Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will focus on the aspects of this Bill relating to academies, and I have two points. First, I have read the Second Reading and Committee debates in the other place very carefully, and especially the evidence given about the performance of academies. This was to the effect that 87% of them are good or outstanding, even though many were previously failing schools which became academies for that very reason. Apparently, the top five state schools in England are academies.

The Labour MP Dame Siobhain McDonagh gave examples at Second Reading from her constituency. She cited the Harris academies in Merton and Morden, and the St Mark’s Academy, which are all marked “outstanding” by Ofsted. She said that one of the keys to success of the Merton academy has been the “aspirational curriculum”, which is tailored to pupils’ needs. Forcing such schools to teach the national curriculum risks undermining that. All this is evidence that academies work well as they are, and their heads know how to run schools better than the Government, so why are the Government removing their flexibility to do so?

My second point is more technical and affects how future changes would be made to the way academies have to operate the national curriculum. The bottom line is that it would not be done by primary legislation but by statutory instruments amending primary legislation. This is in addition to Clause 63, which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has already mentioned. It is a rather “long and winding road”, but the essence is as follows. Clause 47 of the Bill inserts a new Schedule 1A into the Academies Act which mandates the application of the national curriculum provisions in the Education Act 2002 to academies. However, in doing so, it also applies to academies all the order-making powers enjoyed by the Secretary of State under the Education Act. These order-making powers enable the Secretary of State to amend the Education Act and are therefore Henry VIII powers which will now also apply to academies.

They are very substantial powers. For example, the Secretary of State can by such orders add further requirements to the basic national curriculum or amend all the four key stages, as well as the foundation subjects, including attainment targets and assessment arrangements. By virtue of Clause 47, all such changes made by Henry VIII powers will now be applied to academies, almost by the back door. These Henry VIII powers may have been considered acceptable in the Education Act 2002 for maintained schools, but is it really appropriate for them to be able to be used by a side-wind to change the groundbreaking new regime now proposed for academies?

In addition, under Clause 47(5), any such orders can directly amend the new Schedule 1A to the Academies Act, which sets out which provisions of the national curriculum are to apply to academies. This is another Henry VIII power, by which further provisions could therefore be applied to academies. I had thought that this Government were clamping down on Henry VIII powers. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Marlow Education Trust, which is a multi-academy trust.

This amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend, is necessary to confirm and clarify the objectives of the Bill, but also to stop the Government doing anything that is outside those objectives. I recall a similar purpose amendment being moved at the beginning of the Renters’ Rights Bill by my noble friends; a similar amendment was tabled at the beginning of the then Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Lib Dem Benches, proposed an identical purposes amendment to the then Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. It therefore seems that such so-called purpose amendments are becoming a feature of the process of legislative scrutiny, made more necessary when the time for Second Reading, which also deals with the purpose of the Bill, was so short.

The amendment sets out the ambitions of the Bill, and the only point I want to make in a brief intervention is that these ambitions do not seem to take account of the many challenges facing the education sector. The Bill is in a sort of vacuum, detached from the real world.

The provisions of the Bill, as my noble friend just said, will impose new responsibilities on local authorities, children’s services, adult services, schools and teachers, but this is expected at a time when there are already enormous pressures on the sector, raising the question as to whether there will simply be the capacity to deliver, however much good will there may be and however well intentioned the measures.

Let us take finance. Non-protected departments such as the DfE have been told by the Treasury to model reductions of 11% in their expenditure. We do not know the outcome of that round, which is designed to keep the Government within their fiscal rules, but I would expect the department to have to make some uncomfortable decisions, and that will affect the capacity of officials to deliver reform and indeed of the department to fund reform.

These pressures are already present in many local authorities. Several local authorities, many of them education authorities, have already issued Section 114 notices. Some large county councils are being closely monitored by the MHCLG, as they are at risk of falling over this year. If that happens, they will have to cut back on existing services before they think of introducing new ones. The pressure on children’s services is already acute.

Then, as my noble friend mentioned, the Government’s recently announced proposals involve many local authorities being reorganised as we move from two-tier to unitary. There may be good reasons for this, but it will be a major distraction for local authority staff from doing their normal duties as they worry about whether they will have a job within the new structure. Expecting those officers to take on more responsibilities on safeguarding and supporting children in need, children in care, care leavers and children being home-educated is a big ask for those officials at a time of turbulence.

Schools are already confronted with unfunded pay increases for teachers, unfunded before any settlement above the Treasury estimates are arrived at. For many schools, there is an increase in employer contributions for pension funds—unfunded—and the employer NI contributions increase is also not fully funded.

Schools face numerous challenges. Many are struggling to find and retain qualified teachers, particularly in certain subjects such as physics, design and technology, and languages, with some subjects experiencing a 60% to 83% drop in postgraduate teacher recruitment. As my noble friend mentioned, there are also rising mental health issues among children, with a six-year wait for ADHD treatment, as we read in yesterday’s Times2. The SEND system is broken, with councils winning only 1% of appeals, and there has been a significant increase in pupil absenteeism since the pandemic, particularly among disadvantaged children—the subject of recent Questions.

That is the context of the amendment and the Bill. Ministers may fairly argue that some of the pressures are inherited, but many are not, and the Bill’s proposals are, in essence, those of the Government. Ministers are demanding a lot of the system. I pose the question whether there is the headroom, the capacity in the system, to deliver the reforms in the Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to allay my concerns.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the purpose clause, particularly where it describes the purpose of the Bill as being to

“improve … standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales”.

I will be very brief and focus on Part 2, dealing with schools. For me, Part 2 should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice, because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their children: not the state, but parents. There should be choice—as much as possible—since children are all different, and what can be better than an education which enhances the unique talents and personalities of each child? This also chimes with Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states in terms:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.


So choice should be enshrined in any Bill purporting to promote children’s well-being.

Is this the Bill’s aim? Looking at Part 2, I rather fear that the opposite is the case. To take just two examples, academies are important, since their heads have shown by their excellent records of achievement that they know how to run schools better than government. But Part 2 would impose a one-size-fits-all national curriculum on academies, with the worst probably to follow in sweeping Henry VIII powers. Then there are faith schools. What could be more important than a child being educated in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are the hallmarks of our faith schools, such as Haredi schools and other faith schools? But Part 2 would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith-based settings. It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity over choice and threatening our diverse landscape, so much admired across the world. As it stands, therefore, Part 2 of the Bill does not enhance children’s well-being, which is what the Title of the Bill says it is supposed to do.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, sadly, my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester is unable to be here to speak to Amendment 482 in her name.

This amendment, which I support and has already been touched on by a couple of noble Lords in our debate on the previous group, would compel the Secretary of State to

“commission a report on the educational attainment of school age children with a parent who is in prison”,

and to

“make recommendations for how the educational attainment of those children can be improved”.

I will not presuppose what the recommendations of this report would be. However, through its work in supporting more than 1,450 children with a parent in prison, the charity Children Heard and Seen has shown that, through simple, targeted and tailored emotional support, you can drastically change outcomes for children with a parent in prison.

Having a parent in prison is among the most significant adverse childhood experiences, severely impacting children’s mental health and well-being. Children with an imprisoned parent are 25% more likely to suffer from mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, insomnia and eating disorders. Negative school experiences such as bullying, persistent truancy and academic underachievement are also common among this group. It is estimated that there are almost 200,000 children with a parent in prison in England and Wales, yet we still do not know who or where these children are. This means that they are not being brought to the attention of schools.

Due to the lack of awareness of the issue of parental imprisonment throughout schools, support for children with a parent in prison varies hugely from school to school. There is no uniform approach and many children are left without the appropriate support that they need. Amendment 482 would be a strong step in the right direction in increasing awareness and understanding of the harms within schools of parental imprisonment, ensuring that pupils and students who are affected by parental imprisonment are supported through an inclusive and non-judgmental approach. Children with a parent in prison should be given the same chance in life as any other child. The amendment would help enable them to mitigate the impacts of their parents’ imprisonment, overcoming educational barriers and allowing them to fulfil their academic potential.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate. We know for a fact that, as we just heard, children who have a parent in prison are at significantly greater risk of suffering mental health difficulties than children who do not, including low self-esteem, depression, disturbed sleeping patterns and symptoms of post-traumatic stress.

The Ministry of Justice’s research highlights a strong correlation between parental offending and child offending. Family members often explain that parental imprisonment for children is akin to a type of bereavement from losing a parent who suddenly leaves the home and never returns. It is not exactly the same, however. I remember visiting Holloway prison in the early 1990s, when it was a women’s prison, and it happened to be visiting hour for the children seeing their mothers for the first time possibly in many months because of the geographical distances involved in travel. It was wonderful to see the excitement and joy that the children had in greeting their mothers after perhaps a long time, but that turned to despair and anguish when visiting time was over. Sometimes, and I saw it, the children had to be physically separated from their mothers by prison officers. It was a horrific sight and it still haunts me.

Parental imprisonment is hugely under-researched. In most cases, schools, which have a crucial role to play here, are not even aware that a pupil’s parent has been imprisoned. These children are the forgotten and invisible victims of crime and they are totally innocent. Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all decisions and actions that affect children. This means that the best interests of the child should be taken into account at every stage of a parent’s journey through the criminal justice system, as these decisions affect these children directly.

The Labour Government, on page 71 of their manifesto for the last general election, commendably committed to identifying and supporting children with a parent in prison. What has happened? Nothing yet, as far as I can see. There is still no statutory mechanism for identifying and supporting children with a parent in prison, so can the Minister say when this manifesto commitment will be fulfilled?

I can answer my own question, because the right reverend Prelate’s wonderful amendment provides a golden opportunity to fulfil that commitment right now. It would not only raise awareness and understanding of parental imprisonment within schools but also provide clear guidance on how to mitigate the impacts of a parent going to prison so that children can fulfil their academic potential. Will the Government grasp this opportunity to do something and accept the amendment this evening?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 502F in my name. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, who is unable to be here today, for lending her name to it, and Mr James Maurici KC for assisting us with its drafting.

The amendment is like Amendment 470, albeit differently worded, in seeking to give domestic legal effect in a somewhat different way, in the context of functions by public authorities under the Bill, to the rights of children contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As the noble Baroness has just outlined, the purpose of the UNCRC is that children’s rights need specific consideration due to the special care and protection often needed by children and young people.

The UK has been a party to the convention for three and a half decades. It was signed by the Thatcher Government in 1990. Around that time my noble friend Lady Bottomley, then Minister for Health, said in the other place that the UK played a leading role in drafting it. Despite that, the convention has not yet been incorporated in our domestic law in England. The UN committee with oversight of the convention, as we have just heard, has recommended that it should be, so that the rights are enforceable.

In 2011, Wales became the first country in the UK to make the convention part of its domestic law by the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011, and that legislation has been judged to be a success so far in Wales. Scotland has more recently followed suit through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. England, however, lags behind, and this amendment would go some way to addressing that.

The amendment would not give effect to the UNCRC generally in English law—that would be outside the Bill’s scope and would in any case require further consideration—but would apply to the exercise of any functions by public authorities under the Bill. The proposed duty is modelled on Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty. In particular, and importantly, it is a duty on authorities to have due regard to the convention rather than the duty of outcome, and thus it would not impose undue burdens on public authorities. Like the Welsh legislation, it contains a requirement for the Secretary of State to report every five years on how the Government have complied with the duty.

I suggest that the significance of the amendment is threefold. First, it would be an important initial step on the road to bringing the law of England in line with that in Wales and Scotland in terms of giving legal effect to the convention that we signed up to over three and a half decades ago.

Secondly, the new duty it would introduce would apply to the exercise of any functions conferred under the Bill in relation to children’s social welfare and schools, and all the better for that.

Thirdly, the amendment would have added importance in combination with Amendment 502M, proposed by my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Brady, which seeks to create a duty to keep educational institutions, early years provision and childcare premises open for in-person attendance during civil emergencies “so far as is reasonably possible”, and those words would engage the UNCRC “have regard to” duty under my amendment. The combined effect of the two amendments would be that any decisions by public authorities on school closures in such situations would have to be taken having due regard to the UNCRC.

The two amendments together would provide powerful protections in the future against a repeat of what happened during the Covid pandemic in terms of school closures, the documented effects of which include the highest annual rise of children living with obesity on record; severe impacts on children who are victims of domestic abuse; the amplification of differences in educational attainment between children who come from well-off families and those less fortunate; a marked decline of participation by children in sporting and extra-curricular activities; and a significant increase in mental ill-health, self-harm and suicide among children and young people.

The Government have made much of their commitment to fulfilling the UK’s obligations under international law; indeed, the Attorney-General gave a lecture about that only a few days ago. This amendment would contribute to achieving the objective by giving domestic legal effect to the obligations the UK has long signed up to in the international sphere. I urge the Minister and the Committee to consider it carefully.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502G in this group. This amendment would ensure that Part 2 of the Bill complies with Article 2 in Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which the United Kingdom not only signed and ratified but incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

My amendment is based on the wording of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol 1, which provides:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.


Part 2 of the Bill directly engages this article, since the Government will be, in the words of the ECHR, “assuming many new functions in relation to teaching and education”. For example, local authorities will be given sweeping new powers to monitor, register and regulate the independent sector. The Secretary of State will be empowered to regulate proprietors of independent schools, arrange inspections, prescribe standards and suspend registration. He or she will be able to make regulations using Henry VIII powers so as to dictate which educational institutions are covered, and to mandate the national curriculum for academies using yet more Henry VIII powers to regulate the contents of the four key stages, as well as attainment and assessment targets. We are well within the Article 2, Protocol 1 envelope. I know that this Government take their ECHR obligations very seriously.

Without my amendment, these new powers in the Bill would impede the right of parents to ensure an education for their children which accords with their own religious and philosophical convictions. Why is that? It is because Article 2 is about parents having the right to choose which education and teaching is right for their children. As the Strasbourg court said in a Danish case, Article 2 of Protocol 1 aims

“at safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in education which is essential for the preservation of the ‘democratic society’ as conceived by the Convention”.

Our very own Supreme Court recognised this need for plurality in a case in 2020 concerning members of the Orthodox Jewish community. The court stated that their needs are different from those who are not members of that community, and they have a need for their own community facilities, including schools. The same could be said for members of other faiths who choose schools which support their religious and philosophical convictions, such as Christian schools.

This is all about the primacy of parental choice. I repeat: it is about the primacy of parental choice. Whether it is an academy, a single-sex school, a language or music school, a faith school or indeed a maintained school, parents must have the freedom to choose an institution whose ethos accords with their own religious and philosophical beliefs and with what they perceive is best for their children. This may mean choosing a school which has freedom to innovate, without regulation by the state, so as to promote the skills and talents of each pupil, including varying the curriculum or attainment targets and adapting assessment procedures or the daily schedule with a view to bringing out the best in each and every child. All these are the hallmarks of our diverse educational landscape and exemplify the rights which Article 2 of Protocol 1 protects.

As it stands, Part 2 fails to respect such rights. Therefore, my amendment is surely unobjectionable and indeed to be welcomed by all who value maximising the unique talents of our children in an educational environment consistent with the religious and philosophical upbringing their parents have chosen.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 469 and 470 and have added my name to Amendment 502F. However, I suggest that altogether more forthright and comprehensive embedding of the UNCRC into English law is now both appropriate and overdue, even if that cannot be fully achieved under this Bill. That convention was signed by the United Kingdom, among many others, as long ago as 1991. It commands widespread respect. Since then, England has fallen out of step with Wales, where, as we have been told, a measure in 2011 placed an express duty on Ministers to have regard to the rights and obligations in the convention. England is yet more out of step with Scotland, where the convention was fully and directly incorporated into law by statute last year. Amendment 470 would align England with Wales, but not yet with Scotland.

Amendment 502F would impose a duty on public authorities, not just on Ministers, yet both fall short of unqualified incorporation. The convention provides a wide-ranging and valuable list of rights which should be an invaluable checklist for any public authority. Even if some may criticise parts of it as idealistic and aspirational, the convention both sets and raises standards, and specific articles of the convention supplement current gaps in practice and procedure and enhance accountability. Without going into too much detail, significantly, it was the first international convention expressly to recognise and underpin a child’s right to identity, as set out in Articles 7 and 8. This is not unimportant for migrant and unaccompanied children, or in the complexities of modern parental relationships.

Article 12 is widely recognised as important in requiring proper consideration of the views of a child on all matters affecting that child. Any family law practitioner can see the potential general and specific influence of many of the other articles. For example, Article 10.2 could influence disputes over child relocation. More broadly, several topics and problems discussed in the course of this Bill’s progress through Parliament are covered by the convention. Article 24 is relevant to the real problem of the poor take-up of vaccination for children; Article 28 to school attendance; and Article 33 to drugs. Overall, although I submit that these amendments could be more robust, they would be a step along the way to following Scotland.

Although I support Amendment 502F, I suggest that the drafting of proposed subsection (5) could be simplified to remove the double negative. Amendment 470 would require publication of reports every three years, and Amendment 502F would require them every five years. It would probably be better to co-ordinate the timing of any reports with those required under Article 44 of the convention itself, which may have been what was intended. Scrutiny of such reports is important to ensure that they are not selective and altogether uncritical, as can occur.

If we are serious about children’s rights, they should be incorporated into law—irrespective of any future formulation of human rights. These amendments should be accepted. I am glad that Amendment 502G has been added to this group; Governments have to balance children’s rights and parents’ rights with care. All children are entitled to equality of educational opportunity in a way that broadens horizons, rather than narrows potential. Children have rights and parents have rights, but parents also have responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I would say in return— I was trying to keep my speech brief—that I hear what the noble Lord said. He talked about being unsuccessful in keeping it brief. That is because we have had a lot of stuff about legalism. I am giving direct experience of government—I appreciate what the noble Lord said. I can give more examples. One reason why children get the flu vaccine every year is primarily to protect adults—the teachers and school workers—to stop the spread of flu. It is not really to help the kid. All sorts of things happen today that are actively encouraged to be done to the child in a way that should not be harmful.

I come back to the legislation and the point that is relevant. The Secretary of State for Education has the leading responsibility in government to have that horizon-scanning of every bit of legislation that affects children. If there have been deficiencies, I recognise them. I am not convinced that the incorporation of more law into domestic law is going to be the way to achieve that. I encourage the Minister in her reply to give confidence. Even if the noble Lord feels that the last Administration were deficient, I am sure that the current Administration will say that they are very much on top of it.

Frankly, it is a bit like when I was at DWP. I had primary responsibility for disabilities, so it was my job, working with my officials, to keep scanning legislation for how it would impact people with disabilities. That was not always very popular with other departments, which kept telling us to keep our noses out, but that is what we did. I am sure that that is what the Department for Education is intending to do. That said, I know that my noble friend Lady Barran was assiduous in her support of children, and I am sure that the Minister for this Government has continued to be so as well.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

I quickly respond to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made. The wording in my amendment is not my wording; it is already in the convention. I am not trying to incorporate it into our law, because it is already incorporated. That ship has sailed, really. All I am doing is pointing out its relevance to a Bill that I perceive as seeking to restrict parental choice in various ways. To pick up on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made, I entirely respect what he said about the importance of being aware that parents may make wrong choices. The assumption built into this provision of the convention is that they are entitled to make what they consider to be good choices. Otherwise, you would take away all rights of parents altogether, if you make the assumption that they are not. On children’s rights in respect of schools, it is their parents who have chosen to send them there. That was the parental choice.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, responding to the noble Baroness about vaccination, I think it is important that we put facts on the record. She suggested that vaccination of children was primarily to protect other age groups—

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lord Nash and Motion G1 following his amazingly powerful speech. I also suggest that Commons Amendments 38A and 38B be rejected on constitutional grounds as they would give Ministers unacceptably wide Henry VIII powers. I declare my membership of the Constitution Committee, but of course I am not speaking on its behalf.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to seven features of these amendments. First, there is the power to amend other Acts of Parliament. Secondly, powers are given to the Secretary of State to restrict access by children of an age to be determined by the Secretary of State. In other words, it is not for Parliament to determine the age.

Thirdly, these amendments apply to any internet service, site, feature or functionality. It is not restricted to social media, which of course is my noble friend Lord Nash’s main objective. Rather, it applies to any internet service, including news services and search engines; that is unacceptably wide. Fourthly, and as importantly, nothing is said about the criteria on which these powers are to be exercised. There is no mention of harm, or of any rules or other constraints on the power of the Secretary of State.

Fifthly, there are provisions that enable the Secretary of State, in effect, to impose curfews—one must not listen at night or at certain times of the day. Sixthly, there is the power to impose time limits, such as half an hour a day, 40 minutes or two hours. These are very wide powers. Finally, there are provisions about mandating digital ID checks and setting an age of consent somewhere between the ages of nine and 13.

The essential point is that no Executive should have the power to restrict access to the entire online space, by children or anyone else, without clear limits defined in advance by Parliament in primary legislation, specifying in particular the age at which and the grounds on which such restrictions should apply, the limits of such restrictions and clear safeguards to protect democratic scrutiny. The correct approach is for the Government to continue with their consultation. When they have the information that they need, taking account of my noble friend Lord Nash’s criticisms of the consultation, and are fully equipped to deal with this, they should bring back to Parliament a Bill in which all these important matters are properly defined. The powers in question should be properly framed, rather than being rushed through, as they are now, on a Henry VIII basis.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy; I will reiterate the points that they have been making.

The amendments pose the question of how best to make meaningful change to online safety law for our children. We must choose between two possible options. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, proposes in Amendments 37 and 38, is to make the changes through primary legislation, setting out the nature and extent of the changes to online safety in this Bill, with the finer details left to regulations. The second option, as the Government propose in Amendments 38A to 38D, is by delegating to the Executive the nature and extent of the changes to online safety by means of sweeping Henry VIII powers. These powers would enable Ministers to modify any provision of the Online Safety Act 2023, amend or repeal any provision of primary legislation to make consequential changes, and amend, repeal, revoke or modify any provision of our data protection legislation.

The first option is transparent and gives the decision on the nature and extent of the changes to Parliament by means of the strongest method of scrutiny and accountability in our constitution—primary legislation. Those changes would have to be implemented by the Secretary of State within a boundary set by Parliament in the primary legislation. The second option requires blind faith that the Government will in fact do anything at all—and, if they do, it means accepting a lesser form of scrutiny and accountability in the form of secondary legislation, which can be debated but not amended. It is very much a “take it or leave it” approach to whatever the Government come up with.

For example, the secondary legislation that the Government might at some point bring forward could provide that what is unsuitable for children on social media is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State, taking into account the extent to which the platform in question displays what the Secretary of State considers to be political bias, gender-critical views, the promotion of religious beliefs et cetera. There would be nothing in the primary legislation to constrain the Secretary of State when deciding which services should be restricted for children and how. Parliament would then have to either accept the secondary legislation in its entirety or reject the whole package.

For my part, I overwhelmingly prefer the first option. Whatever one’s view on the substance of what we are debating, it is a seismic and controversial cultural change for our children and parents. It imposes significant legal constraints on internet service providers and puts heavy monitoring and enforcement duties on Ofcom. The public need to have reassurance that the nature and extent of this huge change have been decided in the most robust way for which our cherished parliamentary democracy allows—unquestionably, that is primary legislation.

The Attorney-General, in his much-lauded Bingham lecture in 2024, said that “excessive reliance on delegated powers”, including

“Henry VIII clauses … upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law … but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”,

and raises

“real questions about how we are governed”.

Does the Minister agree with her Attorney-General and, if so, how does she reconcile that with Amendments 38A to 38D?

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, although the Government’s amendments have been put forward as a signal of their determination to act, sadly they commit to nothing. They simply buy the Minister a bit more time and the opportunity, at some unknown moment in the future, to push through a compromise half-measure with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. I am appalled at this thought on this crucial issue. The Government are asking Peers to take a gamble on our children’s safety. They are placing their faith in a consultation that delivers nothing but more and more delay.

Regulating social media companies and keeping our children safe online are among the most defining challenges of our time. That is why we should vote for the cross-party amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which would raise the age to 16 within 12 months for the most harmful platforms—to be written into law before the summer. It is the safest option for our children at this time.

The Government’s complex, 62-question consultation is heavily framed towards the positive benefits of social media rather than towards the horrific harms which front-line professionals report every single day. On age assurance, the perceived downside is emphasised over obvious benefits. There is no clear process for managing conflicts of interest within the technology industry. How can this consultation be trusted? Reliable findings are precisely what this issue demands.

It is also worrying that the Government have introduced a Henry VIII clause which would give sweeping powers via secondary legislation, leaving little or no opportunity for this House to consider or scrutinise such measures. It would mean that the Government could dodge any scrutiny of their ultimate choice. This cannot be allowed to happen, because we would not be able to amend it. We would be able only to accept or reject it in full.

We are gambling with our children’s lives. That is why I strongly believe that the cross-party amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is the safest, most common-sense option. We must not forget that every single day that we delay, more harms are done to the nation’s children. Do we want that? Their mental and physical well-being are under relentless attack. Let us not delay but do what we can to prevent this attack happening as soon as possible. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.