Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, would like to speak to Amendment 1. I realise that it is a broad amendment, so I shall concentrate on proposed new Clause 1(1)(a), and the

“safety and wellbeing of children”.

Last week, I asked why His Majesty’s Government had not followed France in banning mobile phones in schools, a policy introduced seven years ago and linked to better academic results and reduced bullying. The Minister rightly pointed out that France has a more directive education system, something my party would surely not want to replicate. She is quite right: we oppose excessive central control, especially when it threatens school autonomy or family life. But this is about the well-being, safety and health of children, just as school meals and physical activity are.

As my noble friend Lord Nash pointed out, phones disrupt learning, harm mental health and hinder social development, especially for young children. This brings constant pressure on schools to manage distraction, cyberbullying and the emotional toll of social media. Schools that ban phones see calmer classrooms, better behaviour and stronger results. This advantages particularly children who are disadvantaged pupils.

In primary schools, the case is even stronger. Young children do not need phones during the day, as nearly 80% of parents agree. France, Spain, Italy and Greece have all acted, and the Department for Education now encourages schools to limit phones throughout the day. The guidance is welcome, but it is not enough.

As proposed new Clause 1 calls for, we need more clarity about those specific points. Similarly, healthy food in schools is also vital. A balanced diet supports learning, concentration and behaviour. Italy and France offer a powerful contrast; pupils sit down for a proper meal, with vegetables, protein, cheese, yoghurt and fruit. Meals are unhurried and part of the school day, free from sugary snacks and drinks. The results speak for themselves: childhood obesity in France is significantly lower. In England, more than one in five children is overweight or obese by the time they start primary school; by the time they leave, it is nearly one in three. These are not statistics: they are our children, growing up at risk of preventable diseases and poor mental health.

In France, food education is part of the curriculum. From a young age, children learn about nutrition in science and civil lessons. Some schools offer classes on meal planning and basic cooking. Most importantly, children learn by example—by having structured, healthy meals. In England, food education is fragmented and school meals are often rushed, unbalanced and of poor quality.

With regard to the proposed new clause, I ask, while we are talking about the well-being and safety of children, why the Government want to centralise and concentrate decisions on some areas that affect family life but not on areas that are really about the core well-being of children—nutrition, mobile phones and cyberattacks? This proposed new clause is necessary, because it is needed to clarify quite a few things.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I was not going to speak, but I sat through the Second Reading and it was long. We have had some of the same speeches again—not put in the same way, but the phraseology is going in that direction.

The mover of proposed new Clause 1 was actually very good at making sure that she was using active verbs. I do not like passive ones—I go for the active ones. What are they? “Improve”, “improve”, “improve” and “make provision”. If you are dealing with children, the legislation needs to tell us that there are some things that we want to do—and of course, with them, not alone. For that reason, I want to support the Bill.

I say to my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that I love his way of speaking and he is very persuasive, but I do not understand why he thinks that paragraph (c) applies simply to Wales. The improvement will be in England and Wales, because the legislation will apply to England and Wales. Of course, there will be questions in the Parliament there and they will be talking about it, but the Bill as it stands is for schools in England and Wales.

Schools: Mobile Phones

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, and that is one of the reasons why there needs to be some flexibility. I think the noble Earl might be referring to children who, for particular reasons related to the distance they have to travel to school or perhaps to special needs that they have, might well need to have adjustments that can be provided for them by a mobile phone. Those are circumstances in which schools should be, and are, thinking about the particular ways in which they think about the ban, to ensure that all children can achieve and have the support that they need.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, France has seen an improvement in school results and less bullying in schools since it introduced a national ban in 2018, seven years ago. Is it not time that we followed that example and had a national ban, as opposed to guidance?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What both the previous Government and this Government have done amounts to rather more than simply guidance; there has been a very clear direction. But I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that the French education system is somewhat more directive than the British education system. If she and her party want us to go down that route, that is an interesting development—but I do not think that is what she and her party want to happen.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, education in this country has always been about shaping free minds and raising thoughtful, moral citizens who can think for themselves. The Bill threatens that proud tradition. It does not modernise education; it centralises it. It strips away the freedoms that have helped so many schools succeed, handing power to bureaucrats. It is the children from working families who will lose the most—less choice, lower standards, fewer chances to break through.

I support the Government’s aim to protect children, but I fear that the Bill overreaches. As it stands, the state is grabbing sweeping powers, especially over home-educating families, demanding personal data, club attendance and anything local authorities consider appropriate. My concern behind this is the mindset that the state knows best, and that parents cannot be trusted and need to be managed. Authoritarian regimes always start by inserting themselves between parents and children, and demanding conformity of thought and value. Is this really the path we want to take?

Many parents turn to home education because the system failed them, or because of special needs, safety concerns or different values. They are doing what they think is best for children. I was home educated for two years. It was not ideal, but I survived, and I even went to university. We lived in a part of the world where schooling was not possible. My parents could have sent me to a boarding school but, being French, to be separated from children was not part of their beliefs, and I was only seven years old. Does that mean that, according to the Bill, my parents would have been criminals?

Meanwhile, this Bill also goes after some of our most successful schools—high-performing academic schools that have transformed lives, especially for children from tough backgrounds. What is their crime? They are different. They are independent, but they work. Instead of learning from them, this Bill seeks to drag them down, imposing an unpublished national curriculum, removing freedoms over hiring, flexibility and admissions, and tightening control through local authorities. That is not about raising standards; it is about government control. It does not fix what is broken; it breaks what is working. It does not raise standards; it lowers them. We should be backing good schools, not burdening them with red tape.

As the Bill stands, it creates an education regime that will be less human, less free and ultimately less effective. Can the Minister explain how, exactly, forcing home-educating families to share private details will help their children, and how stripping the autonomy of successful schools will benefit working families?

In closing, I welcome the two new noble Lords and congratulate them on their excellent speeches.