: they will not be at a disadvantage. That is why I am supporting the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think we have all agreed that there are troubling aspects of social media usage among young people, which are taken very seriously. It is very appropriate for parents, teachers and policymakers to be concerned and to discuss how best to help children navigate the digital world. From previous contributions, people will know that I am not sympathetic to the banning approach. I am not going to rehearse that, but I want to make a couple of points.
First, I am still very concerned about the Government’s proposed Henry VIII powers. I appreciate the sunset clause from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but I tend to go along with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, has explained it, because we cannot just keep handing over power to the Executive and saying, “We trust you to get on with it”. I am not convinced that that trust is merited.
In general, however, I appreciate that the Government have been more open about consulting on this difficult issue. I hope that continues and I encourage the Minister, and the Government in general, to consider new evidence as it comes in. The experiment in Australia shows things not just about social media or the big tech companies, but about the way that children have got around the ban and are now using unregulated sites, with some danger to themselves. If the Government are still open, that is very important, because there are enough experts—scientists and other people working in this field—who really are concerned that the pressure for a drastic policy such as this, with social media harms becoming a go-to explanation and bans becoming a go-to solution for a wide range of the cultural and political challenges facing young people, is something we need to be careful of. Oxford psychologist Lucy Foulkes describes it as a “neat explanation”. She says that
“social media makes a nice bogeyman, but the claim is just not backed up by the data”.
Can the Minister clarify, in terms of the consultation and the gathering of information to inform policy, whether there will also be discussions about weighing up the pros and cons of bans and so on, with the unintended consequences for vital democratic freedoms? Could age-gating, for example, lead to a form of digital verification for adults, which would be illiberal? There is also the impact on socialising the young. I know we have heard that, if everyone is banning it, that is okay; I am not convinced that China banning anything is something I want to be excited about, personally. We have to weigh up whether putting an emphasis on safetyism outweighs the potential benefits of teaching young people how to negotiate the digital world, rather than just taking them off it.
On the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, there are a couple of things that I am not sure about and need clarification on. In the phrasing
“are likely to cause, encourage or facilitate compulsive, obsessive, addictive or other unhealthy behaviours”,
“are likely to cause” seems to me to be the opposite of evidence-based. How does that decision get taken on board?
On the use of “addictive” and the allegation that these are addictive apps and so on, should we just uncritically accept that? I know that it is being used in the law courts in America, but accepting the “addiction” label medicalises bad habits and relieves the young of any responsibility for their own behaviour. Is there a danger here of teaching the young that they have no control and peddling a myth of powerlessness in relation to technology and young people’s own desire in just wanting to do things? You can imagine that, “It’s not my fault; it’s the algorithm what done it”—always blaming someone else—is a danger that undermines the lessons that young people should learn about self-discipline in order to grow up as independent moral agents.
Finally, on teaching lessons—maybe I misunderstood this—in Motion A2, under the heading,
“Supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services”,
which sounds very educational, and obviously we are discussing a schools Bill, it seems to me that there is a danger in the curriculum of overintervention. It is one thing teaching business models and implications of online collection of children’s data. The Minister explained the issues around digital literacy well and I am all for that; it is a positive thing. But adding to primary legislation such centralised, specific demands, as they seem to be, that the national curriculum
“should contain age-appropriate material to explain the reasons for children under the age of 16 being prevented from accessing different kinds of regulated user-to-user services”
just feels to me like PR for the Bill. I am not entirely sure that it is helpful for children. It sounds far too much like politicising the agenda rather than making it open-minded.
I am involved in a schools sixth-form debating competition called Debating Matters. We have a motion that is for or against the ban on social media for under-16s. There are two sides to this debate and, even if there is law change, I would not want the curriculum to teach only one side of the debate as though it is the truth and the final word, because that would be manipulative and not right.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tabled his amendment at the first stage, when we were battling with the House of Commons on the drafting of the Bill, I gave him my support and voted against the Government. I voted against the Government not because I was against them but because, as I told my noble friend the Minister, I wanted them to have another thought about this issue. They have now had another thought about this issue and proposed legislation that is considerably stronger than the legislation we last looked at. Therefore, I welcome the position that the noble Lord has now taken.
A few years ago, in professional circumstances, I had the duty to look at some of the pornography that is available, and I have to tell your Lordships that it is quite vile. I have no reason to think that it is any better now: it is probably more vile.
The other thing that we should take strongly into account is the access that is required to get into and view the pornography that is available on the internet. It is a much bigger problem than we might perceive.
So, my present position is that I again support the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but in his more sophisticated approach of accepting the government amendments but suggesting that there could be some improvements. I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept the proposed improvements that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has moved.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—
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.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments returns to the issue of balancing the rights of children who are excluded from school with those of other children and staff in the classroom. All three of my amendments were tabled in Committee. Before I speak to them, I want to acknowledge the very positive evaluation of the impact of the behaviour hubs programme that was just published, and I thank all those involved.
In Committee, the Minister referred to the statutory Working Together guidance, which says that the local authority and partners should identify problems and unmet needs, including for children facing multiple suspensions or permanent exclusion from school. She referred again to the changes that the Government are making to local authority children’s services with a greater proposed emphasis on early help. Of course, this is how all of us would hope that the system would work but, by definition, when a child is permanently excluded, that early intervention has not achieved its goals.
To take my amendments in reverse order, Amendment 219 would make it clear that there is a presumption against reinstatement in a mainstream school after a child has been permanently excluded twice. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said in Committee, there is good evidence that these children do not go on to thrive in mainstream and are more likely to have their needs met through high-quality alternative provision. We all know that there is not enough of this currently, but that is for a different debate. Perhaps the forthcoming schools White Paper will address it. However, can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to make it clear in future updates of the suspension and exclusions guidance that if a child has twice been excluded from a mainstream school, there is a presumption against placing them in another one?
My Amendment 218 reflects the anxieties that many parents and head teachers have about having a child in their classroom who has committed serious violence or sexual assault. We heard several examples of this in Committee, and the Minister talked about how the Government would,
“trust head teachers to use their professional judgment based on the individual circumstances of the case when considering whether to exclude a pupil, and we will protect their right to do that”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2132.]
However, in Clauses 54 to 56 the Government are strengthening the ability of local authorities to require academies to accept a particular child via a managed move, so we need the clarity that my amendment brings. Again, can the noble Baroness confirm whether that will be in the forthcoming guidance?
In these debates, we rightly focus on the excluded child, but we too rarely speak with equal clarity about the children who remain, those whose learning could be disrupted, whose classrooms become unsafe and whose trust in adult authority is eroded when serious behaviour is not addressed decisively. Exclusion decisions are not made in a vacuum; they are made in the context of 30 other pupils and the staff responsible for them. Any system that weakens the ability of head teachers to act risks failing not one child but many. This is about not giving up on children but recognising when repeated failure in mainstream indicates that a different setting is more likely to meet a child’s needs and keep other children safe.
Finally, Amendment 217 aims to ensure that children who are permanently excluded are guaranteed a proper assessment by the local authority. I understand that schools need to inform the local authority when they permanently exclude a child. Of course, in strong local authorities this results in an assessment, but it is not consistent. I know the Minister understands just how vulnerable a child who is permanently excluded can be, so I hope she will agree to make this assessment a requirement. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one year ago today, on 3 February 2025, 15 year-old Harvey Willgoose was tragically stabbed in the heart at All Saints Catholic High School in Sheffield. It happened in the school courtyard in the lunch break, and the perpetrator was Mohammed Umar Khan. An independent review has been commissioned by the school’s trust on what it calls “missed opportunities” and “too many red flags” about Mohammed Khan’s previous behaviour. Khan’s record showed around 130 incidents of concern relating to violence, anger issues and even carrying weapons, yet somehow teachers did not feel able to handle that. Allegedly—the trust is looking into this—some teachers said that they raised the alarm but were ignored or it was pushed away from them.
It is important that we note that teachers should never be frightened to intervene for whatever reason by asserting adult authority. One problem we have to address is making sure that we do not in any way send a message that teachers cannot have the tools that they need to deal with challenging behaviour in schools. It is therefore important that suspension and permanent exclusions are part of the tools that reinforce and deter serious misconduct across schools, signal that certain behaviours have severe consequences and allow boundaries to exist and be reinforced. That is beneficial to all pupils as well as staff. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that sometimes we forget those children who are sitting there and are victims of the misbehaving or violent child. It is for that reason that I have added my name to Amendment 217, which would require local authorities to undertake an assessment of the needs of any permanently excluded child. I am sure that one reason many head teachers are nervous about permanent exclusion is that they do not want that to be the end of the educational road for the child and they do not want the child to disappear. It is very important that we do not allow that to happen.
Amendment 218, which probes the Government’s willingness to introduce a presumption against the reinstatement of a child excluded for very serious matters, such as possession of a knife or other weapon, sexual assault or assault against a teacher, would be key in backing up teachers’ ability to be authoritative and feel safe when teaching. Pupils need to be relocated to an environment more suitable to their challenging behaviour and then they should be followed up because we do not want an argument to be used that permanently excluded, difficult, challenging children will end up in the wilderness with no possible options. These amendments cover that really well, and Amendment 217 aims to prevent that bleak outcome.
On Amendment 219, under which if pupils are excluded on two occasions it would not automatically be assumed that schools would have to take them back, I think that is important and I will be interested to hear what the Minister thinks about it, because it could prevent heightened risk to other staff or students. But I also think we should not presume that it is okay simply to move the problem to another mainstream school. It just feels lazy, like moving the deckchairs. More pupils are then put at risk in another school, but the problem is never tackled. They might actually need to be relocated to a more suitable environment.
I should say that, at one point, I taught for several years in a further education setting pupils from the age of 14 upwards who had been excluded from schools in the local area. They were, to say the least, challenging. Many of them had been violent in their classrooms, but many of them had literally just gone from pillar to post, pillar to post, with no particular regard to the issues they had. When they were actually in a special class—I am not saying it was special because I was teaching it—at least it meant that we could focus on the difficulties they had.
My final thought, having sat through a lot of the discussions, is that we need to be aware that the deterioration—and there has been a deterioration—of young people in schools does not come out of a vacuum. We have just heard the discussions and the tensions around mobile phones. We do have to think that sometimes our policies can make matters worse. In that instance, I think that the question that was asked earlier about how we are actually going to police and enforce any ban on mobile phones in schools was worth asking, because the teachers are going to have to police it. That could lead to a lot more tensions.
Also, to refer to an earlier amendment, suspensions and permanent exclusions rose sharply when schools reopened after the Covid lockdown period, with suspensions up by 21% and permanent exclusions up by 16%. Following on from the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in relation to lockdowns, I think we should understand that that period really did damage young people and led to a decline in behaviour. We have to take some responsibility for that.
In general, I think that the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, are a really useful way for us to reconsider how we tackle this issue.
Lord Storey (LD)
Children have a right to learn, and teachers have a right to teach. Permanent exclusion is far more than a disciplinary measure; it is a pivotal moment that can shape a child’s future. Consider the 2023-24 academic year, when almost 10,900 children were permanently excluded in England, with nearly four in 10 due to persistent disruptive behaviour. Without careful support, these exclusions can set children on a path of disengagement, low attainment and tragically increased involvement with the criminal justice system.
We know that exclusions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. Children eligible for free school meals or with special education needs are far more likely to be excluded, highlighting the urgent need for support that is tailored rather than one size fits all. All too often, excluded children simply fall out of the system, their potential left unrealised.
This amendment would require local authorities to carry out a formal needs assessment, ensuring that support is timely, targeted and responsive. Professionals will be able to identify barriers to learning, social or emotional challenges and offer suggestions for appropriate interventions, whether that be reintegration into another school, alternative provision or targeted mental health and well-being support. Whichever route this intervention follows, it is essential, as evidence shows that without such structured intervention excluded children face long-term education disadvantage and reduced life chances.
This is not mere bureaucracy; it is a practical, evidence-informed measure, designed to safeguard children and give them a chance to succeed. It aligns with the Government’s commitment to exclusion and equality of opportunity, recognising that every child has value, talent and potential. It is our collective responsibility to provide a safety net for those most at risk. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, not as a mere procedural formality but as a moral and educational imperative. Let us ensure that no child is left behind simply because they have faced challenges in their schooling.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 208 in this group. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord. While I might not agree with everything he said, the debate on British values was an extremely common theme of my time in the Department for Education. It is a commentary on the world we live in that we now need to define what we mean by democracy, but I do not disagree with the point the noble and right reverend Lord made. I thank other noble Lords who added their names to Amendment 208: the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
As this amendment was debated in Committee, I will not take too long to introduce it. But I also do not think that I really need to convince the Government Front Bench, given that, just before Christmas, we had the arrival of the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy. It was good to see the commitment:
“The Minister for Skills is exploring the most effective route to make Relationships and Sex Education … mandatory for young people under 18 in further education colleges”.
Unknown to many—including, presumably, some noble Lords in this House—and rather extraordinarily, hundreds of thousands of young people aged 16 to 18 are currently excluded from the benefits of relationships and sex education if they happen to be in further education colleges. This is despite the fact that this group experiences, for example, the highest rates of domestic abuse. An estimated 608,000 students aged 16 to 18 study in either further education or sixth-form colleges in England. Although further education colleges can deliver relationships and sex education on a voluntary basis, provision is inconsistent, unmonitored and often with scant training or support for those who are asked to teach it.
The campaign has the support of the Association of Colleges. I am also grateful to the Let Me Know young people advocates, Tabitha and Angela, who spoke so movingly at a briefing last week for Members of this House on why the extension of this education is needed for their age group. I also pay tribute to the efforts of Faustine Petron of Make It Mandatory, a survivor and formidable campaigner who identified the gap in education for this age group, having been unsupported during her own experience of relationship abuse. Some 105,000 people have now backed her petition.
Recent research from the Institute for Addressing Strangulation shows that almost half—43%—of sexually active 16 and 17 year-olds have been strangled during sex, and 70% of young people surveyed by the Children’s Commissioner have seen porn routinely featuring rape, strangulation and incest. This House and the other place have rightly been introducing, discussing and amending legislation on issues such as nudification apps, violent online pornography, harmful and abusive content across social media, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That is why, at the same time, we must support the creation of space in the curriculum for all 16 to 18 year-olds—the very age group most likely to be having to deal with the reality of these and other relevant issues—so that they receive a proper education on these matters. As the young people I met last week said, for them, these issues are not theoretical. The more than 600,000 young people in further education colleges have as much right to that curriculum as the rest of their peers.
I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement on this issue. I shall listen very carefully to what she says. As I say, I think she agrees with the overall thrust of this amendment. If this is not the right Bill, which I think reflects the conversation that she and I had, I ask her to say which one would be, and, if one of those who support this change were fortunate enough to secure the ability to bring forward some legislation sooner than the next Department for Education Bill, I would be grateful if the Government would indicate their support for it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 220, relating to the guidance for schools on gender-questioning children, which is still long overdue and which I think we have to ensure happens as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for having pursued this and for tabling her amendments.
This is incredibly important and necessary to clarify issues for parents, for teachers in understanding and knowing exactly how they might deal with the difficult questions around gender-questioning children, and of course for children themselves. Obviously, this relates to some of the controversy and the failure to issue the EHRC code in relation to the guidance coming from the Supreme Court judgment, but it stands on its own terms.
When I talk to teachers and parents, there is still a lot of confusion about the demands of the Equality Act 2010’s gender reassignment protected characteristic and how one deals with that, and duties in relation to it, and how that might clash with, for example, safeguarding or free speech. That leaves teachers exposed and unclear.
I want to refer to what it feels like for parents who, across the UK, have been shocked to discover what their children have been taught or told in classrooms and have sounded the alarm on some teachers covering highly sexualised age-inappropriate content with young pupils and, in some schools, even affirming children in their gender identity—that is, social transitioning—without the consent or knowledge of their parents. It is understandable that that has caused alarm. For three to four year-old children just starting to learn to tell fact from fiction, the difference between make-believe games with friends pretending to be princesses, playing families or whatever and telling children at this stage that a person can literally change from one sex to another can be hugely confusing. I understand that this is not the Government’s intention and that they want to clarify it, but that is why I think the guidance should be urgently introduced and explained to schools and the Government should make clear what is and is not permissible.
Too often, it is left up to grass-roots activists otherwise. Recently, an article hit the media about a group of women—one a retired midwife, another a retired solicitor and another a mum of two—from a group called Protect and Teach who said that many schools do not have the appropriate safeguards in place. They are especially worried about outside organisations being invited in to effectively teach children, some as young as primary school, about inclusiveness, which might sound harmless until you look at the kinds of teaching materials used by these third-party organisations that research shows have very flawed policies, muddling up sex in the Equality Act 2010 with sexual identity and gender.
That is one of the reasons why we have concerns. Some of the work the group did, for example, showed that 75% of Church of England schools had problematic policies in relation to, for example, anti-bullying policies, which are not directly related, but practically all the material used in those policies focused on transgender identity, not bullying in any other way. The message of this was that affirmation was the way forward and young people needed to be kept safe from polarised debates, which would indicate a one size fits all. So I am straightforwardly saying that we need clear guidance. The Government must issue that clear guidance. Schools need help with this. It is not easy—nobody is saying it is—but what we cannot do is just leave it open.
I will make one final point on Amendment 206 from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I commend him for doggedly and persistently pushing this amendment, which I have heard a number of times. I commend his celebration of British values, because I think that is important, and I have said that before, although I do not agree with the content of all the British values listed. The “respect for the environment” paragraph is particularly contentious and weak: I have written “twaddle” here. That is probably not a parliamentary word, but I have written it down.
The section on democracy includes that the Government should be accountable to Parliament, which is something we could learn a lesson from. The Government are not always accountable to Parliament—there are far too many Henry VIII clauses, in my view. It also notes that democracy, as a value, should mean regular elections, which would suggest that you should not cancel them, as we are witnessing at the moment. It talks about the importance of the rule of law, which immediately reminded me of what is happening to jury trials. It finally says that “freedom” should include freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association. As somebody going through the Crime and Policing Bill, I did think it was perhaps worth sending the British values amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, to the people pushing that Bill. I assure noble Lords that freedom of thought, expression, assembly and association are not safe under that Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 207 to create a duty to keep schools open for attendance. The speeches that have been made excellently explained why.
I arrived in this House during lockdown, and I was shocked—genuinely, to the core—by the ease with which people in this House on all sides clamoured to close down schools. It was an extraordinary thing to witness. I could not justify it at the time and argued against it. That argument—which was a minority argument, not just put forward by me—was treated as though somehow those of us who were worried about schools closing were the irresponsible ones; whereas I think it was the other way round. I genuinely think that many of the issues that the Bill is trying to tackle—many of the real problems and challenges that we face with young people today—were created, exacerbated and turbocharged as problems during that period. Schools were closed down, which meant that adults broke the social contract with children—not for their sake but ours—and it was against all the evidence. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s response to this, even if it is not tested in a Division of the House, as I think that this will be a huge, important lesson for us to learn.
I will note a few of the problems that have already been raised. We have a mental health crisis, which we talk about regularly—as we will later and have been throughout the Bill—as though it came out of nowhere, but there is serious reason to imagine that young people’s mental health suffered during that period. But we are also talking about behaviour. A lot of teachers will tell you that once that social contract was breached, it created discipline problems because pupils were no longer in class. We have increasing numbers of parents withdrawing their children from mainstream schools. The habit of going to school was broken. We have spent a huge amount of time in this Bill talking about home-schooling, which is going up, and that is partly because schools were no longer considered necessary. I said then that if you tell pupils that truancy is okay in certain circumstances, it will be hard to get back to normal. If you say, “You shouldn’t come into school”, it will be hard to say, “You must come into school”.
Certainly, as a teacher, I lectured young people—many a time—saying, “There is nothing more important than going to school. There is nothing, nothing, nothing more important than your education”, and then suddenly as a society we said, “Oh, there are lots of things that are more important than going to school or your education”, so they learned a very bad lesson.
We will come on to talk about the problems with smartphones. What did we do when we sent all those young people home? First of all, we told them to look at screens to get lessons—a lot of the time we did not bother even supplying the lessons on the screens—and what they did was spend a lot of time on their phones. They were not out socialising. They became desocialised—anti-social.
The final reason why we have to remember that this is so important is that a cohort of young citizens was told, “If there is a problem, you stay at home, you withdraw”. I think that if we say to young people, “If you feel ill, you aren’t up to coping with going out and being part of society”, we are creating a medicalised fragility and an acceptance of illness as a reason to withdraw that have led to massive social problems. We are now paying for that with a huge welfare bill. Many young adults now lack the resilience to become economically active.
The cost of what we did was enormous and we are yet to come to terms with it. The Bill is trying to deal with a lot of the problems created by that period, and this amendment is therefore important in raising the possibility that we should not, as a default, close schools. The default should be that we do not, that we owe it to children to have their education and that schools are kept open for attendance. There has to be an extremely good reason why schools are closed, and that should be thought through deeply. As someone who was here when we were deciding, let me assure noble Lords that it was not.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment. We have relied through history on a presumption that schools will stay open, even in adverse circumstances such as epidemics or bombardments. But once we closed schools for Covid, we set children adrift because there was nothing in law to balance their interests against those of adults. Children stayed locked up for months, learning little even when schools made great efforts to provide online learning.
I shall not repeat what others have said, but the story of the continuing harm to children—their academic progress, social development, health and happiness—is still unfolding. Ofsted did some of the earliest work on this in autumn 2020, when my inspectors made a series of fact-finding visits to schools and published monthly reports on the impact of Covid on schools and children. They reported that children were lonely, bored and miserable—the advance warnings of the lasting problems that we now see. I spoke about this publicly a number of times, but the tide of emotion was too strong for people to hear.
With hindsight, the existence of a formal duty and a mechanism to ensure that the available evidence, such as the reports I mentioned, is considered and weighed up against the representations of the adults who work in schools, health sector representatives, and so on might have helped to focus minds. I believe that there is an opportunity here for the Minister to get ahead of potential recommendations from the Covid inquiry.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, once upon a time, in a previous moral panic about children’s safety, parents reacted to the media and politicians catastrophising by stopping their offspring playing outside unsupervised. The unintended consequence was the creation of what became known as cotton wool kids, prone to risk aversion, anxiety, lack of resilience and social isolation. Ironically, to compensate, many of those children were forced to cultivate their activities online. Their social interactions became virtual, and here we are.
I worry that we risk similar unintended consequences now if we rush to pass a social media ban for under-16s, so I will be opposing Amendment 94A. I know it has become normalised that, whatever social, cultural or moral panics we encounter, we believe that we can legislate to make them go away. I fear that this sort of lawmaking can lead to avoiding tackling difficult problems and to attempts at quick-fix solutions that too often create a whole new raft of difficulties down the line.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, blamed social media for eating disorders, radicalisation, terrorism, the mental health epidemic, ADHD, poor behaviour in the classroom, misogyny, violence against women and girls, and on and on. At this rate, all that Parliament would have to do is ban the internet for everyone and all problems would be solved. There is a danger of looking for easy answers and scapegoating social media for all society’s ills.
I worry about attempts to push this through too quickly or to fast-track it. It is interesting that the three-week fast-track consultation put forward in the other place has been discussed as though it is holding things back. The leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, calls it more “dither and delay”. But this proposal is new; it has only just arrived here on Report as an amendment that would fundamentally change every citizen’s relationship with social media, not just children’s. I worry about attempts at steamrolling it through, with an assumption that everyone agrees that it is so obvious and inevitable that there is no point opposing it. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for an attempt at proportionality, even though I do not think it goes far enough.
We are hectored that this is what parents want. There has not been a referendum of parents, though there are polls. Many parents are pulling their hair out and will be tempted by it—it is so much easier to say, “You can’t because it’s against the law”, than it is to assert adult authority. Teenagers’ and children’s pester power can be the bane of all our lives. If only the law could be extended to ban other things and make them illegal—no, you cannot wear that hoodie; no, you cannot spend hours gaming; no, you cannot go to that sleepover; no, you cannot gorge on junk food; no, you cannot go to that party. In truth, this approach encourages parents to outsource their authority and shifts responsibility from parents to the state. All families ultimately are being told that they are incapable of managing their children's habits, and that is a dangerous precedent. It can disarm parents in the name of empowerment. Is there really a consensus among parents on this? Many of my friends are split down the middle, so I do not think we can claim the evidence is in.
What about the incontrovertible scientific evidence that backs a ban? The jury is out. The causal relationship between social media and mental well-being in teens and young people is much more contested than has been implied. Recent extensive research by academics at Manchester University found no evidence that social media has increased teenagers’ symptoms of anxiety or depression. The chair of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group, Professor Louis Appleby, points out that the evidence is, at best, circumstantial, noting that self-harming in the young began well before social media took hold in that age group. That reflects what I know from my own work in relation to mental ill-health and young people; I do not think it can totally be blamed on social media.
An Oxford University study of nearly 12,000 children showed no correlation between screen time, including social media, and mental health. Instead, the way in which children engage with social media is what determines its impact and—shock horror—in many instances, evidence shows the positive impact of social media use. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that no more research is needed. That is anti-scientific and complacent, and I do not think it is true.
Let us be clear about what this amendment as drafted would do in relation to user services. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, pointed out the dangers to, for example, WhatsApp, websites such as Wikipedia and so on. That needs clarifying at the very least.
Despite histrionic headlines, social media can be used for self-educational ends. There is a new generation of autodidacts who are teaching themselves coding, video producing, editing and even musical instruments, languages and chess. I know that sounds rose-tinted and a bit glib, but social media often is a tool for connections—finding your tribe, making new friends—and a place where you can cultivate solidarity and autonomy as a young person. It can be a counter to the social trend towards fragmentation.
What about allowing the young to explore diverse political perspectives? On the eve of 16 year-olds being given the vote, surely it is important, if not essential, that we do not narrowly restrict soon-to-vote teens to state-sanctioned media channels. We want them to broaden their horizons, and explore and develop a democratic curiosity about the world, and they are going to do that online. When talking to school pupils, as I do often, I recommend that they find out about their peers around the world as part of them learning about international relations. What civic lessons might British children learn by looking at those brave protesters in Iran whose commitment to freedom has given them the courage to take on a theocratic Islamic regime and whose stories we know because they used social media to organise and to connect with each other and the rest of the world? That was, of course, before the ayatollah shut down the internet—oh, the irony.
As for safety and whether this ban will throw children off a cliff edge, it risks not equipping youth with the skills to safely and responsibly navigate the online world, knowing how to identify problems, spot dodgy red flags and apply strategies to deal with them. As the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, pointed out, in all likelihood, many pre-16 year-olds will find ways of migrating to even riskier unregulated platforms or the dark web without guardrails and zero moderation. Our teenagers and children are clever and, dare I say it, devious. They will find a way. They will use VPNs—but it is okay, because noble Lords are going to ban those too. I hear that there is already a roaring trade in fake IDs among pre-teens.
Finally, how will over 16 year-old adults be affected by this ban? Whereas the Online Safety Act age-gated only certain types of harmful content, Amendment 94A would age-gate entire platforms, even when the content is child-friendly or harmless. According to Big Brother Watch, a 70 year-old accessing the neighbourhood news, a 50 year-old looking up the history of golf on Wikipedia, a 30 year-old small business owner responding to customers on Instagram and a 17 year-old wanting to message parents on the way home from school would all require age-verification measures. That is the threat to adult civil liberties and the right to privacy and, in effect, it means that we will have to digitally verify to participate in the public square. I do not necessarily think that young people will gain from this, despite the hyperbole.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House that we are on Report, and I think some of the contributions are in danger of erring on the wrong side of self-regulation. We should stick to the point; I will be very brief and simply try to explain for the benefit of the Government Front Bench, because in various Bills going through Parliament in the last month or so, this subject has raised itself in various forms. I sometimes notice the Front Bench being slightly amazed at what is coming at them from all sides and not necessarily understanding why. That is largely because they were not in your Lordships’ House at the time we went through the lengthy discussions about the Online Safety Act. What they are hearing today is a collective howl of rage and frustration across the House because what we thought we were very clear was meant to happen has not happened. I will give one or two facts which back up the view of my noble friend Lady Kidron that, whatever we do, we have to gather together—the right reverend Prelate made a very good point—and collectively send a message to the other place that this situation is simply not good enough.
Today, within the last 10 hours, a court case has been going on in California against Snap, Meta and TikTok where a group of parents are accusing those organisations of creating products which are addictive. It so happens that in the last 24 hours, Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, has settled with the complainants. That is because, I suspect, if they had not settled, the chief executive of Snapchat, Evan Spiegel, would shortly have had to appear in person in the court to answer the case against his company. He chose not to do so. Mr Zuckerberg is apparently also in the queue to give evidence at this trial, and it will be interesting to see whether his company takes the same route.
Yesterday, along with many other colleagues, I was part of a session of Learn with the Lords in the Education Centre. I took the opportunity to talk to the young people, most of whom were 14 and 15, about what they thought of a social media ban, which all of them were aware of—probably through social media. Almost without exception, they said they were against it and gave the sort of reasons one would expect, such as “That’s where we get our news from”, and so on. The teachers were completely and utterly in favour of a ban. We can take from that what we will, but I suspect the fact that they see day in and day out in the schoolroom the effect on the pupils they are trying to help, to develop and to manage—and to mitigate, in some cases, difficult behaviours—means that are completely united that this is unsustainable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned that in Australia they have a different regulator, an e-safety commissioner. Comparing the e-safety commissioner in Australia with what we have in Ofcom is a bit like comparing “Crocodile Dundee” with “Dixon of Dock Green”. The difference is that stark.
Last week in the Peers’ Lobby, I met one of the bereaved parents whose child has died as a result of exposure to social media. I told that bereaved parent that a group of us were going to meet the chief executive of Ofcom within the next couple of weeks. He looked me straight in the eye and said, “Simon, would you give the chief executive a message from me?”. I said, “Yes, of course”. He said—and you will excuse my Anglo-Saxon—“Would you kick her up the arse?”.
Equality and Human Rights Commission: Code of Practice
Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that it is important, and it is the basis of the Equality Act, to recognise the rights of all those with protected characteristics within it. What was helpful in the Supreme Court’s judgment was the absolute clarification that trans people’s rights remain protected within the Equality Act 2010. We have been clear that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place and that trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic written into the Equality Act.
Work is already under way to fulfil our commitment to advance the rights and protections afforded to LGBT+ people, and that includes delivering a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, working with the Home Office to deliver our commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime, and working with the Department of Health and Social Care to improve services for trans people.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister have any advice for women such as Miranda Newsom, who, assuming that the Supreme Court had settled the matter, challenged a biological male in the female-only changing room at a council-run leisure centre in Southwark and received a torrent of abuse from the man, yet it was she who was punished and barred from the gym? Can the Minister assure the House that after the victory of the Darlington nurses the Government are urgently instructing NHS bodies to bring their policy fully into compliance with the law? If they do not, they are complicit with unlawful behaviour of service providers.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Government have been clear that the judgment provides clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act. We have been clear that therefore all providers should be following that, taking specialist legal advice where necessary, and ensuring that, with respect for everybody’s rights and dignity, we can make progress on this in a way that respects the law but also ensures that everybody is able to have the rights and protections that the Equality Act so importantly laid down in 2010.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I too oppose the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment. I realise that Amendment 97 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, no longer does that directly, but it is intended as a staging post, and this is why I would like to talk about the issue.
As a child, I was subjected to physical punishment. My parents were overly strict. My father came from a military background and my mother had little patience with children. I was also a boarder at a Catholic school, where the nuns were extremely strict. On one occasion, I was caught talking to my neighbour and was made to kneel on the platform by the teacher’s desk with tape placed over my mouth for the rest of the lesson. This was a clear violation and would rightly be unacceptable today.
However, we must draw a distinction between physical punishment and hitting a child and an occasional light smack that causes no harm. These are not the same morally, psychologically or legally. English law reflects that distinction. Any punishment that causes injury, leaves marks, involves implements or amounts to abuse is illegal and rightly prosecuted. The defence of reasonable punishment applies only to the lightest chastisement where no harm is caused. It does not excuse abuse nor physical punishment. It prevents ordinary parents being treated as criminals when, from time to time, they apply proportionate discipline to an unruly child. To remove it is another step towards a nanny state where the balance between parental responsibility and state intervention is quietly but significantly shifted away from families and towards government control.
All children are not the same. Some respond to a word or a look and never need to be scolded; others test the boundaries. For those children, the calm assertion of parental authority is not cruelty but guidance, helping them learn limits, responsibility and respect for rules. I am also a parent. On one occasion, after repeatedly warning my eldest son, I smacked him lightly on his bottom. It did not hurt him, but he was so shocked that I followed through that he howled in indignation. His pride was hurt. After that, when I warned him, he believed me. It was not fear; it was authority, exercised once and never repeated.
Surely this should not be criminalised. Polling consistently shows that more parents favour retaining the current law than banning smacking. We are told that the law is unclear. It is not. The current test is simple. If harm is caused, the behaviour is illegal. Removing the defence would replace that clarity with subjective judgments, creating confusion for parents, police and social services.
The experience in Wales and Scotland, which my noble friend talked about, is that bans have led to thousands of additional referrals to social services, diverting attention from children who are genuinely at risk. A similar ban in England would cost at least £145 million, at a time when services are already under extreme pressure. What is needed is education, support and awareness, not criminal law. Legal bans invite denunciations, investigation and fear, not better parenting.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I saw Amendment 97, I was pleased to see that the focus was on the post-implementation review report on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act. I am keen that the UK Government dig deeper into the impact of what is known as the Welsh smacking ban. I am keen that the Government review the evidence and data and, I hope, draw a conclusion that this should not be brought into UK law—but that they do that by looking at the evidence.
As somebody in Wales, I have obviously been involved in this debate for some time. I have had lots of media discussions and spoken on the issue over the years. Having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talk about the report, I felt as though we probably read different reports and had different interpretations, which just shows that it is worth digging into. I have some serious reservations about the success of the law change, as there have been some rather unintended, though predictable, outcomes. I want to raise a few of those.
I understand that the proposers of this amendment are motivated by concern about the abuse of children, but it is important to note that we are all motivated by a concern about the abuse of children. That is something that we share. But one of my worries is the impact of the law change, given the pressures it is placing on social services in Wales. Thousands of new referrals have been made to Welsh social services that have involved the police, and these are costing millions of pounds and lots of time. To be honest, this can mean that real abuse is being squeezed out or relativised by what is happening.
The influx of referrals is not a surprise when any report of smacking automatically triggers an investigation by social services. The escalation of reports is no doubt because of the Welsh Government’s guidance to a wide range of organisations which work with, care for or volunteer with children that anyone who witnesses a parent smacking a child should immediately contact social services. My concern is that valuable resources are being taken away from protecting children who are at genuine risk of harm and diverted into trivial cases where harm has not been caused. Even if people ideologically do not agree with the chastisement of smacking, it is not the same as abuse. Even the most zealous anti-smacking campaigner—or so I thought, before I heard some people in this debate—should concede that a well-intentioned tap on the back of a tot’s hand or leg by a parent who loves their child does not mean that they are an abuser.
I was a bit shocked when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, say that any child might say, “If I don’t get a good grade, I’ll be beaten”. It is a shocking thing to hear a child say that, when it is actually illegal to beat a child in this country—of course it is. The idea that that is the same as smacking, in the way that the law in England permits, and the conflation of brutality with smacking—a mild physical chastisement as parental discipline—is the kind of sleight of hand that distorts the evidence, makes this a far too emotional discussion and is so insulting to parents. That is what I found shocking.
If we examine the guidance notes issued by various Welsh local authorities, we can see how resources that might be best spent protecting children at serious risk of beating if they do not pass their exams, for example—and that would be worth investigating—can become diverted. One example used in a guidance note was when a teacher reported that a young pupil stated his father smacked him because he was naughty. The advice from the Welsh Government was that the teacher should trigger a Section 47 investigation, which would include two uniformed officers visiting and talking to the four year-old. That sort of escalation, dragging the family into the orbit of social services and police forces, is what I worry about. There are obvious implications for the workload of front-line staff with a statutory duty to investigate all referrals, regardless of severity. That creates a danger of services being unable to prioritise cases where there is a genuine risk of abuse or neglect.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, if I may speak again, I believe I was just accused by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, of insulting parents, which I have never been accused of before. I would like to explain myself slightly. The law, as far as I understand it, is that the bruise must be not visible within three days. On dark skin, you can get quite a lot of force into a mild slap to leave a bruise that cannot be seen in three days. If one side is that we are practically calling parents punch-drunk, mad people and the other is, “It’s a light tap, because a child has done something wrong”, there is a huge area between them. To call me insulting to parents is what I find insulting myself.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I do not think that that was an intervention on my speech, but there is a huge difference between a small tap and beating a child; that is the point. A small tap should not be illegal; beating a child is illegal.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, started her contribution, she said that we should look at the evidence from Wales, and I thought, fair enough. That is what the Government are going to do, are they not? But then, towards the end of her contribution, she said that we should look at the evidence from Wales but not emulate it. That evidence suggests that we take this course of action. We are all getting hung up and concerned about the harmful effects of social media and of mobile phones. What about the harmful effects of smacking? It is hard to believe that 40 years ago, we still had corporal punishment in schools; they probably debated it in this Chamber. Children were caned or slippered. A few noble Lords probably got up and said that this was not a good idea. We can imagine the contributions, at the time, from the likes of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about that suggestion. I am sorry—I must not do that.
We have had a debate, and the work and experiments in Wales have been mentioned several times. But the most important people in all this are the children, are they not? What about them? Children who experience physical punishment are up to 2.6 times more likely to develop mental health problems, and up to 2.3 times more likely to go on to experience harm through more serious forms of physical abuse. This is the most worrying thing to me.
In 2023-24, over 700 children—we are probably talking about young children—contacted Childline to complain about, worry about or cry about physical abuse. What do we do? We go chatting on about all sorts of other things. I am disappointed that we are not having a Division on this: I would like to know how people feel. I am sure that the majority of Labour Members are absolutely on the side of doing away with corporal punishment. Some have been noticeably quiet, and I understand why; that is perhaps a cruel dig. I also accept, however, that we want to look at what has gone on in Wales and use that as the basis for coming to a conclusion. I am sure that those Members are genuine about this and are not using it as an opportunity to delay the matter beyond the general election. If they are still in office—and they could well be—could they please bring this forward immediately after the general election, and let us have a vote on it? This is a corporal punishment issue that is just as important as it was 40 years ago.
Equality and Human Rights Commission: Draft Updated Code of Practice
Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I recognise that, as my noble friend says, trans people are concerned about the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling. As I have said, we are considering both that ruling and its implications carefully. However, we are clear, as was that ruling, that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place. Trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, a protected characteristic written into Labour’s Equality Act.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Baroness Fox of Buckley ExcerptsThursday 23rd October 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-II Second marshalled list for Report - (17 Oct 2025)
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Ministers have noted in many of our exchanges that the Bill which we have discussed was a great improvement on the original Bill put forward by the previous Government. That is true, but it did not make it a perfect Bill. In fact, all sides of the House have constructively improved the content of the Bill. I really appreciate that the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson, put forward amendments that were not rewrites of the Bill, as we sometimes see in this House, but were based on listening to the debates that we had in Committee and so on. It is therefore much improved.
I want to note, in general but relating to this Bill, that those of us who have raised issues around civil liberties, privacy rights and transparency were not doing so to be soft on those who fraudulently take advantage of public funds in any way whatever. Those issues of civil liberties, privacy rights, transparency, accountability and so on were based on a firm belief that when the state takes more power, it is our responsibility to represent the public—not just in terms of money that is taken from them but the threat to rights that might be taken from them. I appreciate that the Government Front Bench listened to some of those concerns. I wish that they had listened to a few more but, for now, I think there was constructive engagement from all sides, and I appreciate that very much.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am probably the last person to speak and mull over all that has happened. I thank sincerely the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson, and their team. They have been very helpful to us in answering our questions, trying to agree with us and offering a meeting to discuss the part of this Bill on carers. We appreciate and look forward to that departmental meeting, together with, I hope, one of our MPs, so that we can have a reasonable view towards ping-pong and what goes forward.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, as everyone has, for many things that we worked closely on and supported. I also thank particularly the Conservative Front Bench, who have not been confrontational but have tried to work to get a better Bill. The Bill has been quite exemplary in the way that people have worked towards improving it in many ways. I obviously also thank my noble friend Lady Kramer, who has worked with me on the Bill, and Adam Bull, our legislative and political adviser, who has been giving me support throughout.
We have among us—the Cross Benches, the Government, the Conservative Benches, this Bench and the Bishops’ Bench—all improved the Bill. I hope that the improvements we have made will last through ping-pong and that we end up with a better Bill—not a confrontational Bill but one that will help public funds, which is obviously its aim, while protecting the vulnerable in society who are not really going to be the paymasters of dealing with errors in the past. Congratulations to all, including the staff in the background of the Government who have made this such an interesting exercise, even though I am surprised that we have got to Third Reading so quickly after Report, and in almost indecent haste. If all legislation could be so quick, it would be a great advantage to this House and the other House. I hope that the Bill passes successfully.