Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

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—]

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

We learnt last week that in the tragic Southport case, when the headteacher warned about the killer’s increasing extreme behaviour, the social worker accused the headteacher of racially stereotyping the pupil as

“a black boy with a knife”.

The result was that the warnings were rewritten in many cases. And that was not a one-off. We know it also happened in the Sara Sharif case, where

“race was a bar to reporting possible child abuse”,

and we saw the failure repeatedly with the grooming gangs scandal. Being too scared of causing offence means children are being harmed, so I ask the Secretary of State directly: what concrete action is she taking to stop repeated cases of political correctness overruling the safeguarding of children?

[Bridget Phillipson]

There is no more important responsibility than making sure our children are kept safe from harm. We will take forward any measures that arise out of the Southport inquiry to ensure we can do everything within our power to keep children safe, whether in school or in the home. We are already taking action to reform children’s social care—we are recruiting more social workers and the numbers are very high at the moment—but it is through our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that we are delivering the single biggest upgrade to child protection legislation in a generation. It should be on the statute book already, but the right hon. Lady and the Conservative party continue to block its progress.

[Laura Trott]

If the Secretary of State wants to start keeping children safe online, then we will stop our objections—but she is refusing to do that. In another example of so-called progressiveness, local authorities across the country are, unbelievably, trying to stop exclusions when children are bringing knives to school. This is happening right here in London, with Sadiq Khan’s inclusion charter, and in Sheffield, where the policy led to the tragic stabbing of Harvey Willgoose, whose killer had previously brought an axe into school and was not excluded. Will the Secretary of State condemn the spread of anti-exclusion ideology and support schools to exclude when knives are brought on to the school estate?

[Bridget Phillipson]

School leaders have my full support in taking action on issues such as violence. Of course there should be an expectation—a clear expectation—that action is taken where it applies to cases such as those the right hon. Lady set out, but I would just slightly caution her in talking about some of the details of those cases in the way that she has. We all have a responsibility to ensure we give full and accurate accounts of exactly what has taken place. I look forward to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill allowing us to take further action to keep children safe at home and in their communities—wherever they are. We will not hesitate to act.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

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.

Student Loans

Laura Trott Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to set the interest rate on Plan 2 student loans at a level which ensures that balances will never rise faster than RPI inflation; further calls on the Government to stop the freeze on repayment thresholds; and also calls on the Government to create more apprenticeships for 18-21 year olds, funded by controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost to graduates and taxpayers.

In June 2023, the then shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), proclaimed, “Graduates, you will pay less under Labour”. Well, it turns out that that was not true; under Labour, graduates are paying more. So far, under this Government tuition fees have gone up twice. This is a long way from the abolition of tuition fees offered up by a fresh-faced candidate for the Labour leadership just a few years ago—I wonder what happened to him.

It is no wonder that students feel misled by this Government. Not content with hiking tuition fees when they said they would not, this Government also froze the thresholds for repayments, making loans even more expensive for graduates. As with everything this Chancellor touches, she makes it worse. Her choice to freeze the repayment thresholds has left young people paying more and sooner. What did the Chancellor say when challenged about the threshold freeze in January? She said that the student loan system is “fair and reasonable”. To be clear, this was the stance—that the student loan system and the threshold freeze were “fair and reasonable”—of the Labour Government as recently as January. Tell that to the graduate forced to pay an extra £24,000 because of the Chancellor’s changes. The Chancellor is wrong: it is not fair or reasonable.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Given that plan 2 tuition fees were introduced by the Conservatives in 2012, that they froze the repayment thresholds in 2016 and that they abolished the maintenance grants, was that fair then?

[Laura Trott]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the fact that Labour has made it worse. Even now, the Chancellor has changed her tune—no surprise given the track record of this Government. She now says that the system is “broken”, but young people are apparently not at the “front of the queue”. I did not see that on the front of the Labour manifesto. We on the Opposition Benches think that young people should be at the front of the queue, because thanks to Labour, Britain’s youth unemployment rate has topped the eurozone for the first time ever. Graduates coming out of university cannot get jobs. Graduates in work are seeing their student debt mounting up.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I have been contacted by many students in Epping Forest who are deeply concerned about their future debt and by many graduates who are worried about ballooning debt on these plan 2 loans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government have an opportunity to step in and relieve the pressure on young people and adopt the Conservative plans to scrap real interest rates on these plan 2 loans?

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a chance today to create a new deal for young people. I hope that some Government Members vote for it.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I must declare an interest as someone in the first year group to have a plan 2 student loan under the broken system introduced by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that we have today. Will the right hon. Member apologise to my generation for £9,000 tuition fees, for the broken system she created and for failing to introduce the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 that this Government have acted to introduce?

[Laura Trott]

If the hon. Lady thinks the system is broken, I invite her to vote for our motion.

Every metric for young people has got worse since this Government came in. It is crystal clear that for young people, as for the rest of the country, Labour is not working.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will have noted, as I have, that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and other Labour Members wish to talk about the past. Our constituents, and graduates who are paying these outrageous sums, want to talk about the future. At the general election, they listened to Labour’s promises on lowering costs for graduates, but the Government are doing exactly the opposite. By deflecting and talking about the past rather than accepting responsibility for the government that they are delivering, Labour Members are letting down all those young people, whose aspirations should be respected.

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is quite right: not only did Labour mislead the public, but it then made things worse. Now, Labour Members will not vote to fix it. That is Labour all over.

We need a plan to fix the problem, but it is not enough to fiddle with one part of the problem. We need comprehensive change, and that is exactly what we Conservatives have come up with: a new deal for young people. The plan, which could be implemented today, would reverse the threshold freeze, make interest rates for plan 2 loans inflation-only, stop dead-end degrees, and boost apprenticeships so that young people have real choice when they leave school, not a future weighed down by debt.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady talks about a comprehensive plan and giving people choices, but this is not a comprehensive plan for student loan reform; it is a plan written on the back of a fag packet. It basically revolves around restricting university access, which is always the go-to solution for the Conservatives. In truth, it will mean that people like me—I was the first person in my family to go to university—will not get to go to university. People who go to Brunel University in my constituency will face restrictions in course levels. That is not a widening of opportunity and choice, but a restriction of them.

[Laura Trott]

No, the plan would massively widen choice. At the moment, the number of young people who want to start apprenticeships is much smaller than the number of apprenticeships available—we need to change that and the system. It is not good enough for the Government to table an amendment to our motion stating that they will make the system fairer and financially sustainable, when they are making it less fair and less financially sustainable.

At the moment, the system is punishing aspiration, and that is demoralising for young people. They leave university having done everything that was asked of them. They work hard and get a promotion, and then the interest on their loan goes up. They pay back far more than they ever borrowed. A typical plan 2 graduate needs to earn £66,000 a year just to keep pace with the interest. Young people should not be punished for doing the right thing.

[Helena Dollimore]

The right hon. Lady talks about making the system fair. Will she comment on what her party did in government? The Conservatives abolished the maintenance grant, which means that low-income students have bigger debts and have to pay back more. This Labour Government have acted to bring back the maintenance grants that her party took away.

[Laura Trott]

The Chancellor said that the system was fair and reasonable—what a joke! The Government do not recognise the scale of the problem, but we do, and we have come up with a plan to fix it. What is their plan? It does not exist.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Vacancies for graduates have gone down precipitously this year compared with the same time last year. That should worry those of us who are interested in the future. How can we rebalance the offer to young people so that they are not sold a pup—as they have been by consecutive Governments over many years—in relation to what a degree will mean for their future career prospects? How can we ensure that our incredibly valuable further education sector is supported—probably at the expense of some of our lesser universities?

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is nothing progressive about letting a young person take a university degree that has negative returns for them. That is not fair or right, and we should fix it.

The problem is not just the loans, but a system that funnels young people into university courses that do not get them jobs and do not allow them to repay their loans. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that 30% of university degrees have negative returns for those who study them. It is not just that they do not help, but that they have negative returns. It is worse for those students to go to university—that is not progressive.

Some 75% of the value of loans for creative arts courses is not paid back. Creative arts is an engine of the UK economy, but too many courses just do not deliver jobs in the industry that they purport to serve. It is a mis-selling scandal where brochures promise a glittering career, but the courses deliver nothing but debt and a dead end. That is not right. Of course, creative arts courses that actually lead to jobs should continue, but those who are selling a lie do not have any place being taxpayer funded.

The consequences of this broken system are already becoming clear. According to the Centre for Social Justice, more than 700,000 graduates are currently out of work and claiming benefits. That should concern every Member of this House.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Is my right hon. friend also concerned by the fact that, last year, the Office for National Statistics said that 257,000 people left the UK, up from an expected 77,000? Three quarters of those people were under the age of 35. That shows that young people are fleeing this country to look elsewhere for work. Does she share my concern that that is the case?

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, absolutely right. Opportunity should be created for young people here, not in other countries, and that is what we want to create.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

It is a long time since I went to university, but there was a belief then that the least important things we got out of it were degrees and job prospects. There was a value in education itself. The right hon. Lady seems to think that the only reason to go to university is mercenary.

[Laura Trott]

It seems like the hon. Gentleman was at university only yesterday. If we are asking young people to take on a mountain of debt, it is important for them to know that they will get a job and have prospects afterwards. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposition, and it is one that I will argue for.

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

I was of the Tony Blair generation. We were told that unless we went to university, we were a failure, and that everyone should be able to go to university. That was fundamentally wrong; it led to a two-tier system where those who did not go to university were asking why not. I remember young people at my sixth form asking, “Am I not as bright? Do I not have the same prospects?” They should have been encouraged and supported. For example, my brother went into carpentry while studying philosophy at Birmingham. He could have started his career at a much earlier point. By rebalancing, we are giving the right recognition to the skills and training needed earlier, rather than pushing people into unnecessary debt traps.

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend is spot on. It is not well known that apprenticeship degrees are more oversubscribed than Oxford and Cambridge. These are things that young people want to do, and that is why we are trying to expand them. Instead of celebrating the expansion of low-value degrees, the Government should ask whether it is right to continue pushing young people down a path that leaves them with debt but no clear prospects.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call John Slinger. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”]

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am grateful to hon. Members for giving me such support. The right hon. Lady makes the point that creative arts subjects are perhaps not providing young people with job prospects. Would she not concede that we need people with creative arts skills and experience in our society and economy? The sector contributes £124 billion to our economy. What we need is what this Government are doing: investing in the creative arts sector. We need people who are skilled and trained in that sector so that they can do those jobs. She is offering only a litany of woe.

[Laura Trott]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening when I covered that point. The whole point is that those degrees do not lead to jobs in the creative arts industry. It is a mis-selling scandal. They promise a glittering career in the creative arts and do not actually deliver it. I think that is a problem, and I am sad that the hon. Gentleman does not think that.

What are students receiving in return for these enormous fees?

[John Slinger]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Trott]

I will not. When the hon. Gentleman tried to intervene on me recently, he accused me of jumping on a bandwagon about rape gangs, so he will forgive me for not taking another intervention from him.

Too often, students are receiving minimal face-to-face teaching, limited supervision and a university experience that falls far short of what was promised. This is not a fair system and it is not a sustainable one either.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The right hon. Lady says that the system is unfair. Does she agree that charging interest rates during maternity and paternity leave is also unfair? It disadvantages people in the workplace, especially women, who have worked hard to get into progressive careers through university education, and they are penalised at that point.

[Laura Trott]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. I totally agree with him that it is something that needs to be looked into and fixed.

As I have mentioned, we know that 10 times as many young people want an apprenticeship at 18 as there are places available. The demand is there, but the places are not. To me, it makes complete sense to move from funding dead-end courses at universities to giving young people the opportunity to do an apprenticeship that will get them into a job, and they will emerge from that apprenticeship with no debt. We want fundamental change to the system so that at 18, young people have a choice between a high-quality university place, an apprenticeship or going into work. That is a Conservative choice.

What is Labour’s response to that proposal? Last weekend, the Government announced that they will compensate for some of the mess that they created in the form of youth unemployment when they hiked up employer national insurance contributions, but they are robbing Peter to pay Paul—exactly the sort of economic thinking that we have come to expect. They are punishing employers with a jobs tax, which one of the Cabinet finally admitted this week has caused a huge spike in unemployment, and they are giving back £3,000, but only to those who have been on universal credit for six months. Fiddling with a system that needs fundamental reform and clearing up the mess of the Chancellor’s Budget is almost a full-time job for this Government.

The Conservatives are the only party putting forward a serious plan to help young people, whether by abolishing stamp duty for first-time buyers or through our new deal.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

The motion in the right hon. Lady’s name states that

“balances will never rise faster than RPI inflation”.

She was a senior Treasury Minister. Does she share my regret at the decision to suspend routine methodological improvements to the retail prices index, which led to the gap between the RPI and the lower consumer prices index rates more than doubling?

[Laura Trott]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, and I look forward to his bringing it up with the Chancellor at questions.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I say to Labour Members that we all want to get this issue sorted out. When I spoke to the Chancellor during the spring statement, she said that the way that she was going to control student loan interest rates was by controlling inflation, but we all know what is happening in the middle east at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that policy is wishful thinking and that we need to think about the issue properly in order to change the system?

[Laura Trott]

Exactly. The Chancellor gave it all away when she said that young people are at the back of the queue—that tells us all that we need to know about this Government.

The Government amendment is the usual mishmash of nothingness, and I suspect many Labour Members are disappointed. The amendment welcomes

“the Government’s commitment to make the system fairer and financially sustainable”,

even though the only thing that the Government have done so far, which is the threshold freeze, has made the system less fair and less sustainable for young people. But don’t worry, there is more. Labour Members are today going to welcome a “target”—not any action lines, but a target—even though it is a target that the Government are currently missing, as the share and volume of under-25s starting apprenticeships in the last academic year have fallen. What a mess!

We need a different approach. The Conservatives believe that the system needs fundamental change. We believe that students should not be mis-sold degrees that promise the earth and deliver nothing but debt, that the freeze on thresholds is wrong, that students on plan 2 loans should only pay interest at inflation, and that young people deserve a new deal. That is what we are asking the Government to vote for today, so that young people will be put not to the back of the queue but to the front of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

We have acknowledged the issues and the unfairness in the system. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education have acknowledged that, and we have said that we will look at it.

I will make progress. Under the last Government, the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by 250,000. Today, nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That is the legacy of the Conservatives, but this Government are turning that around. We are renewing the post-16 education landscape and celebrating routes into vocational education not by restricting university, but by opening up new high-quality vocational routes. We are introducing new V-levels and new foundation apprenticeships and supporting students to get excellent university education across the country.

The Opposition talk a lot about higher education and suggest that too many young people go to university. It is interesting that they can never tell us who should no longer go or which courses they should not study.

[Laura Trott]

I just told you!

[Georgia Gould]

Did the right hon. Member tell me who should not go to university? I can tell the Conservatives that when they close the drawbridge, it is pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who will end up not at university. That is the consequence. We are opening up access to apprenticeships and vocational routes not by closing down university routes, but by opening up other routes.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Laura Trott Excerpts

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

When developing this policy, we learned from the best schools in the country. I visited schools that have individual support plans for every student and wraparound support; those children are absolutely thriving. We want to make sure that that happens in every school. We are investing in a new national digital individual support plan, and we are putting £4 billion into schools and the services that support them to make that a reality.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Last week, I asked the Secretary of State a specific question about SEND funding during her statement, which she failed to answer, so I will try again with the Minister today. The £4 billion for SEND announced last week, to be paid over three years, which the Secretary of State described as “new money”, is actually from within the Department’s existing spending review settlement, isn’t it?

[Georgia Gould]

Absolutely, yes; it is money that we have won to put into supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. It is a priority that we take very seriously. I have seen the failure around the country where, for too long, these families have not been listened to, and too many children are out of education; we need to change that. As part of the spending review, we requested and managed to get new investment that we are putting into schools and the “experts at hand” service to wrap around schools on top of the £3.7 billion we are putting into new specialist places. This is generational reform that will make a huge difference.

We want to work in partnership with colleagues across the House, but we still have not heard from the Conservative party. What are its ideas, and what—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Under what circumstances does the Secretary of State think it is appropriate for a five-year-old to socially transition?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I genuinely expected better from the right hon. Lady. I encourage her to go away and look at the guidance we have published, which will be statutory in nature and makes the involvement of parents very clear. My view—which is also the view of Dr Hilary Cass—is that we should let children be children.

[Laura Trott]

The answer should have been “never”. That is what our guidance said, and that is what the Government’s guidance should have said.

In our universities, gender-critical feminists have been kicked off campus, while today the ayatollah is being celebrated as a martyr at University College London. This is completely unacceptable, so what is the Secretary of State doing to crack down on this two-tier system, or is she going to sit on her hands while an enemy of Britain is celebrated?

[Bridget Phillipson]

No, absolutely not. While I am clear that universities should be places of open discussion and dialogue, where views should be challenged and questioned—that is an important principle that this party has long supported—there can of course be no place for hate speech or intimidation on campus. Anyone involved in that kind of activity should face consequences, but that is entirely different from the wider question that the right hon. Lady started with, which is about the wellbeing of children. We all have a responsibility to approach this issue sensibly and do what is right by children. She obviously has not read the guidance properly.

Bereaved Children: Government Support

Laura Trott Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for her powerful speech introducing the debate and for all her work on this subject.

It is normal in debates in this Chamber to bring the stories of our constituents to illustrate the issue, but today I am going to share my story as well. In 2002, I had a five-month-old baby and a two-year-old toddler, and my beloved husband was diagnosed with terminal oesophageal cancer. A year later, he died, just a week before Ellie’s fourth birthday and Laura was 17 months old. You cannot explain to a baby or a four-year-old what death means. One day their parent is there, the next he is gone. I remember Laura, who had just learned to say the word “Dadda”, going round the house opening the doors, going “Dadda, Dadda”, because she could not find him. I did not really know anything about the impact of bereavement on children, but in the last 20 years, I have learned quite a lot.

In the UK, around 120 children are bereaved of a parent every day—[Interruption.]

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and we are all honoured to hear it.

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention.

In the UK, around 120 children are bereaved of a parent every day. By age 16, approximately one in 20 young people in the UK will have experienced the death of a parent. I became the chair of the Widowed and Young organisation and met loads of kids and their parents through that work, many of whom I am still friends with today. I saw the impact on scores of children who had lost their mum or dad. Thousands more in the UK have lost a sibling, which is also a profound grief for children, which is little understood. I saw these children grow up and adjust to their lost; the progress they made and then the setbacks; the challenges with attachment, loss, fear and abandonment; the issues with friendships and relationships; struggles with school; dangerous coping mechanisms and risk-taking in teenage years; mental health challenges; anger; intense emotions and anxiety. Just for the sake of my daughters, that is not all related to them.

While children are navigating all of that, the challenge of becoming a single parent at exactly the same moment that you are bereaved cannot be overstated, and that is compounded exponentially when the bereavement is sudden and unexpected. The day my husband died, my children came home from nursery and needed me to be the same reliable, loving, stable mum they knew—up at 7 the next day needing their breakfast, and so it went on. There is not much time to navigate your own grief in all of that.

On top of that is the loss of income. The challenge of holding down a job, bringing in a wage, while being a grieving single parent to grieving children is immense, as are the unaffordable costs of childcare that enable you to go to work at all. But in a way, I was lucky, because I was bereaved before 2017 and I received the widowed parent’s allowance—a payment that was funded by the national insurance contributions that my husband Nick had made during 20 years of full-time work, contributions designed to pay into a system that is meant to pay out when needed. He will never receive a state pension.

What difference did the widowed parent’s allowance make? It made all the difference. It allowed me to work part time. It allowed me to be present for my children, to help keep them stable while the world around them felt unsafe and scary. It made a part-time income go further. It helped pay for childcare and a few out-of-school activities so my children could live the same life as their peers. It also helped pay for the holiday clubs that they had no choice but to go to so that I could go to work —and they did not always want to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

May I say what a privilege it has been to be part of this debate, and how much I admire all those who have spoken about their personal stories? I do not underestimate for a second how difficult it is, but suffering a catastrophic event and trying to make other people’s lives better is about the most admirable thing someone can do.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for putting it in place. She is so self-evidently right in what she says: there needs to be a general strategy, and we need data to be made available. It is worth thinking about why those things have not happened to date, and making suggestions about how we can overcome those barriers in future.

Governments have historically been bad at cross-departmental data collection, as we know. That has been grappled with over time, but there has been no clear solution to date. I have seen such working function more effectively on occasion, such as in cross-departmental working committees on something specific. I offer that up to the Minister as a suggestion that might work. For example, in recent years there have been changes to implement a “no wrong door” policy on reporting a death. That took a lot of time. Previously, when reporting a death, as I am sure many in this Chamber have unfortunately had to do, people had to go to multiple Government Departments before the death could be recognised. That has been changed for the better, and I hope that something similar could be adopted in this case.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), whose APPG does incredible work on these matters, mentioned good practice in schools. We should think about how to collate it more systematically. We are quite effective when it comes to education policy, through the Education Endowment Foundation, which picks up what works from an academic perspective and shares good practice among schools. By and large, that is missing in the special educational needs and disabilities space, but it is also missing here. We have heard about good practice, which I am sure exists up and down the country—the hon. Lady mentioned Oakwood primary school—but there is nowhere to share it effectively. Will the Department think about how to take that forward? I am sure that there will be guidance, and I am just as sure that it could be made better.

On overall data collection, when a death is reported, it is linked to one individual rather than to a wider database. Change will need to be made on that, and the referral to the pathway is critical, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said. She also mentioned that that now happens in cases of suicide. I hope the Minister will take that up today, because we have seen that it can work. It may take time, and I think we all acknowledge that government is difficult—it is not easy to wrangle different Departments together—but that could definitely be taken forward.

Before preparing for this debate, I had not realised what the figures are for the outcomes for bereaved children, and I was quite shocked. If we have not gone through this catastrophic event, it is too easy to overlook the impact it has on young people. The statistic that the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) gave about the number of offenders who have suffered a bereavement was shocking. I hope and believe that this will be even more grist to the mill for the Education Minister to try to deal with this, because it is one of many areas across Government where early intervention—helping people—is not only the right thing to do but will benefit us and wider society.

What we have heard today is that many children who go through this have amazing families—we have some examples of those amazing families here today—and they have people around them who will support them, help them and do whatever they can to ameliorate this catastrophic incident. But that is not true of every family. Of course, the state will miss things, but if we can set up a system that minimises the impact of this catastrophic event on young people, that is the right thing to do.

I am very grateful to be part of this House today. It is these types of debate that take place in a relatively empty Chamber on a Thursday afternoon that can really make a difference to young people across the country. We have a very good Minister here, and I am sure he is about to tell us how he is going to sort this all out after many years. I commend the many voices who have spoken up today, and I am grateful to have been here for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

It is a disgrace that a Jewish Member of this House had his visit to a school cancelled following pressure and intimidation from pro-Palestinian protesters. That is abhorrent antisemitism. Over the weekend, the Secretary of State announced a welcome investigation into the trust, alongside Ofsted action. She said that she would “leave no stone unturned”. In that spirit, what is the right hon. Lady doing to address the role of the National Education Union in trying to prevent the visit?

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

Let me update the House: I am crystal clear that schools must be a place of safety and that no MP should ever be stopped from doing their job, but sadly, this is not the first concern about antisemitism in schools and this alone is not the only challenge we face. We will leave no stone unturned, as the right hon. Lady said. I have asked the trust to commission an independent investigation into what happened. I will launch a review to ensure that all schools and colleges have the right systems and processes in place. I will set out more in due course as to the shape of that, but we will of course consider any area in which antisemitism needs to be tackled. I would be happy to meet her to discuss this further because this is an issue, when it comes to tackling antisemitism, that all of us right across the House must show leadership on.

[Laura Trott]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s words. Bristol NEU publicly celebrated the cancellation of the visit from the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), describing it as a “win” and boasting that it sent a “clear message”. Over the weekend, the head of the NEU claimed that the visit taking place “at the height of the genocide in Gaza” was a mitigating factor for excluding a British Jew from the school. That is inexcusable. I will gladly meet the right hon. Lady. Will she also back my call for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to look into the NEU, and will she ask it to investigate these outrageous statements?

[Bridget Phillipson]

Teachers are under clear duties around political impartiality, and that is extremely important and serious. In parallel, I have also been concerned as to some of what we have seen recently around the Teaching Regulation Agency’s approach. That is why I have asked the permanent secretary to review what has happened there and to ensure that we have the right processes in place, because no one who glorifies terrorist organisations should be teaching our children. Antisemitism has no place in our schools. We are investing more, but there is always more to do, and I look forward to discussing it in more detail with the right hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Trott Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

There is a good reason why we have an independent economic forecaster in this country. That is because, thankfully, it does not let the Government get away with saying that £6 billion can be absorbed across Government at a time when the spending review has already allocated all the money. So let us have no more of this nonsense: where is the £6 billion coming out of? Is it SEND or is it schools?

[Bridget Phillipson]

Let me be absolutely clear: these are council deficits. They will not be coming from school budgets. Over the course of this Parliament, we are investing more in SEND. We are picking up the pieces of a system on its knees left behind by the party opposite. Either the right hon. Lady has not read what the OBR has to say, or she is wilfully seeking to mislead parents and to scaremonger. It was not a priority for her in her conference speech; it is not a priority for her now.

[Bridget Phillipson]

Of course, Mr Speaker.

[Laura Trott]

The right hon. Lady can rail against the forecasts, the Tories, her own leaky Back Benchers and probably, privately, the Treasury all she likes, but the spending review has set departmental budgets for the year in question. There is not £6 billion down the back of the sofa, so unless she can say where else the £6 billion is coming from out of Government resource departmental expenditure limits—clearly, she just failed to do so—it must be coming out of schools or SEND. So let us try again: will she be straight with teachers, parents and her own Back Benchers, and tell us what is being cut? Is it SEND or is it schools?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady listened to what I just said. It is not coming out of school budgets. [Interruption.] We are investing—