Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with all the questions that have been asked by the previous speakers. The use of agency workers is apparent when we see the variety of people who come to court to give evidence. Obviously, there is a problem of lack of capacity, but there are two real problems. The first is the higher cost of agency workers and the second is the lack of continuity which their use involves. Continuity is particularly important when one is considering work involving families and children, who need familiarity and continuity. The noble Lord is quite right. Surprisingly, sometimes the same worker reappears, no longer as an employed social worker but as an agency worker, and one is frankly pleased to see a familiar face. But also, too often, it is somebody completely different who has not grasped the basics of what has been happening hitherto.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to increase the incomes of social workers, so that they are not tempted to become agency workers, who are of course paid a lot more than social workers. The pay levels of these workers need to be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

Since the noble Baroness has mentioned them, I shall also offer some observations on the government amendments in advance of hearing the Minister speaking to them. Amendment 157 and the Scottish equivalent, Amendment 158, are indeed better and simpler than Clause 26 as originally formulated, but I have some reservations about either formulation.

The intention is to replace Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. A treasured possession of mine is an ancient copy of the 1933 Act. The original Section 18 provided that

“no child shall be employed … to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him”.

That had the merit of clarity and simplicity. The Bill will now say:

“A child may not be employed … to do any work other than light work”.


One turns to the end of the new section to find, in subsection (8), a rather wordy definition of “light work” in negative terms, which tells us what light work is not. In particular, it means

“work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed … is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and … is not such as to be harmful”

to their education, through attendance at school or otherwise. That may somewhat widen the scope of the original Section 18 but, frankly, the drafting is less focused. Indeed, whether, as drafted, it is an improvement on the original Section 18 remains to be seen. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider looking again at trying to retain some of the best of the old version in a more modern context. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I hope that at some point the Government can look at it, perhaps before Report. Meanwhile, I will say a slightly sad farewell to the original Section 18.