Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding, declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay and conditions, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing including establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”

The Bill in front of us today is a Bill of two halves, one of which seeks to protect children and improve safeguarding and support for children in care. While the Opposition will seek to amend various aspects of what is being put forward in Committee, we do see value in it. But the other half of the Bill is the policy equivalent of a wrecking ball. It is an all-out assault on teachers, the education system and standards. It is nothing less than education vandalism and we will oppose it with every fibre of our beings.

The House must be in no doubt that the Bill really matters. It destroys the consensus built over two decades in England on how to improve schools—a consensus that has led to English children being the best in the western world at reading and maths. I cannot understand why the Government would seek to reverse that progress. What are they hoping to achieve? It seems to be policy built purely on ideology. More than that, it is wrong. I desperately hope that Government Members will come to see that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you would think that a Labour Government would feel proud of the record they had on education under Blair. It was that Labour Government who innovated and made way for academies. When Blair talks about academies, he says that an academy

“belongs not to some remote bureaucracy, not to the rulers of government, local or national, but to itself, for itself. The school is in charge of its own destiny.”

That Blairite principle—a school in charge of its own destiny—was built on and expanded by subsequent Conservative Governments. What has been the result of this largely cross-party consensus? A thriving education system in which English children have soared up the programme for international student assessment rankings.

I see before me a move away from all the things that have enabled that success. The Bill seeks to turn its back on Labour’s history and take back those academy freedoms on curriculum, on pay and on behaviour. You name it, they are reversing it—all the things that have done so much to improve our education system. Step by step, the very policies that saw our schools rise up the international league tables are being reversed. I guarantee that just as we went up, as a result of the Bill we will come down those very same rankings. And who will suffer? The poorest pupils in society.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I have lived the dream of the academy programme from the very beginning under London Challenge, and I have seen Hackney children go to university—they did not when I was first elected. But the last Government brought in a wrecking ball. They made a smorgasbord of free schools, and offered an open chequebook to pay over the odds for inadequate sites that children were condemned to for years, with no accountability in the system as each bit fractured away. The reason why standards have notionally gone up is that some schools went 11 years without an inspection after they were rated were outstanding, but they were far from outstanding when they were next inspected. The right hon. Lady needs to take responsibility and accountability for what her Government did, and applaud the Secretary of State for what she is trying to do to put it right.

[Laura Trott]

I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Lady, but she will know that the academy programme was expanded more than 50 times under the last Government, and we went up the education rankings, not down, under the previous Government.

The Bill would abolish academies in all but name, and for what? Because Education Ministers think that they know better than Katharine Birbalsingh and Sir Jon Coles. Blair said in 2005 that

“command public services today are no more acceptable than a command economy.”

Well, someone needs to tell the Education Secretary, because that is exactly what she is proposing in the Bill. It is anti-rigour, anti-choice and anti-accountability.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

One of the most impressive aspects of the previous Government was the work instituted by Michael Gove to build on the reforms of Tony Blair, and carried on by successive Secretaries of State, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). Will my right hon. Friend commit the next Conservative Government to reversing these changes and ensuring that we have more choice for headteachers on curriculum, hiring and firing and expulsions so that we bring competition to the schools sector, not the dead hand of a Whitehall bureaucrat?

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be clear, the Bill proposes a pay cut for nearly 20,000 teachers in future years, because it imposes national terms and conditions on teachers in academies. I have to ask: what problem are the Government trying to solve? Teachers outside of national pay scales are paid more, not less. What have they got against highly paid teachers? Why on earth are the Government coming here today and telling tens of thousands of teachers that their pay is too high? It is absurd. Levelling down seems to be this Government’s priority. The flexibilities given on terms and conditions allow academies to offer things such as a longer school day. Are the Labour Government proposing to ban that?

The explanatory notes to the Bill set a new standard in double speak when they praise the

“positive innovation and good practice in teachers’ pay and conditions in some academies”

and say that the Government want to

“ensure that local authority-maintained schools also have the opportunity to implement this”.

So what are they doing? Are they giving these same pay flexibilities to local authority schools? They are doing opposite. They are taking pay flexibilities away from academies. Do not try and make any sense of this, because it is impossible. It is entirely contradictory.

The Government are also removing the requirement for failing schools to be taken over by an academy, despite recognising the

“strong track record of multi academy trusts…turning around failing schools”.

What are they replacing it with? They mention

“regional improvement for standards and excellence (‘RISE’) teams”—

officials sitting in the Department for Education—but in another breath they said that those teams will not be involved in failing schools.

The Government have clearly totally failed; they do not understand that the reason that failing schools became academies by default is that it is the most effective intervention. If it is not mandatory, there will be lots of massive rows about what will happen to failing schools, and inevitable delays and legal challenges. What is the upshot? More time with children in failing schools not being dealt with. What is their plan for failing schools? What is their plan to protect those children from falling behind? What is the evidence that this approach is better? Have they trialled it anywhere? Why on earth are they putting this into a Bill without a clear alternative failure regime in place that evidence shows is at least as good?

The Bill is totally unacceptable and misunderstands why the academy order has been so important. I cannot say this strongly enough to the Government Benches: it needs to change.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady concede that the academisation process has meant that the off-rolling that we have seen up and down this country has led to the crisis in SEND? That is the whole point of how the academy system has, apparently, improved standards. It has not—it has decreased inclusion. Will she please show us how the academy system has helped our children who are now stuck at home because they have been off-rolled?

[Laura Trott]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has confirmed that the Labour party is, indeed, anti-academy.

The Bill goes on and on—rampant centralisation in search of a cause. Why are the Government making all schools follow the national curriculum? Where is the evidence that there is a problem? Why are they putting in place sweeping powers to direct academies on unspecified things? What possible justification do they have for that? The notes say that it is to prevent “unreasonable use of power”. I say, look in the mirror.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend has mentioned pay and power. I think they lie behind the Bill, because the education unions opposed at every step under the last Labour Government and under the last Conservative Government. The dinosaur tendency, which we just heard from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), shows that the Government viscerally dislike the freedom of academies, and they turn their face against the transformation of educational outcomes—not least for the poorest—because of ideology rather than a genuine commitment to the child.

[Laura Trott]

Sadly, I think my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I see no other reason for the academy provisions to be in the Bill. It actually says in the explanatory notes that the primary aim of this legislation is to make the education system “more consistent”. That is at the heart of the problem today, because more consistency does not a better education system make. It is a classic Labour argument: one size must fit all, lopping the tops off the tallest poppies.

God forbid that schools might be able to innovate and learn from each other, and teachers might have freedoms in the classroom to try new things, backed up by a regulator that rigorously inspects and identifies failure. That is an excellent education system, but one that aims solely for consistency is not—a system of command and control, stifling teachers, supressing innovation, with everything decided in an office in Whitehall, far away from the classrooms. It is same old Labour: consistency for all, excellence for none.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady has referred repeatedly to command, control and consistency, as if the latter were a problem. Presumably, she was part of the Government that sought to use academies as a mechanism by which to control individual schools from Whitehall, rather than having the individual involvement of local authorities.

[Laura Trott]

The whole point of academies is to drive up standards by freeing them from state control. The Bill undermines all that, which is why it would abolish academies in all but name. I urge Government Members to look at what the education part of the Bill would do. Look at the Labour history under Education Secretaries such Lord Adonis. Do not destroy something that the Labour party helped to build.

The Government must get rid of the academy elements of the Bill. They will not improve the school system; they will make it worse. Do not destroy the work and policy of two decades at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. We must ask ourselves: who this is all about? Are we on the side of ideology, unions and bureaucrats, or are we on side of the children and teachers, and making sure that the most disadvantaged get the best possible education? If it is the latter, the education section of the Bill must go.

Let me come to the final part of our amendment, on a national grooming gang inquiry. This debate has been taken too far away from the victims and what is right for them. There are legitimate arguments to be had in this area, but the one I will not accept is that to call for an inquiry is to be far right. The Labour Government have to understand that they must explain their actions, not just call the Opposition names. Local inquiries, which the Labour Government say are the answer, do not have legal powers to summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. Some of the leaders of the Manchester inquiry resigned after they said that they were blocked from accessing information.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the shadow Minister for this amendment, and for the last part in particular. As everybody in this Chamber probably knows, my politics are very much left of centre, but I fully support what the Conservative party is doing with this amendment, and my party will also be supporting the Conservatives on it. The reason is quite simple: the women and children who have faced injustice over the decades deserve to see the grossly perverted perpetrators who carried out unbelievable things against children over the years face justice. We seek justice for them. The Conservative party seeks justice for them. The amendment the Conservatives have put forward today encapsulates the feeling of not just this House, but this nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott]

I am enormously grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, and I agree completely. This is an enormous scandal, and yet we do not fully know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it has taken place.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I hope that the right hon. Lady and Opposition Members will reflect that what we have seen recently is a case study in disinformation turbocharged by social media, including personal smears. Today is the latest example of how those who flirt with populism misuse sensitive and important issues. It is exemplified by how the shadow Minister and other Conservative Members are willing to wreck a Bill that is actually about improving children’s wellbeing. She should reflect on how they chase headlines and jump on bandwagons, while my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench take action after years of inertia.

[Laura Trott]

I have been very clear today that the Bill will destroy the education system in this country and reverse the progress that we have made, and that is why we oppose it.

On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I condemn the language that has been used against hon. Members in this House. However, he will recall that the Labour party put out a social media graphic that greyed out the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and claimed that he said that paedophiles should not go to prison. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to be moderate in our language.

This is an enormous scandal, and yet we do not fully know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it has taken place. The previous Conservative Government set up the grooming gangs taskforce, which made more than 500 arrests in the first year. With 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone, this will potentially encompass tens of thousands of children. We therefore need a comprehensive national inquiry into grooming gangs to tell the truth.

[Esther McVey]

Just for clarification, should Government Members do the right thing tonight and vote for our amendment, there would be no wrecking of any Bill—they just need to vote the right way.

[Laura Trott]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is no reason that action cannot be taken at the same time as a national inquiry—it is not an either/or. If the Government want to disagree with that, they will have to argue their case on the facts, and not simply smear any opposition to them as far right or say that parliamentary procedure means it cannot happen.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Trott]

No, I am going to finish. This is an opportunity for MPs across the House to give victims the justice they deserve. Hon. Members have heard our arguments on the inquiry and on schools. I hope that today, when we vote on our reasoned amendment, the Government see sense on both.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I had hoped that, during the Commons stages of the Bill, the Government would listen to the vast number of respected voices from the education sector who have warned repeatedly that this ill thought through Bill is nothing short of a disaster for education standards in this country. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State failed to listen to the Children’s Commissioner, who warned that children will spend longer in failing schools because of this Bill; or Katharine Birbalsingh, who argued that if passed—[Interruption.] That is how they treat one of the best headteachers in this country. She warned that if passed,

“the impact on our children, especially our most vulnerable, will be seismic.”

The Secretary of State will not listen to the former chief inspector of Ofsted, who described the Bill as a

“many-pronged assault on school standards”,

or to Lord Harris, who supported the party at the last election and said that the Bill will only harm “the most disadvantaged families.” Even some of her own Back Benchers have asked the Secretary of State to think again. Why does she think she knows better?

Instead of engaging constructively with that criticism, the approach from the Secretary of State has been to resort to personal attacks. In response to Amanda Spielman’s suggestion that there should be an analysis of the impacts of autonomy in schools before a legislation abolishing it is forced through the House of Commons, a Government source went on the record to denigrate a former senior public servant in the most personal of terms. Did the Secretary of State sign off that briefing?

In her own opinion piece in the Telegraph today, the Secretary of State told me and the shadow team to get out of London. She appears not to have noticed the work of Star Academies, Delta Academies Trust, United Learning, Trinity and Inspiration Trust, among many others. Those are brilliant trusts that are changing the lives of young people and she so casually dismisses them.

I have a suggestion for the Secretary of State in return: she should visit Wales. Wales, where the Labour Party have been in charge for 26 years; Wales, the blueprint for her reforms; and Wales, which currently finds itself at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the UK in maths, English and science. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said today that his party would never do anything to harm social mobility, yet the Bill will be devastating for social mobility.

Labour Members need to understand the consequences of the Bill. The evidence, should they care to read it, is overwhelming. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said very clearly that the differences in policy and approach have led to the terrible outcomes in Wales for disadvantaged young people. Indeed, disadvantaged young people in England do as well as the average child in Wales. Yet these are the policies that the Government want to implement in England. How on earth can they justify imposing the same policies and approach that have been such a disaster in Wales?

The Bill undermines, at a single stroke, all the work that has been done by successive Governments of all parties, headteachers and trusts over so many years. Academy trust heads have been abused during this debate and attacked by unions in this process because they dared to want better for young people under their care. Former Labour and Conservative Education Secretaries, who have driven through reforms in the face of fierce opposition, are being undermined by the Bill.

I cannot believe that the Government will undo all of that for no reason. There is no evidence whatsoever that their proposals will improve a single school. In fact, the evidence is clear that they will make things worse. The Secretary of State is putting ideology and the interests of union bosses over what is best for children and parents. This is a Bill of two halves. The first is on safeguarding, and we absolutely agree with the principle of that, but the second is the policy equivalent of a wrecking ball. It will destroy the consensus built up over two decades on what improves schools. It is discredited, it is disastrous for school standards, and we will never stop fighting it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I am delighted to address the 13 amendments sent back to us by the other place this evening. The volume of Lords amendments reflects the strong feelings in both Houses about the deficiencies in the Bill, but there is a chance tonight to make change for the better. At the moment, the Government seem to do their utmost to oppose anything that they did not come up with—not on merit, but because they have retreated into a tribal bunker in which only ideas emanating from Labour special advisers or union bosses are deemed acceptable. May I suggest that this is not serving the Government very well?

Let us take the phone ban. The Education Secretary has turned into a contortionist. First, she told me that a statutory ban on phones in the classroom was a “gimmick”. Then, the Prime Minister slammed it as “unnecessary”. The Education Secretary later admitted that there is a problem, but she said that more guidance can fix it. Finally, she is now consulting on whether to do a statutory ban but refusing to back our amendment, in Lords amendment 106, which would actually deliver one. I am flattered by the energy that the Education Secretary is putting into avoiding agreeing with me, but this is getting ridiculous.

If the Government cannot properly argue the merits of their case, we get bad legislation. We had that problem with the Bill when it first came in. The Government still cannot justify the rationale for taking away academy freedoms—the very same freedoms that have delivered improved school standards in this country. Indeed, we now have the absurdity of the schools White Paper rightly saying that academies are the driving force behind school improvement, while in this Bill the Government are destroying academies in all but name. This is palpable nonsense. Do not try to make any sense of it—it is not possible.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend allow me?

[Laura Trott]

With pleasure.

[Sir John Hayes]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making the case for banning mobile phones in schools and for restricting access to social media. We do not need more discussion or consultation, and we do not need more research, because research already shows the harm that those things are doing. By delaying and prevaricating, we are robbing children of the chance of a healthy life, so let us just move on and do what so obviously needs to be done.

[Laura Trott]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is the voice of reason in this Chamber.

Turning to our amendment that deals with pupil admission numbers, Lords amendment 102, I hope the Government will try to explain why they think good and outstanding schools should be made smaller when they are oversubscribed. To be clear, that is exactly what the Government are asking Back Benchers to vote for this evening. Parental choice has been the great driver of school improvement in this country—it empowers parents to vote with their feet and encourages excellent schools—yet the Government want to turn that principle on its head. They want to cut good school places, which is bad for parents, bad for schools and, above all, bad for children. School standards are on the Order Paper this evening, and the Government want to vote against them.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady knows that the challenge at the moment is that, because of the way that the system works, local authorities can control the number of admissions to good and outstanding maintained schools, but have much less control when it comes to academies. When there are falling pupil numbers—as she knows there are across the country—and work needs to be done to ensure we have the right number of places in the right areas, the only lever that our local authorities have to pull is reducing admissions to good and outstanding maintained schools. Does the right hon. Lady not agree that it is right that this Government act to make sure we can make choices in the interests of children and parents, regardless of the type of school?

[Laura Trott]

I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. At a time of shrinking school places, it is important that it is the good school places that survive, and parents should make that choice, not bureaucrats.

The Government’s inability simply to admit that they got it wrong in the Bill, and that there is a better way of achieving the outcome they want, is ever present. Lords amendment 41, which would impose a cost cap on school uniform, is palpably better than having a cap on the number of items. It is the height of insanity to insist that it should be illegal for a school to use the football kit it received for free because that would be outside of the item limit. If anyone is thinking that this cannot actually be Government policy, I suggest that they read the guidance that sits alongside the legislation. It literally says that

“All loaned or gifted branded items will be captured within the limit if they are required to be worn”,

meaning that they come under the cap. That makes absolutely no sense.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that specific point, but it is clear in the guidance that an item can be loaned as long as it is not compulsory. That is a perfectly reasonable situation that enables school sports teams to loan uniform items.

[Laura Trott]

The whole point is whether it is compulsory or not—that is the whole point of uniform, and I was reading directly from the guidance. It makes absolutely no sense; how is a child wearing something that they have been given for free going to increase costs for parents? If the “not invented here” syndrome were not running so rampant in the Department for Education, the change made by Lords amendment 41 would already have been made.

The same is true of Lords amendment 44. We all know the horrific case of Sara Sharif, which was used as a rationale for bringing forward many of the positive child protection measures in the Bill. The serious case review published at the end of last year set out multiple failings that led to Sara falling out of the system. That review states that, while well intentioned, this legislation would not have helped Sara, so we have brought forward amendment 44 to fix that. It ensures that consent would need to be sought from the local authority to homeschool any child who has ever had a child protection plan. That would mean that the Bill would have helped Sara, which is the Government’s stated aim, but guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Government are now opposing that amendment. We are diligently doing the work an Opposition should do to improve the legislation, but it is being shrugged off by the Government—not on its merits, but because they do not want to accept anything from this side of the House. It is not good enough.

[Mr Forster]

I thank the shadow Minister for raising the case of Sara Sharif from my constituency. The safeguarding review that she has referred to highlighted failings in Surrey county council and failings in the law. That review recommended three quite detailed things, which are not included in the Lords amendment—the amendment is separate. Would it not be better for Surrey to be put under special measures and for the Government to implement the safeguarding review in full, immediately?

[Laura Trott]

The hon. Gentleman is arguing for things that are outside the scope of the Bill. What we know is that the change made by Lords amendment 44 would have helped Sara in a way that the unamended Bill would not have done.

I am not going to push Lords amendments 2 and 21 to a vote this evening, but I reserve the right to come back to them if the Government do not engage constructively in the other place. I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Barran for her brilliant work on those amendments and on the wider Bill.

Turning to phones, I really want Members to understand how bad things have got with phones in schools, and why a statutory ban is necessary. I know that the Government have issued revised guidance and have asked Ofsted to enforce it, but Ofsted’s guidance on this topic still allows phones to be present in schools. I cannot overstate to Members how damaging and dangerous that is. I was thinking about how to communicate this most effectively, and given that the Government are not listening to me, to parents or to teachers, I thought that first-hand testimony from a young person might get through.

I warn you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the following account from a former pupil involves some graphic content that I sincerely wish I did not have to talk about. However, I refuse to shy away from it, because if we are exposing 13-year-olds to such content in schools, we need to be able to talk about it in this Chamber. This is testimony from a girl who was at an outstanding girls’ school that had a “not seen, not heard” phone policy. Such policies are common in many schools across the country and count as a phone ban under the Government’s definition. The Minister says that children’s voices are rarely heard—well, I hope she listens to this testimony today.

“When I was around 13 or 14 years old, one of my classmates would pull out her laptop at lunch times. She would connect her laptop through her phone’s hotspot, because the school wi-fi would block any social media, and launch up social media, because some thought it was funny to see how long it took to find an old man wanking—it was never long—or how long it took for somebody to ask them their age, and when they replied with ‘14’, they would send their Snapchat for you to add. The teachers never knew, because we were alone in our forms.

“Some of my friends had access to Snapchat from very young, some even primary school, but I did not. I got Snapchat when I was 12 or 13, but I remember before, my friends talking about dick pics in the changing rooms, and one said she got at least 10 in the morning. She’d put up her phone and show us by scrolling through them, just because it was funny that they would just send it. This happened after she added someone on Snapchat that she didn’t know. Others had them too.

“Looking back now, I remember pretending to find everything funny, just to fit in, but actually I felt really confused and grossed out at some of the content being shared. All of this happened at school, and we probably should have talked to a teacher, but as an 11 to 14-year-old girl, you’re not going to tell your male form tutor that people were being sent dick pics in school, or that your classmates were sending porn in the form group chat. I didn’t even tell my parents until recently, because I was embarrassed, or maybe because it just seemed normal, but my mum was already pretty strict with my phone usage and if I told her what was being sent around at school, I felt like I would be in trouble and she’d take the phone away. The phone was how everyone connected, so I needed to protect it. Over time, all the sexually explicit stuff just became normal.”

I remind Members that this is happening at school and, in this case, at an outstanding girls’ school. It is so far from being an isolated incident—in fact, it is the opposite. It is approaching a norm.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

To enhance my right hon. Friend’s point, I have been running a survey in my constituency and the vast majority of respondents and parents have said that they support the concept of a simple age limit on social media, because of these particularly harmful algorithms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsible thing for all of us in this House to do is to support our party’s policy of keeping our children safe by putting an age limit on social media?

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend is completely right. We need that age limit, and we need the phone ban in schools. Polling out today shows that 40% of children are shown explicit content during the school day. That is happening right now. This is an emergency. No more guidance; no more consultations—the Government should legislate, do something about it, and vote to ban phones in schools tonight.

The Lords amendments on social media received overwhelming cross-party backing in the other place. They were put forward by the noble Lords Nash, Berger, Cass and Benjamin. The amendments have been extensively debated and are backed by a number of expert groups and bereaved parents. In the place of those amendments, we have the farcical situation where the Government are asking the House to support their own amendment, which does not tell us what the Government will do or even when they will do it. No action is required by the provision being put forward this evening.

[Mr Perkins]

The shadow Secretary of State has been speaking a bit tonight about parental choice. That is, until this amendment, where she does not believe parents are able to decide what their children should do. In fact, she believes that she is far better placed, as are many Members in the House of Lords who do not know how to take a photo on their phone, to tell people how to parent their children. Does she acknowledge that many parents recognise that their children have positive experiences on social media? Is it not sensible to have a consultation, as the Government have already announced, to hear from experts, from children and from all the people who have opinions on this issue, rather than legislating at great haste and making a huge difference to many young people’s lives?

[Laura Trott]

This is a safeguarding issue, and we have always taken steps when it comes to safeguarding young people. Let me be clear to Labour Members: the Government can choose to do nothing based on this amendment. Ministers do not have a view on whether social media should be banned, and they have put forward an amendment that does not tell us what they will do. It is extraordinary.

[Alicia Kearns]

This is not about the ability of parents; it is about recognising that social media platforms are being weaponised by algorithms—let alone by hostile states—to make children addicted to them. It is impossible for parents to protect their children who do not have the critical thinking skills before 16. Having worked in counter-terrorism, I know that it is critical thinking that stops people from getting on planes to blow themselves up in foreign countries.

The No. 2 cause of stroke in women under 40 is being strangled during sex. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is because they have been told on the internet that they can be safely strangled? They cannot. We have to protect our children, because it is impossible for them to police things or have the critical thinking skills to protect themselves when they are on the internet.

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend eloquently sums up why this amendment is so important.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Laura Trott]

I am sorry, but I will make some progress, otherwise I will get in trouble with Madam Deputy Speaker.

We have an emergency, and it is hidden on children’s phones. A quarter of children in primary school have seen porn, and the vast majority access it via social media. Some 70% of teenagers have seen real-life violence online, while only 6% were looking for it. In other words, the social media algorithm deliberately serves it to them. Criminals are using Snapchat and Facebook to groom children. Child sexual abuse imagery crimes are up enormously. Snapchat is flagged in almost half of cases. Meta platforms make up a quarter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Laura Trott]

I am sorry, but I really have to make some progress.

Sextortion is also a huge issue on social media. In 2022, there were 10,000 reports of sextortion by snap. That was not in a year, but in one month, and those are just the ones we know about. Most horrifyingly of all, social media is culpable in dozens of children’s deaths. To give just one example, Ellen Roome’s son Jools took part, she believes, in a TikTok blackout challenge. That is where young children and teenagers are encouraged to hold their breath until they pass out. Jools died as a result in April 2022, and that was two years after the challenge had supposedly been removed from the platform. When I met Ellen and other bereaved parents, they said that, tragically, their bereaved group just keeps on growing. In the face of that, do Members know what the Government’s consultation says? It says that children like using TikTok to post dance videos. This misguided view that social media is in some way good for children, or that its benefits outweigh the harms I have spoken about, is what has got us into this position.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Laura Trott]

I am sorry, but I must make some progress.

I have heard Ministers argue that vulnerable children or children who are isolated need to find their community online, and I want to put that argument to rest once and for all. All the evidence shows that these children are the most likely to be exploited, groomed and harmed by social media. If a child is scared or isolated, the last thing we should do is put them on social media. It is a terrible argument, and I hope it is not repeated today.

The other options that the Government present in their consultation simply do not meet the scale of the challenge. A curfew so that children can only get damaged by social media during the day does not help. Time limits so that children still see the content, but just for fewer hours, are not good enough. Getting rid of scrolling is fine, but how does that stop children being groomed?

So far, three senior Labour figures have managed to grasp the seriousness of the situation: the Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Health Secretary and the Labour leader in Scotland. They have judged this policy on its merits, and I hope the House manages to do the same tonight, because we are in a crisis. If Members across the House agree, they need to add their voices and vote for change.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Since I last stood at this Dispatch Box to argue, again, that we should stop ignoring the evidence and act to ban social media for under-16s, 12 individuals in California have done something remarkable. They have begun to turn the tide against the use of social media by children. On 25 March, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a landmark verdict: they found two social media giants responsible for injuries suffered by a young woman over the course of her childhood. The conclusion was stark. These companies knew that their platforms were addictive. They knew the risks to young people and they chose not to act, and children have paid the price. The jury did not ignore the evidence, and nor should this House.

That is not an isolated case. It is the beginning of something much larger. Eight further trials are already scheduled in California alone, and federal cases brought by states and school districts will follow this summer. Behind them stand thousands of claimants waiting to be heard. Here in the United Kingdom, however, we are still watching rather than acting. This ruling should have made the Government stop dragging their feet. It confirms what parents, teachers and health professionals have been saying for years. Aggressive, addictive algorithms are damaging children’s mental health, and, in the worst cases, costing them their lives.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my right hon. Friend share with me a certain sympathy for the Minister, who has obviously been ordered by the Secretary of State to come and make the preposterous case that on the one hand the whole problem has been solved and on the other—in a complete logical contradistinction—if the consultation concludes that this does need to be put in statute, the Government will then go about doing it? Well, which is it? Have they solved the problem, as the Minister claimed, or could the consultation yet tell us that it needs to be legislated for? Clearly it needs to be legislated for, and clearly the Minister—who is smart, likeable and decent, and committed to the welfare of children—has been put in an impossible position, arguing a ridiculous case. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Laura Trott]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The evidence is irrefutable, and the Government need to get on with it.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The evidence is still more profound, is it not? Screen time is now a profound problem across the board. This is not just about phones; it is about all kinds of devices. We now know not only that it affects children’s confidence in communicating, but that their cerebral capacity is being altered over time.

I hope that during the consultation the Government will look more broadly at the issue of screen time, because, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), many parents are yet to understand this as clearly as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State most certainly does—and the Minister is gradually coming to terms with it. I hope that the Government will seize the initiative, and send the very clear message from this place that children and screen time are not happy bedfellows and we really must return to a more traditional way of bringing up the next generation.

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is correct. We are involved in a profound battle for childhood and against the screens. The Government have taken some steps in the right direction—their recent guidance on under-fives and screens was very good—but they need to finish the job. They need to get smartphones out of schools, and they need to ban children from social media. It is the right thing to do, it is what the evidence shows, and it really will make a difference.

Many senior figures in technology companies do not allow their own children access to the very platforms from which they profit. They know what we know: it is not safe. The children will always try to be on the sites for longer, and the social media companies will give them more and more addictive content to look at. Nothing will change unless we act here in the House. A jury has examined the evidence and reached its verdict. The question before us today is whether the Labour party will have the courage to do the same, and vote to protect our children.

If Labour Members will not listen to me, I ask them to listen to the families who are here today—parents who have lost their children because of social media. They show unimaginable courage every single day. They are not fighting for their own children—tragically, it is too late for that—but they are fighting so that this does not happen to anyone else’s children. I am in awe of their strength. Their bravery is why I will keep fighting for change. I wish that they did not have to be here, but they are, and I am here for them.

I am here for Ellen. This week marks four years since she lost her son Jools, and she continues her brave campaign so that no other family has to endure what she has endured. She believes that he died after attempting a TikTok blackout challenge. I am here for Lisa, whose son Isaac died at the age of just 13. She believes that he, too, was attempting a TikTok challenge. I am here for Mariano, whose daughter Mia took her own life at 14 after sustained online bullying. And I am here for George, whose son Christopher was 15 when he died, just 50 days after he began receiving disturbing messages online. He was groomed by individuals posing as children.

Those are just some of the dozen or so parents in the Gallery today. Every one of them has lost a child prematurely due to social media. Every month, the group grows. This does not just happen to other people’s children; it can happen to any of our children. It must stop, and we have the power to stop it today. I urge Labour Members to ask themselves why they are still refusing to act.

Yesterday I was briefed by a former senior police officer about the scale of abuse taking place on platforms such as TikTok. He described the sheer volume of exploitation affecting UK schoolchildren. Young girls are being encouraged to commercialise their bodies and are receiving digital gifts through features such as TikTok rewards. These rewards allow viewers to send virtual items during livestreams that can later be converted into real money. In practice, this creates a financial incentive for children to post increasingly provocative material in order to attract attention and income. 

In 2024, a global study by Protect Children found that 32% of sex offenders reported using social media platforms to search for, view or share child sexual abuse material. A separate 2026 study, commissioned by Ofcom, found that nearly half of perpetrators first encountered such material unintentionally, often through social media or messaging platforms. That is why the Government’s consultation is so wrong-headed. I am not even joking when I say that their consultation cites TikTok as a benefit for children simply because they can post dance videos. What I have stated today obviously renders that absurd, given the harm caused, but even posting a dance video is very dangerous. Let me explain why, as the Government clearly do not understand.

When young girls post dance videos, they learn that the way they get approval is not internally, but externally. Children quickly learn that “likes” equal approval. They learn that attention brings status. And too often, they discover that sexualised content attracts the most attention of all. That reshapes how young people see themselves and their value. If children spend significant time posting dance videos on social media, especially from a young age, they begin to depend too heavily on the opinions of others, rather than their own judgment. Their confidence declines, and seeking approval becomes habitual.

Yesterday I spoke to the brilliant Dr Davies, who leads the charity Papaya Talks. She explained how, over time, seeking external approval can reduce self-esteem and distort how young people understand themselves and their worth. It is not just about posting dance videos, and to casually put that as a benefit in the consultation means that the Government do not understand what they are dealing with. 

I welcome Lords amendment 17B and the Government providing some movement through their amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 102 and 106. The introduction of PAN is a welcome step, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. However, I remain concerned that the adjudicator may only be required to have regard to parental preference and the quality of education provided, which does not guarantee that local authorities will not shrink good schools. The Government need to strengthen this provision and put the matter beyond doubt. 

Turning to phones in schools, Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106B states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance”.

The Minister outlined the plethora of actions the Government are taking, but I ask them, for the love of God, to put the guidance on to a statutory footing. They really are taking all possible steps not to agree with us, but the answer is right in front of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way. She is making the profound point—and this should concern every Member of this House across the normal party divides—that the abnormal is becoming routine. Growing up has never been easy and moving from childhood to adulthood is always a challenge, but when someone’s sense of what is normal is altered beyond recognition, it becomes impossible to navigate the vicissitudes that are an inevitable part of maturing, and that is where we are. This House took 25 years to regulate the internet at all—far too long—over successive Governments, but now the whole House can come together to protect our children from this menace.

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I have said, we are in a fight for childhood, and I will keep fighting until the Government offer a ban on social media in this Bill and give us a timeframe by which they are going to do it.

I am not giving up, and the parents in the Gallery will not give up either. In the immortal words of Taylor Swift:

“You want a fight? You found it”.

Labour MPs will find that, with parents, teachers and doctors, we have the place surrounded, and we will not give up, because children deserve better.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

A decade ago, I raised the heartbreak that siblings in the care system suffer when they are separated and have no contact with each other. My aim was simply to create parity in legislation, by extending the requirement for a looked-after child’s reasonable contact with their parents to contact with their siblings or half-siblings. What followed were amendments, debates, early-day motions, articles, questions, ministerial meetings and letters—so many letters. Every single time, I was advised that there was sympathy for my request, but nothing ever changed—until now. Under this Labour Government, we are finally putting an end to the cruelty in our care system that separates siblings and denies them contact with each other.

When I heard my noble Friends in the other place carry unopposed Lords amendment 17B—the same amendment that I moved in 2016—I was for once completely lost for words. This may seem like a very small change to legislation, but it is not. It will make a profound difference to the lives of so many children, including children whose lives are already more difficult than many of us in this place can even begin to comprehend.

Like everything that happens in this place, it was not a solo endeavour. If the Chamber would please indulge me for a moment, I want to thank all the MPs across the House who over the years have supported this change; my right hon. and hon. Friends in our Education team; Cathy Ashley and the team at the Family Rights Group who, way back, helped me craft the amendment; and my friend the broadcaster and journalist Ashley John-Baptiste, who powerfully used his experience of the care system, in which he grew up never knowing that he had siblings, to help press for this change.

That leads me to who I want to thank most of all: the children I worked with in my former career. I promised them that if I ever made it into this place, I would do absolutely everything in my power to change legislation that causes them further pain and distress.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I want to start with some good news. After a year of resisting—insisting that a statutory ban on smartphones in schools was, to quote the Prime Minister, “unnecessary”—the Government have finally given in and we have got what we have been asking for: a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. Ministers have told me over and over again that there is not a problem. They said that the vast majority of schools have a phone ban and that a statutory ban was, to quote the Education Secretary, a “headline-grabbing gimmick”. At one stage, I was told—by an Education Minister during Education questions, no less—that I needed something better to go on than a smartphone ban in schools. But we have kept fighting, because I know and my party knows that there is a problem.

The Department for Education’s own evidence says that phones are still disrupting almost half of GCSE classes every day. We know that children are still seeing porn at school on their friends’ smartphones, and it is affecting behaviour. We have tried guidance to fix the problem, but it has not worked. There is a phones crisis in schools, and only making the guidance statutory could possibly fix it. After various contortions from the Government Front Bench, I am glad that they have finally listened.

In the face of a Government who until recently refused to accept that there is a problem, I pay tribute to the incredible campaigners—SafeScreens, Mumsnet, Parentkind, Will Orr-Ewing, Generation Focus, Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Phone Free Education and Smartphone Free Childhood. Their relentless focus and pressure has helped to give voice to the frustrated teachers, parents and students who were desperate for change—change that we have now delivered in the Bill.

While that is good news, I want the Government to make it crystal clear that a “not seen, not heard” policy is not allowed under these rules. The statistic that Ministers constantly give—that 80% of schools already have a smartphone ban—includes schools that have a “not seen, not heard” policy. Such policies do not work: children still use their phones, they are allowed them in their bags, they still go to the loos and message their friends, and they are still exposed to nasty content on phones during the school day. The real number of schools with a full smartphone ban, where phones are not allowed to be with children at all during the school day, is only 11% according to Policy Exchange. It is vital that the Minister is explicit that a “not seen, not heard” policy, where children are free to carry their phones in their bags during the school day as long as the phones are silent, is prohibited under the guidance.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I had intended to speak in the debate but I am afraid I have to leave by 4 pm, so I would not have been able to be in the Chamber for the wind-ups. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crux of the matter is that although it is all very well for the Government to now accept what the Conservatives have been pushing for—a ban on phones in schools—it is simply not good enough for them to say that it is the responsibility of the pupil to not use their phone? Young people are easily influenced and they may well come under peer pressure to keep their phones and to use them to communicate, as my right hon. Friend has said. Will she push the Government to say how they are going to support schools, as the Minister said that they will do, to ensure that the ban is effective?

[Laura Trott]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need an explicit commitment from the Minister today. I will be delighted if she is able to give that—it would be fantastic. If there is agreement from Members across the House, everyone will be very relieved.

We have gone through the Government guidance and while that commitment could be read from the guidance, it is important for headteachers that it is made explicit. The Education Minister in the other place could not give that categorical assurance—[Interruption.] No, not this Education Minister—the Education Minister in the other place. It is important that the Minister gives that assurance today, and I am sure that she will. The Conservatives have shown that we can come together in the best interests of children, we can force change and we can make a difference.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Given the importance that the Conservatives are placing on the ban, why did they not impose it during the 14 years that they were in government?

[Laura Trott]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we put guidance in place, but we have been explicit that it was not effective and that we needed to put it on the statute book, which is what we have been fighting for throughout the passage of the Bill.

Turning to the Government amendment on pupil admission numbers, I am grateful that progress has been made in recognising the importance of school quality and parental involvement in decision making. This is a victory to protect school standards in the face of an onslaught against them in the Bill. Parental preference and choice are fundamental to healthy competition and higher school standards, and we welcome the belated acknowledgment of that by the Government. It is the right thing for parents, who would be dumbfounded at the idea that the local authority could unilaterally cut the places at a high-quality, over-subscribed school at the end of their road, which was exactly what was originally suggested in the Bill.

The Government amendment is not perfect. It will still allow good school places to be cut as the adjudicator is required to take in account only the quality of education provided at the school in question and parental preference. That does not mean that school places are protected as they should be, but given that the Government have moved their position and taken into account some concerns, we will not vote against the amendment today. However, I would appreciate the Minister reassuring parents from the Dispatch Box that as the Secretary of State will be consulted on these decision, successful academies will not be penalised by local authorities merely by dint of not being run by them.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

The GORSE Academies Trust runs schools in my constituency that have a very firm policy on the use of phones. Indeed, there was a security incident last year that put one of its schools under threat, but no pupil knew that that was happening because of that firm policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are academies and institutions that the Government should consult to understand exactly how they are enforcing a very strict policy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott]

That is absolutely right. Enforcing a very strict policy is what now needs to happen off the back of the new statutory guidance.

Let me now turn to the issue of social media and the Government’s approach. One of the biggest safeguarding challenges facing children today is social media. If we are serious about protecting children from the extreme and violent content that they encounter online every day, the Government should do what the Prime Minister says he wants to do—protect children online—by voting for change tonight.

Parents are watching and they will not forgive the continued delay. Twice already, Labour Members have voted against a ban. Parents will be forgiven for not only feeling deeply let down, but being quite frankly baffled by what is going on. They have heard the Prime Minister promise action, yet once again he is preparing to lead his party through the Lobby to vote against it. If the Government truly wanted change, they could deliver it today. Instead, they have chosen to vote against a ban for a third time.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I know that this is an important subject for the right hon. Lady personally, but Labour MPs have not voted against a ban; they have voted for a consultation. They have voted to listen to parents, young people and charities and to learn lessons from what has happened in places such as Australia and Greece. Surely basing this policy on evidence is the right thing to do.

[Laura Trott]

I respect the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that the Government consultation is not on how to implement a social media ban, but on whether to do one at all. That is not good enough. It also says in the consultation that TikTok is good for children because they can post dance videos. I do not believe that that is taking the issue seriously, and I do not believe that it commits to firm action. That is why Labour MPs who care about this issue should vote with us today.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that action and a ban will not necessarily be the same thing? This is a really nuanced policy area. Quite recently, there was a huge online joint letter published by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and many others. It argued that although serious action is needed to tackle addictive features, safeguarding problems and violent content online, as we all agree and as she is saying, a blanket ban has significant drawbacks. It is right that we really look at the evidence, consult nationally and get this right.

[Laura Trott]

There is a huge coalition of charities backing a ban. We have tried to police content online, and it has not worked, but we know that policing age will work and make a difference. This is urgent; there is no time for delay. Real harm is happening and children are dying. We must act, and a ban is the most effective way to do that.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Let me try again with the question that I put to the Minister. We have the opportunity today to carry a motion tabled in the other House that would introduce the ban. The can is being kicked down the road. We cannot have consultation indefinitely. The question on the consultation paper is not, “How do we do this?”, but, “Shall we do it?” That is not necessary—am I right?

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Action this day—that is what is required, and that is what we are pushing for.

[Sean Woodcock]

The right hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I ask her the same question that I posed earlier: if this is so important, why did the Conservatives not get round to doing it when they were in government for 14 years?

[Laura Trott]

The rise of social media really came about in a serious way in 2015 or 2016 with the rise of front-facing cameras. We took action through the Online Safety Act 2023, which was a huge Act in pushing forward the safety of children, but it has not been effective in policing content. It has not been enough, and we need to go further. We now need a social media ban for children.

Let me say once more: I will not give up this fight until the Government tell the House what they will do and by when. I hope that that comes tonight—the Minister indicates that it may come later in the other place—but I will not give up, and neither will the thousands of people who have joined the brilliant “Raise the Age” campaign, which has been speaking so powerfully for frustrated parents across the country.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right. The inboxes of all Members across the House have been filled by parents who feel passionately that they need help to be able to control their children’s use of things online. They need the Government to step in and say, “You are actually not allowed those apps.” I am a parent myself, with young children, and as parents we cannot be over their shoulder all the time watching what they are seeing online. We know that what they are being given by the algorithm is so unsafe, damaging and harmful, and they deserve to be protected from that by the Government.

[Laura Trott]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. What she says speaks to the point that our two parties have been able to come together in the interests of children; it is just the Labour party that is standing in the way.

Frankly, I know that there are Labour Members who agree with us and who want the Government to stop promising action and actually start taking some. Given the events of this week, I suspect that many of them do not even trust a word their own Government say. [Interruption.] It is absurd that the Government continually promise urgent action, yet all they have laid before Parliament is an amendment that does not commit to any action at all and does not specify a timeframe. This is not good enough. In a terrible week for the Government, the Opposition have proved that politicians can make change by coming together in the interests of children to ban smartphones. We can do the same on social media. The Prime Minister has already made his Back Benchers defend the indefensible this week, and I urge Labour MPs not to let him do the same to them again and to vote for change this evening. We owe it to the generation of children who are being exposed to extreme and violent content every single day to do so.

Childhood is short, and children are being influenced and impacted by what they are being exposed to right now. Damage is being done now, and months and even years of delay mean a childhood lost for some, because once that content is seen, it cannot be unseen. Once those pressures take hold, they cannot simply be reversed, and the consequences can last a lifetime. This is not about action at some point in the future; it is about whether we act while there is still time to protect children who are growing up today, not years from now. Childhood is short, and we cannot give it back to children later, so we must protect it now.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

I apologise, but I am going to make progress. I am happy to discuss this with the hon. Lady at any time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) rightly paid tribute to Olly’s mum and dad. I have had the huge privilege of meeting Olly’s mum. No parent should have to endure what his parents endured; their huge courage in campaigning in their son’s memory is truly admirable.

We heard contributions on the proposals on pupil admission numbers from the hon. Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). I want to be clear that we want to see good schools expand, and we want a great education for every child, but we have to be realistic: in an age of falling rolls, it is possible that this power may be needed to protect the principle of a great education for every child. We have been very clear, through the safeguards that we have put in place in our amendments, that parental choice and the quality of the school will be paramount in this decision making.

The right hon. Members for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), discussed phones in schools. I like the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, too, but I would gently point out to him that our guidance was published a few months ago, and that Ofsted has started inspecting under it this month. I urge him to be patient, when it comes to the implementation of the action that we have taken. I ask him to consider that we have already taken decisive action on phones in schools.

I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) for her tone on many fronts, and in particular for the support for our measures on phones in schools. I will repeat what I said in my opening speech in response to her direct question: the guidance, which we will now make statutory, explicitly says that the Department for Education expects schools to implement a policy in which pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day, including during lessons, in between lessons, in breaks and at lunchtime. I do not think we could be clearer about our intent for this legislation.

It is right, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire has said, that different schools are implementing this ban in different ways, whether that is with a plastic tray in the classroom, a pouch or whatever it may be. We are very clear on this point.

[Laura Trott]

I really appreciate the Minister engaging with this issue. However, some people could interpret “not having access” as children not being allowed to touch their phone during the school day, but still being allowed to have it in their bag. Can she be very clear today that that is not allowed under this guidance?

[Olivia Bailey]

I can be extremely clear on that, as I have just been. We are categorically crystal clear that there is no access to phones at any point during the school day. The guidance says that. We have removed from the guidance that we have published any reference to any kind of “not seen, not heard” policy in the case studies. We are completely clear: no access to phones at any point during the school day. It is not for me to determine how a headteacher enforces their discipline and behaviour policies in their school, and this is ultimately a question of enforcement. I gently point out that we had to act to fix the weak guidance left by the Conservative party. I ask her to reflect on the fact that phones and social media were not invented in July 2024—her party had 14 long years to take the decisive action that we have now taken.

I hope that the time for party political games on this legislation is over. Fifteen months is too long to wait for the vital safeguarding measures for which we need the Bill to become law. There is agreement across the House that phones have no place in schools, and that we must act to keep children safe online. The Government are doing both, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote with us today.

Question put.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

I have been clear with the hon. Member about our determination to act swiftly. These measures are a ceiling, not an ambition. We will act swiftly, reporting by the summer and then acting within 12 months.

To conclude, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have listened to concerns from all parts of the House and made meaningful changes where needed. We will continue to listen to all stakeholders as we move into implementation.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

On Friday, after Labour MPs had repeatedly blocked a social media ban for under-16s, we had a new proposal from the Government. It was not a serious response to the issue we are facing. It gave the Government three years to take unspecified action on social media, which was nowhere near good enough. Today, that has changed. We now have a commitment from the Government that they will impose an age restriction for children under 16, which will be in addition to, not instead of any curfews. That is a huge step forward in keeping children safe and in supporting parents in their fight against screens destroying children’s lives.

We should remember that at the start of the Bill’s passage 18 months ago, the Government said that a social media ban was not something they were looking at. We have moved so far, and things have only changed because of the unity of those on the Opposition Benches, because of Lord Nash’s brilliant campaign and because of the coalition behind Raise the Age. It is a victory for the teachers and health professionals who have constantly made the arguments, and it has happened because of the voices of brave bereaved parents such as Ellen, Lisa, Esther, George, Mariano and sadly far too many more who have lost their children, but who will never give up the fight for everyone else’s. They are why I have not given up this fight, and it is for them that I have been fighting. I would not be able to look those brave parents in the eye if we allowed the Government to get away with a timeline that meant they did not even have to act in this Parliament.

I welcome the Government’s constructive engagement on this issue, and we see a new proposal today that has a much more acceptable timeframe, albeit not as short as I would like. Every month of delay just leaves children more exposed to the harms of social media online. I urge the Minister to keep to her word today and ensure that action is as swift as possible.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend and Lord Nash on a hard-fought but important campaign? We now have a commitment in principle from the Government that they will ban the use of social media by under-16s, which will be welcomed across the country by concerned parents. Can she reassure me and the House that all that fighting was worth it?

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend, as ever, is absolutely correct. As on the smartphone ban in schools, we have been fought every step of the way. I am just glad that right at the end of proceedings, we have managed to have a constructive discussion and to get to where we wanted to be right from the beginning.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I am intervening because I am a little bit concerned. One of the Ministers and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries are mouthing across the Chamber that there will be no ban. I would be grateful for clarification that there is unity on the Labour side. It is clear—I have checked with those around me, and they all agree that that is exactly what is being mouthed—so it is a bit confusing.

[Laura Trott]

I would be incredibly concerned if that were the case. Would the Minister like to intervene and indicate whether any PPS sitting behind her was doing that? [Interruption.] She says no. Well, that is good to know. It would be incredibly concerning if that were the case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I think every one of us would welcome the Government’s movement on mobile phones. In Northern Ireland, we had a pilot scheme to start with. We all welcome this measure on the issue of social media. It is for England and Wales, I understand, but will the shadow Secretary of State—I wanted to ask this in an intervention on the Secretary of State—consider passing on the details of the legislative change, so that we in Northern Ireland can take advantage of some of the good things coming forward? We should share those good things.

[Laura Trott]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is correct. I am sure that will be picked up by the Minister in her closing remarks.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend knows that I have been gravely concerned about this issue. I, too, commend her on a very hard-fought fight, but I remain concerned that we had a vehicle before us, in Lord Nash’s amendment, which would have dealt with the programme now—not in five, six, 10 or 12 months’ time. I hope very much that when the Minister replies she will confirm that it will be adhered to. If it is not, then this House will regard that as a matter of bad faith. I do not propose to vote against the Government tonight if my right hon. Friend has struck that agreement.

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is always correct to be worried, but he will know that in Lord Nash’s amendment a 12-month delay was written in. I think it is reasonable to give the Government some time to bring the measure forward. As I said, the delay is not as short as I would like, but we have shown throughout the passage of the Bill—albeit a little too late, as I mentioned to the Minister—that we are able to compromise. I think we have shown good faith and I hope that is what the Government will now deliver on.

Politics matters. It can make a difference. We have shown tonight that when we come together we can deliver in the interests of children.

[Several hon. Members rose—]