Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith]

My right hon. Friend is correct. There has to be a middle ground that we could find. I suggest that we are using a hammer to crack a nut. A lot of these parents are not against having to say something about what they are doing, but to suggest that they have to give chapter and verse to their local authority, which in many cases will have failed them already—that relationship may well have broken down—feels like too much of a strike.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

I will make some progress, because I will not get any extra time for taking a further intervention.

The requirements in the Bill therefore risk hindering families who, for legitimate reasons—often because of failures in the SEND provision that they needed—have opted to educate their children at home. I have three questions for Ministers. Will the Government confirm that the evidence base for this part of the Bill is founded on accurate data and genuine needs, which reflects the questions asked by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the potential consequences of the Bill for home-educating families and their ability to provide a tailored high-quality education, and might we inadvertently hinder them in doing that? Thirdly, will the Government work to protect the rights of home educators and prioritise the wellbeing of children over administrative convenience?

We have heard all sorts of contributions this afternoon on many topics, but as I said in my maiden speech, looked-after children are one of the key things that I wish to speak about. I believe very strongly in the rights of parents to choose what is best for their children. I really hope that the Government will listen to today’s contributions on both points, and that some amendments will be tabled in the next stage of scrutiny that would tighten up the Bill and make for an even better piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Rupert Lowe]

I will carry on, if that is all right.

How many re-offences have occurred since release? How many of these monsters are walking on the same streets as the girls they raped and abused? One report suggested that a victim came face to face with her rapist in the supermarket. Are the Government comfortable with that? How many of the foreign rapists were in receipt of any form of state benefit?

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rupert Lowe]

I will carry on, if that is all right.

How many who were released receive any state benefits? How many children have been born following a rape by those men? How many have been given access to the child against the mother’s wishes, and how many have used the child as a route to remain in the UK? Will the Government commit to preventing that in future? How many deportations have been blocked due to the rapist’s right to a family life or due to other European Court of Human Rights influences?

Will the Government set up a dedicated, confidential and accessible official process for whistleblowers to safely raise their concerns about foreign rape gangs, ensuring that it is safe, secure and easy to find? Will the Government release all court transcripts relating to those cases so that the British people can understand just part of the horror for themselves? How many of those documents have been hidden due to the cost of release? That should not be an obstacle to the transparency of those trials. Will lifelong sentences be considered for British citizens involved in the crimes, and for those in positions of power who acted to cover up the scale of the abuse? Which politicians, local and national, had knowledge of the events but failed to act—again, going as far as actively concealing what was truly happening?

Those are the facts that the British people want and deserve to know. All those questions have also been submitted in written form, and I look forward to receiving open and transparent answers. The mass rape of young white working-class girls by gangs of Pakistani rapists is a rotting stain on our nation. This is not about Elon Musk. This is not a bandwagon of the far right. This is about the victims and ensuring that swift and brutal justice is delivered to those demons responsible. It is about distinguishing between right and wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill because it addresses a lot of the underlying problems we have in our schools and education and, indeed, in the protection of children. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to make this a child-centred Bill.

I feel disgusted by what the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has just said. Can anyone imagine listening to that as a victim or a survivor? I am sure his intent is to get to the truth and get justice, but the language—I ask him please to think about who hears our words.

On 26 November 2024, in her letter to the chair of the child safeguarding practice review panel, the Secretary of State for Education said:

“The forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing Bill is a vital mechanism for improving the lives of vulnerable children… there is a renewed government focus on tackling child sexual abuse… which will necessarily include our response to the IICSA recommendations.”

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Secretary of State which of those recommendations fall squarely within the Bill. I hope, with cross-party support, that we can encourage the Secretary of State to adopt them.

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse published 20 recommendations, trying to address the whole of child sexual abuse in this country, to get support for those victims and survivors and early intervention to prevent the crime, and to get the prosecutions we all desperately want. Recommendation 1 was that there should be a core dataset. Currently, the Bill’s single unique identifier number is not the same as a core dataset. There is a need for a unified set of data that allows authorities to understand better the prevalence of abuse, to identify patterns and to inform evidence-based policymaking. We have a patchy, fragmented data system that hinders effective prevention and intervention. IICSA asked for the creation of a single core dataset that includes the characteristics of victims and alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, vulnerability factors and the settings and contexts in which the abuse occurred.

Recommendation 2 is for a child protection authority for England and Wales. Recommendation 3 is for a Cabinet Minister for child protection, and that needs to be someone who cuts across all the different Departments, because that is where we are failing children right now—we do not have a joined-up approach to child protection.

Recommendation 4 is for a public awareness campaign, and cultural awareness is included throughout the recommendations. We need to make children aware of the risks they face, but we also need to tackle cultural insensitivities and much worse wherever we find them. That is particularly pertinent to me, because I am proud that I got the previous Government to ensure that every child, from primary school, had relationships education. However, in September 2024 the Department for Education published an independent evidence review on “Teaching relationships education to prevent sexual abuse”. It found that teachers were still not receiving adequate training. There are not adequate resources for those teachers, so I urge the Secretary of State to use the Bill to do something about that. Specifically, will she ringfence relationships, health and sex education training budgets?

[Caroline Voaden]

A fantastic organisation in my South Devon constituency called Child Assault Prevention, which I worked with when I worked for Devon Rape Crisis, had to close its doors two years ago because its funding was cut by the previous Government. It was doing vital work with primary school children, teaching them about the dangers of sexual assault and how to avoid it. I would welcome the Government looking at reinstating funding to such organisations that are working with young children in this sensitive area.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

The final harm is the chronic use of devices and the way that individual device use has filtered into all our children’s everyday lives.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Would the hon. Lady agree that the film-style age rating system that the Liberal Democrats have come up with speaks to exactly what she is saying? An app that allows children access to strangers or is built with an addictive algorithm, for example, would have a different age rating than something that is absolutely safe and gated, like a game, which could be rated safe for younger children.

[Lola McEvoy]

I am interested in the idea of licensing functionalities and new developments before they come into children’s lives, which is not happening at the moment—at the moment it is happening after they have been used for a long time. We are age-analysing and risk-assessing them retrospectively, which seems very backwards to me.

I agree that we should have a licensing scheme for content that is designed for children, like CoComelon and some of the other content that we know is addictive for very young children. Such a scheme would obviously have to be fleshed out, with a proper consultation on publishing rights and with information on who is going to do the licensing. I feel very strongly that self-published is inappropriate for under-16s. I do not think that content that is not regulated, that has not gone through any supervision and that has no legislative or regulatory framework surrounding it should be allowed to be fed to our children in any way.

I will sum up by saying that one of the young people in my latest online safety forum said to me via an anonymous note—I told them all that they could send me an anonymous note if there was anything they did not want to say in front of their peers— “Don’t ban it, but if you do, make sure it works.” I thought that was brilliant. Young people are much savvier than we give them credit for.

I want to make it very clear that at the moment, Ofcom is yet to use its strongest powers. The Online Safety Act does not include AI. I am determined that whatever this Government decide to do, they must do it with the idea of effective implementation of the legislation. We owe it to the next generation and the generation currently using the digital world to get it right and to future-proof their right to a childhood. Because so many of them have been badly let down, we must make evergreen—

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Lady, but it is not like the Select Committee has never looked at this issue; it has looked at it repeatedly. If we are being unfair, then just let us know. What is the problem with banning smartphones in schools in the legislation? The hon. Lady has given an excellent answer, and I accept her offer and will ensure that I have a look at the evidence, but I still do not have an answer on what we are looking for. What we need is a ban. What the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) wants to see is a ban. We know that smartphones in school are harmful, and we need to get on with this.

The problem we face involves not just social media but smartphones. It is the combination of the two together. Smartphones give children constant access to social media, and social media gives them algorithms designed to keep them scrolling. That is why these amendments must be passed together. One tackles the addictive platforms; the other restores classrooms to places of learning.

We would never allow our children to be abandoned in a car park full of strangers, so why are we leaving them alone in chatrooms? Data from the Youth Endowment Fund shows that 70% of teenagers—vulnerable children—have seen violent content online, despite only 6% actively searching for it. That is all because of the algorithms. Children are not seeking extreme content; it is pushed at them. Knives, pornography and real-life violence are being delivered by addictive algorithms designed to keep children scrolling, all in the name of so-called fun. The parents in the Gallery and across the country are looking on and wondering what on earth is keeping us back. At a time when there is a disconnect between ordinary people and politics, it is obvious that we need to act. We have the opportunity to act—we have legislation that has a slot in Parliament—yet we are still coming up with bogus excuses for inaction. Parents have had enough.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I believe we are talking about two different things. On banning social media for under-16s, there is a complication there. We have seen what they have done in Australia, and what other countries are doing. We believe that our solution is the right one, because it is future-proof and would encompass every platform, every game and every piece of tech, but the issue of smartphones in schools is much, much simpler. We do not want phones in schools. We do not need phones in schools. We know that phones are in schools, and we need the Government to act on this; doing so would be simple, straightforward and quick. It could be done through this Bill, right now.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She makes a fair point about the greater complexity around social media. I would have liked greater clarity in this debate about what questions need to be answered, and how those answers would be pursued, but she is so right on the issue of smartphones. There is literally no reason not to act. I have been a Minister at the Dispatch Box, and with no disrespect to the excellent supporting civil servants, there is a tendency for Government, including the civil service, to resist all amendment and change. It becomes about defending the first script regardless, even when it is obvious that it should be changed. Even when there are parents in the Gallery who have suffered the most unimaginable loss, somehow the system still resists.

[Graham Stuart]

That is a simple logic, beautifully expressed. There is no argument against a ban, is there? Smoke is being blown in our faces.

The Minister is better than this. I say this to the Government Whip: I hope that the Government will listen in the Chamber tonight. I remember an Adjournment debate during my first Parliament, when we were again in opposition. Halfway through, the Minister tore up his briefing notes and said, “Actually, do you know what? It says here that I should resist this, but the hon. Member is right; I will seek legislation. We will get the opportunity and make the change that he has asked for, because what he says is true.” Should not all of us be trying to deal with what is true, right and proper? We must recognise complexity when it is there, but where there is a simple answer, we should simply get on with it.

[Caroline Voaden]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I had better bring my remarks to a close; I have probably taken up too much time already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

We are at a point where it is no longer credible to ignore the scale of the challenge posed by social media to children and young people. Platforms and algorithms are designed and deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, capture attention, and keep users scrolling for as long as possible. As adults, we can take responsibility for our own actions, but for children and those under the age of 16 whose brains are still developing, and who in their teenage years are naturally focused on social interaction and engagement, we have a responsibility to ensure that their mental health as well as their physical health is prioritised.

The harm is happening now; action is needed now, not after another consultation. Parents are asking for help, and as a mum I know how hard it is to set boundaries when a child says, “but everyone else has a phone” or “everyone else is on social media”. There are also serious safeguarding risks because, as we have heard, predators use these platforms to groom and exploit vulnerable young people. While many of us use social media and see some of its benefits, it is not all harmless fun. Shockingly, a quarter of primary school children have already been exposed to pornography, and from violent and sexual content to material that promotes self-harm, misogyny, eating disorders and other harmful behaviours, what young people are exposed to can be deeply disturbing. The problem is that children do not even have to go looking for such content—it finds them. If it is content that we would not want to see as adults, we have to ask what it is doing to our children.

That is why I am pleased to support Lords amendment 38, which would prevent under-16s from accessing and using social media platforms. This is not just a view held by Members on the Conservative Benches. Parents, teachers and safeguarding professionals all want to see change. Crucially, so do young people themselves: they are the ones with first-hand experience of the influence of social media and, according to a YouGov poll, 83% of Gen Z support a social media age limit. We do not have time to waste on this issue. We must act decisively and put protections in place.

[Caroline Voaden]

I have spoken to lots of headteachers who are campaigning for a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. They say that if all the secondary schools in an area were to ban phones, children would not get smartphones at 11, when they transfer into year 7, and the age at which they would get a smartphone goes up to about 13 or 14. Parents would not be under pressure to buy a smartphone for their children when they are 10 or 11, so we would be gaining two or three really valuable years, when those children would not own a smartphone. Banning smartphones is not just about having an impact on school hours; it is about gaining that precious time so that children get phones when they are older. I beg the Minister to listen to that point.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I will now turn to why we need consistency for headteachers, schools, parents and children, particularly in relation to a mobile phone ban.

Lords amendment 106 mandates schools to prohibit the use and possession of a smartphone during the school day. It is an amendment that could have been written in headteachers’ offices across my consistency. As we have heard, many schools already have some form of mobile phone ban, but guidance alone can lead to inconsistencies, making it harder to enforce rules and leaving parents and young people navigating mixed messages, especially when children compare themselves to friends from other schools, and when parents look to each other for advice on what their children are allowed to do.

Since my election, I have met with headteachers from across Chester South and Eddisbury, and the amendment sets out exactly the kind of framework that they are asking for—one that gives them the clarity and backing to enforce what many are already trying to do. I recognise that earlier this year the Secretary of State issued further guidance on smartphone use in schools, but advisory guidance is not enough. It needs to be statutory: clear, robust action that meets the scale of the challenge, because without it, we are asking teachers to deliver change without giving them the backing to do so.

Ultimately, we have a duty to protect our children, and that means acting now, not later. Parents, teachers and young people are asking for change. This House should listen and I urge colleagues to support these amendments.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. One of the reasons for the incredulity among those listening to the evidence yesterday was precisely that we recognise the addictive nature of social media. Frankly, the discussion yesterday felt like how a discussion about tobacco might have felt in the 1940s. The harm is so evident as to be undeniable, but the companies responsible for it continue to argue that the harm is minimal or non-existent and that anything in moderation is fine.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I will not take any further interventions because of the time left, if that is okay.

The need for urgent action to take children off social media in their crucial formative years is clear, so I welcome the Government’s consultation, the measures in the Bill to enable a ban and other regulatory measures to be introduced via statutory instrument with no need for further primary legislation.

In our evidence session yesterday, we also heard from academics about some of the complexity that must be considered if we are get to get a ban and any further regulatory measures right. For example, we questioned Roblox. It is not a social media company, because the primary activity on its platform is gaming, and it appeals to very young children. On Roblox, children can contact each other via a trusted friends feature and they can create content, and we have heard examples of some very disturbing content. They can be absorbed on their screens for hours at a time, and we know that there have been examples of children being groomed and contacted by people who want to do them harm. Roblox is not included in the Australian ban, because it is not a social media site, but there should be at least some consideration of the extent to which social media harms also extend to some gaming platforms, and of how children can be protected from that.

One of our witnesses questioned whether, in the UK context, 16 is the right age threshold for a ban. In Australia, young people do not have major exams at 16, and there should be consideration about whether the exact time that our young people are preparing for their GCSEs is the right time to be diving into social media for the first time, or whether a slightly younger or older threshold would be better. Next week, we will hear from parents and parent-led organisations, including the Molly Rose Foundation and Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey. It is important to note that these stakeholders have different views, and we will explore their disagreement and common ground through our questioning.

When—not if—we regulate to remove the pernicious influence of social media from children’s lives, it is vital that our regulation is effective, and I am frustrated by Opposition Members’ lack of acknowledgement of that complexity and the importance of not only acting, but getting it right.

Finally, will the Minister set out a clear timescale for regulation under statutory instruments, so that parents can be assured that there is an end point to the debate on this issue and that action—the right and effective action that we need to keep our children safe—is coming?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to have heard the last few speeches, which made very important points, but even with five minutes, time is still short for me. I will speak briefly about a couple of aspects of social media and mobile phones.

On social media, let us get on with it. We have had this issue come back from the Lords multiple times, and we can do this. There is a glaring logical flaw at the heart of the Government’s argument for not taking action—we have also heard it from a bunch of Labour MPs today—which is, “We can’t do this one thing, because there are some other things we could do as well.” That just does not hold water. All those other things—around gaming, other types of applications, chatbots, addictive features and so on—could be additive to a ban on social media for children under the age of 16. They would still, by the way, be very relevant to child safety. I remind the House that our duty to children extends to those aged up to 18, as per the Children Act 1989 and our commitments to the United Nations.

There are issues to resolve about a ban—exactly where the lines should be drawn; exactly what is in and what is out—and yes, of course, the Government have to consult on those issues, but they do not need to consult further on the principle of whether the country and the House of Commons want a ban on young people under the age of 16 accessing social media, a conclusion that so many other countries are also coming to.

On mobile phones, throughout the progress of the Bill, I have found a remarkable contrast. The Government said for so long that they would not ban phones in schools because there should be some discretion for headteachers, but they are going to tell them precisely how many items of branded school uniform they are allowed to specify, and will tell them that in secondary schools that could include a tie, but in primary schools, for some bizarre reason, it cannot.

I am pleased that the Government have partly seen the light. The Minister, whom we all like and respect, said last week that the problem had already been solved—and presumably it has now been re-solved, as the Government have come back to the issue—but I have to say that that is not what children say. What children tell us, both informally and when they are answering surveys about the actual use of mobile phones in schools, is how often lessons get interrupted, teachers are filmed, and bullying and other stuff happens at break times and lunchtimes. We need to act. Of course, there can be individual exceptions for those using assistive and adaptive technology, for young carers, and for others, but the one exception that we must not have is on the type of ban.

The critical question is about having a policy of “not seen, not heard”. Every school in the country, pretty much, already has at least that, but I am afraid that it is not effective as a ban. If you have this thing in your pocket, or in your bag at your foot, it is still there, and you feel its presence. If it vibrates, you might actually feel it, physically; but even if you do not, you feel that compulsion towards it. The only way to make a school truly free of the scourge of mobile phones is to have them away from the child. The “not seen, not heard” approach does not work.

The main argument for saying that we have to allow “not seen, not heard” is about cost. I understand that. Pouches, which a couple of colleagues have mentioned, do have a cost, but we do not have to do pouches. There are other ways of doing this. I mentioned the Petersfield school in my constituency, which has a phones-away-from-children ban, and which uses a simple device—a plastic box that can be purchased in most large-format Swedish retailers. That is locked away in a cupboard, along with a number of other boxes, until the end of the day. The biggest cost has been the foam inserts, with numbered slots in which each child puts their phone, but the sum total cost is very reasonable.

I want to answer the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), who is no longer with us, so to speak. He asked why had we not taken this measure when we were in government. That is a perfectly reasonable question. There are two reasons: first, the issue has become more acute; and, secondly, the attitude of headteachers. It has changed. We have gone from headteachers and their representative bodies saying, “The best way for you to support me in this school is not to impose a national ban,” to them saying the exact opposite—that the best way to support schools and headteachers is to have a ban written into law.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I think that would try Madam Deputy Speaker’s patience. Today is the day that we can take action on those two points.