Pride Month

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Equalities (Olivia Bailey)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Pride Month.

It is a privilege to open this debate on behalf of the Government as we mark Pride Month, and it is a real honour to do so this year as the Minister for Equalities. I have spoken before at the Dispatch Box about growing up in the shadow of section 28, and what my teenage self would think about my standing here today. The life I have today as a proud lesbian, a Member of Parliament, a wife and a mother simply would not have been possible without the progress that was fought for, won and secured in this House.

In this House, it was often a Labour Government who paved the way. A Labour Government repealed section 28, a Labour Government ended the disgraceful ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces, a Labour Government introduced civil partnerships, adoption rights and gender recognition, and a Labour Government delivered the landmark Equality Act 2010. This Labour Government are building on that proud legacy. We have acted to right the historical wrongs committed against LGBT+ veterans; we have equalised strands of hate crime legislation; we are funding LGBT+ focused domestic abuse services; we have committed to ending new HIV transmissions in England by 2030; and we are investing millions of pounds in promoting and protecting LGBT+ rights globally.

Who could forget that we now have the gayest Parliament in history? It is filled with colleagues who continue to break barriers, many of whom are here today, and I will mention just a few. The tireless work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) to tackle hate crime will leave a lasting legacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) has worked with the Council of Europe on banning conversion practices, and her work is an inspiration to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) was my first boss in this place, and I hope she will forgive me for observing that she was championing LGBT+ equality in this House before some hon. Members were even born. I do not have time to mention many others from across the House, many of whom are in the Chamber, but I am proud to serve alongside them all.

I remember my first London Pride with LGBT Labour like it was yesterday. Walking through our capital alongside thousands of LGBT+ people genuinely made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. There was something profoundly joyous and moving about marching openly through the streets, when for generations, LGBT+ people had been forced to hide who they were. For so many years, people had lived with fear, shame and isolation, yet there we were, together, visible and unapologetic. Finally, I was not alone. Despite growing up feeling that I should be ashamed of who I was, I had found my voice and my community. It certainly was a party— I will spare the House the stories—but Pride is more than just a celebration; it is a protest. Marching as a proud lesbian was a radical act of protest, and it still is.

Yes, Pride is about celebrating the progress that we have made, but it is also about acknowledging the work that we still need to do—and I fear that we do have much more work to do. Progress, once achieved, is never permanently secured. Even today—especially today—it must be defended, renewed and extended. Too many people still experience discrimination, abuse and exclusion because of who they are or who they love. Trans people, in particular, continue to face levels of hostility that should have no place in modern Britain. Many hon. Members will speak about LGBT+ constituents, particularly their trans constituents, who are anxious about the direction of public debate, and I thank them for their constructive engagement and advocacy.

I want to take the time to acknowledge that the Government have laid the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated draft code of practice before Parliament. As hon. Members will know, the updated draft code reflects the Supreme Court’s judgment that, in the Equality Act 2010, “sex” means biological sex, and that there remain protections for trans people against discrimination, harassment or victimisation on the basis of gender reassignment. The judgment does not remove those legal protections for trans people, nor does it remove the legal framework, outside the Equality Act, that allows them to be recognised as being of their acquired gender. We firmly believe that it is possible to lawfully protect single-sex spaces, while also ensuring that trans people can access the services that they need and retain protections against discrimination and harassment. I understand the stress and anxiety that this process has caused for many, and my priority is for us to move forward together, with compassion for all who continue to be impacted. The fundamental principle is that everyone, including trans people, deserves to live their life with dignity, safety and respect.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. While I understand the intent behind the guidance, many of my constituents are concerned about its practical effect. It is one thing to write guidance for a world in which everyone behaves reasonably and respectfully, but it is another to ensure that vulnerable people are protected in the world as it actually is. Can the Minister provide additional reassurance to the House that the Government and the EHRC will keep the guidance under review, and will act swiftly, should its implementation lead to unintended consequences for trans and gender-nonconforming people?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for the very important points he makes. I would just like to restate that, as the Supreme Court said, trans people have rights enshrined in law, and we are all duty-bound to uphold and defend those rights.

Unfortunately, the lives of trans people are all too often used as a political football. We have been living in a political climate made infinitely more toxic by the actions of a few. Those unfortunately include some Members of this House, such as representatives of the Reform party who believe that families like mine are not stable. That party appears to be defunding Pride events and tearing down Pride flags across the country. It is also supporting a candidate who reportedly called LGBT+ people fighting for equality “attention seeking”, and said they were

“making a big song and dance about it”.

I am not much of a singer or a dancer, but I am certainly proud to stand with the LGBT+ community, and I refuse to stop working towards equality for every single one of my constituents just because it makes the Reform party uncomfortable.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is giving an incredibly powerful speech, and I am already welling up—even before my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) has started to speak. I just want to say to the Minister that if we did not have the changes in the law that allowed people like her to be in this place, doing what she is doing, this place would be far worse for it, so I welcome her speech.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that lovely intervention, and for all he does for this House and for his constituents.

[Hon. Members]

In Harlow!

[Olivia Bailey]

Sorry—in Harlow. I missed my chance there.

I want to say very clearly from this Dispatch Box that I recognise the community’s fear and anxiety. When public debate becomes toxic, that has consequences in people’s everyday lives—in schools, in workplaces and online. It has consequences for accessing services, and for whether people feel safe simply being themselves— and those consequences all too often manifest in violence and hate.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The Minister is making a really important point. The fact that the first action of many Reform councils has been to tear down Pride flags and to ban or defund Pride events really speaks to who they are and their values, and I do not think that they are the values of the vast majority of British people.

The Minister is talking about the importance of supporting the LGBTQ+ community in our workplaces. She will know that the Government have today accepted all the recommendations of my noble Friend Lord Mann’s report on antisemitism in the NHS, and I really welcome that. My only question is about political symbols in the NHS. My view is that the Pride flag is not a political symbol, but a symbol of inclusion. Will the Minister work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that when we bring forward the guidance, we do not fall into the trap of labelling Pride flags or Pride symbols as political symbols, but instead continue to allow our NHS to demonstrate that it is an inclusive organisation for the LGBT+ community?

[Olivia Bailey]

First, I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s remarks about the early acts of Reform councils. I also say to him that the NHS is absolutely for all of us, including the LGBT+ community, and I will make sure that Health Ministers have heard his comments.

Hate crime against the LGBT+ community is still far too prevalent. I spoke with those at the LGBT+ domestic violence charity Galop this week, and they have had a 27% increase in hate crime calls in the past year. They told me that hate is becoming more normalised, and perpetrators are becoming more emboldened to target LGBT+ people, whether we are talking about stranger abuse on the streets or physical violence. I am proud that this Government have strengthened protections for LGBT+ people through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, ensuring that our community is properly protected from targeted abuse and violence. We have equalised the law, so that hate crime committed on the basis of sexuality or gender identity is treated the same as racially or religiously motivated hostility. The principle is straight- forward: nobody should live with the fear that their identity makes them a target. This was a commitment in the manifesto on which I was proud to stand for election, and I am delighted that we have delivered it.

I will also be proud to deliver on another manifesto commitment, which is a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Let us be clear about what conversion practices are. They are a very specific, insidious form of abuse that attempts to change who somebody is. LGBT people are told that who they are is wrong, that it is shameful, and that it can and should be changed. This is not about banning legitimate therapy, explorative conversations or prayer. All people in this country deserve to have access to open conversations about their identity, and this Government are not seeking to change that. What we are seeking to ban is abuse, plain and simple. These abhorrent practices are coercive, degrading and harmful, and they have caused profound trauma to LGBT+ people for decades. I hope Members across the House agree with me that these practices have no place in modern Britain, and will support our work to ban them once and for all.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I appreciate the point the Minister is making, but the Government have long spoken about a Bill to ban conversion therapy. In fact, they have been talking about bringing forward draft legislation for nearly two years. Can the Minister give us a concrete timeline? Will we see the draft legislation in 2026, or in the next year, or the year after that?

[Olivia Bailey]

I hope the hon. Member has gathered from my remarks that I am absolutely focusing on this very important ban with speed and determination.

Before I conclude, I want to recognise that while the Government have an important role to play in protecting LGBT+ rights, lasting change is delivered every day by people and organisations working in communities across our country, and I am sure that we will hear lots of examples of that in the debate. I have had the privilege of meeting remarkable organisations, including Stonewall, Galop, the LGBT Foundation, the LGBT Consortium and the Terrence Higgins Trust, among many others. These organisations help people through some of the most difficult moments in their lives, challenge injustice and build stronger communities. We owe them our gratitude and we have a responsibility to support their work.

That is why this Government are taking Pride Month so seriously, being loud and proud about our commitment to the LGBT community. Throughout this month, Departments across Government will be hosting events and activities that celebrate LGBT+ communities and highlighting the issues they face. From the Ministry of Justice engaging with LGBT legal professionals to the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs exploring the experiences of LGBT+ people in rural communities, colleagues across Government are playing their part.

Our commitment to Pride is not confined to a single month. We will stand with the LGBT+ community year-round, because that is what this Labour Government stand for: hope and unity over division and hate. It is a simple principle that I hope Members across this House can agree on: every person in this country should be able to live freely, safely and with dignity, regardless of who they are or who they love. That is the principle we reaffirm today and that is the commitment this Government will continue to defend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

It is an honour to close this debate on behalf of the Government. I would like to begin by thanking Members across the House for their thoughtful and powerful contributions this afternoon. These are always the best debates to be in, and today has been no exception.

We have heard speeches about the progress won, the challenges that remain and the lived reality of LGBT+ people in communities across the country. I would like to pick out some highlights from the contributions this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) opened the debate with a very moving speech, which included some upsetting testimony about his own personal experience of assault, and I commend his bravery in sharing that. He was also right to say that Pride is not just about big parades; it is about the teenager who is scared and alone. Pride is indeed a promise to remember those people and ensure that we bring our community together.

The right hon. Member for Daventry also asked a number of questions about LGBT+ health. We know that LGBT+ people experience significant health inequalities. That is why we asked Dr Michael Brady to undertake a review, which we will publish soon. We are committed to improving adult gender services, and our 10-year health plan will tackle health inequalities. I also thank the right hon. Member for Daventry for his support for our ambition to end new HIV cases by 2030.

The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), made a powerful speech. She is a powerful advocate for equality in this place. I thank her for her comments on the code and I note that her Committee will have an important session next week with the chair of the EHRC.

I also thank my hon. Friend for sharing Teraina’s powerful story. I commend Teraina for her bravery and for coming to share her fears with my hon. Friend. I agree, though, that Teraina’s health is important. I just want to say to Teraina: your safety matters. It is protected in law, we have strengthened hate crime laws and we are clear that trans people should not be left without facilities, and the code gives a number of examples of how service providers can ensure that. My hon. Friend is also right when she says that this is not a debate on women’s rights versus trans rights. We can live together, in her words, with joy and love.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke about young people. She is right, and it is wonderful to see the totally different approach that the younger generations have to questions of sexuality and gender identity. I join her in celebrating that. She also asked me for clarity on the conversion practices timeline. I will say again that I am working really hard to publish our draft Bill as soon as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) made a powerful speech. He is right that his election as the first gay MP for Macclesfield matters. I also thank everyone he mentioned from Macclesfield Pride and Stride for Pride. I understand the concerns that he outlined and the fear that he described in the trans community. I say again: every trans person in this country deserves to live life safely and with dignity and respect. On the ILGA ranking, I want to see us climb those rankings again. I am proud that we will host the International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia forum in London next year, which will be an important moment for LGBT rights in this country.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made a wide-ranging speech—it was a very good speech—but I will pick out a few points. On IVF, I will take away her comments and say that we recognise the unacceptable variability in access to funded fertility services. I agree with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) about the importance of not forgetting the “B” in all our debates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) made another moving speech. I remember the one he made in the last debate, when I had the pleasure of listening to him from the Front Bench. I found that a powerful speech then and I am glad that his constituent found it to be important and powerful too. I agree with my hon. Friend in his sentiment that Pride is not just a march but is everywhere—I thank him for that.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) reflected a real fear among her LGBT constituents. It is a fear that the Government recognise, and we are determined to ensure that every trans person can live safely and with dignity and respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke is right that we must never stop fighting for progress. I also greatly value his advocacy for his trans constituents.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), my thoughts and best wishes go to the families of all those who lost their lives in the tragic Royal Navy helicopter crash yesterday. I think him for his remarks on that. I also thank him for his campaigning on the pride flag. He is right to challenge all those who want to stop the LGBT+ community expressing its pride. I join him in thanking all the activists in our communities, who make Pride Month and the whole year so joyous for the LGBT community.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank the Minister for her warm words on the fantastic speeches that we have heard and the action that so many Members have taken in and out of this place. It has been mentioned that one party has wanted to stop Pride and to stop pride flags being flown, but there are actually two: Restore and Reform. Who are they working for? Does the Minister agree that we need to look at not just what they are saying but who they are being funded by, whether it is Elon Musk—a transphobic megalomaniac—or overseas crypto bros with very dubious records?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I will certainly challenge—and it is important that we all continue to challenge—any hate in our politics, wherever we find it.

I want to say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh for all the work that he does in campaigning for LGBT rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made a very powerful speech. As somebody who grew up gay in his constituency, may I say how glad I am that the LGBT community in Bracknell Forest have him as their representative? He made a powerful speech, and I agree with him that we must conduct all our debates with the dignity and respect that the people involved in those debates deserve.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) is a fantastic ally and a fantastic champion for Harlow. Stephen Vince sounds like a wonderful uncle and a wonderful person, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing Stephen’s story to the House again today. I agree with his points about the importance of LGBT representation in literature, which was very important to me. I am delighted to have seen the expansion of LGBT literature in recent times, which has been an important step forward.

The range of voices we have heard today reminds us of something important: that Pride is not a single story. There are many stories—some of struggle, some of joy—but all are connected by a shared demand for dignity and respect. As I said in my opening speech, Pride is not just about celebrating how far we have come, but about recognising how far we still have to go. The hon. Members who have spoken in today’s debate are right: we have so much more to do.

This Government will continue to stand with LGBT+ people in this country and around the world. We have acted to right the historic wrongs committed against LGBT veterans, committed to a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, equalised hate crime laws, funded LGBT+ focused domestic abuse services, put our HIV plan into action, and invested millions to promote and protect LGBT rights globally. We will always champion unity and hope over hatred and division.

Pride is not just about celebrating our LGBT+ community. Pride is also an antidote to shame. Our task is to ensure that every LGBT+ person can live openly and happily, safe in the knowledge that this is a country that embraces them for who they are and that will always protect their rights.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Pride Month.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, and proposes Amendments (a) to (j) to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of the Lords Amendments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion:

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 105C.

[Olivia Bailey]

I am pleased to speak once again on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and I will start by reminding colleagues why it matters. First, and most importantly, this Bill is about keeping children safe, ensuring that no child is let down by the system, and ensuring that children in care get the support and love that they deserve. This Bill is about high standards in schools for all our children, so that every child can get on in life and succeed; it is about excellent teachers in every school following our modern, world-leading national curriculum; and it is about removing barriers to opportunity and lifting 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals.

There will be no more eye-watering uniform bills, and there will be free breakfast clubs in every primary school. We are already seeing the difference that this is making: children enjoying not just a healthy breakfast, but a wonderful, supportive start to the school day. That is driving improvements in attendance and behaviour, and saving parents time and money, as this Government continue to do everything we can to support people with the cost of living. The Bill ensures safety and opportunity for all children in this country, and as my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary said when she introduced it, this Bill is for them.

I am grateful to everybody who has engaged with the passage of this legislation in both Houses, and I am glad that on the issues we have most recently discussed—admissions and particularly phones in schools—we have found a way forward. I thank the noble Baroness Barran, the Opposition spokesperson in the other place, for meeting me this afternoon to discuss our shared ambition to ensure that children should not have access to mobile phones at any point in the school day. I am glad that Members of the other place have supported that position today.

Lords amendment 105C is a minor amendment to adjust the Bill’s long title, to reflect the addition of the allergies measures.

On the remaining question of access to social media, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised across both Houses about the importance of the Government acting swiftly once the consultation has concluded, and we have significantly strengthened the power. The Government have said repeatedly that it is a question of how we act, not if, but to put this beyond any doubt, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the consultation. That brings forward regulations without pre-empting the consultation’s outcomes, and does not ignore the tens of thousands of parents and children who have already engaged with us.

Let us be clear: the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism, which is the right thing to do, but we are clear that under any outcome we will impose some form of age or functionality for children under 16. I can also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to that, not instead of it. As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said, we are focused on addictive features, harmful algorithmically-driven content and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy.

The Government have committed in legislation to publishing a timeline as part of the statutory progress report already set out in the Bill. Recognising the strength of feeling and our shared determination to reach the quickest possible action, we are reducing the timeline further this evening. Our statutory progress report must now be made three months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, reflecting our intention to quickly produce a response following the consultation. Following that report, we will have 12 months to lay regulations, but our firm intention is to move faster, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has been clear that we aim to do so by the end of the year.

In exceptional circumstances, the Government have the option to extend the timeline by a further six months. To be clear, we have no intention to use this six-month backstop, except for in serious and unforeseen circumstances. In that event, we would need to return to Parliament to explain why the extension was needed. In recognition of the strong concerns expressed about harmful and addictive design features, we have further specified that the Secretary of State must have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power and making future regulations.

We all share the same objective: keeping children safe online. These changes give us the strongest foundation for quick and decisive action.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

You talk about swift action, but actually what you talked about—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I thank Members from across the House for their considered contributions to the debate, at this late hour and throughout the passage of this legislation. There were some fantastic speeches just now. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) made a great speech about the importance of measures that stick, work and are implemented swiftly. I commend him for his campaigning on this issue.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) pressed me further about the timeline; I repeat to her what I said in my opening speech. We have been clear that we will act swiftly, and that we will give the House a progress report by the summer. Regulations will be laid before Parliament within 12 months. That is not a target: we are going to act more swiftly than that, and have said that we intend to have laid the regulations by the end of the year. As I said, we do not intend to use the six months at the end of that timeline. They are there purely in case of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for his service on the Bill Committee, and point him to the comments I just made to the hon. Member for Twickenham.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to be clear in my own mind. Opposition Members seem to think that they have extracted from the Government a commitment that social media for under-16s will be banned as a result of the amendment. The wording does not say that—[Interruption.] Let me finish—[Interruption.] Honestly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am asking a question to the Minister, not the Opposition. Can she clarify that point, so that what I have heard from the Opposition is confirmed by the Government?

[Olivia Bailey]

I will repeat what I said earlier. Let us be clear that the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism—that is the right thing to do—but we are clear that under any outcome, we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16. I also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to, not instead of, the provision.

Finally, I turn to the speech made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). I enjoyed the spirit of her contribution and agree that when the House works together, great things can happen. I join the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) in thanking once again the bereaved parents who have campaigned so hard and so bravely on this issue.

The Bill has been before us for nearly 18 months. Although it has been a huge privilege to argue for the transformational measures in the legislation during that time, I very much hope that this is the last time I will need to do so. It is time for free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England. It is time to cut the cost of school uniforms, to ensure that phones do not disrupt a single second of the school day, and to keep our children safe online. It is time to ensure that there are excellent teachers in excellent schools, to stop children falling through the cracks between local services, to transform child safeguarding arrangements, and to support children in care. It is time to put Benedict’s law on to the statute book, and to lift 100,000 children out of poverty with our record expansion of free school meals.

This Bill ensures safety and opportunity for every child in this country, so that every child has the best start in life. Its measures are desperately needed, and we cannot afford to wait a moment longer.

Question put.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its amendment 38J and disagrees with Lords amendments 38V to 38X to amendment 38J.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 102, but does not insist on its amendments 102C to 102G and proposes amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 106, but does not insist on amendments 106C to 106E and proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

[Olivia Bailey]

I am pleased to speak on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for our third consideration of Lords amendments. The Bill is the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and it will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care system, so that every child can achieve and thrive. Today, I ask the House to again reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation.

I turn first to Lords amendment 102 on the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number following an upheld objection. In this age of declining roles, it is important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place. But the Government have been clear throughout this process that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of PAN decisions. As committed to by my noble Friend Lady Smith in the other place, we have tabled amendments in lieu reflecting this. These amendments place a requirement on the face of the Bill for adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objection. They will also require the adjudicator, before making a decision to reduce the school’s PAN, to consult key parties about alternatives to lowering the school’s admissions number. Those parties are the admissions authority, the local authority and the Secretary of State, which in practice means consulting the relevant Department for Education regional director.

We are also taking a power to make it clear that we can require the adjudicator to consult additional parties in line with commitments in our policy paper. Through the Bill, we will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education and parental choice, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders, such as the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including on proposed changes to regulations and the school admissions code.

I now turn to Lords amendments 38V to 38X on children’s access to social media. There is a clear consensus across this House on the need to protect children online, but our consultation goes further than these amendments, considering a wider set of options, including risks beyond social media, such as gaming and AI chatbots. Hon. Members should have no doubt that it is not a question of whether the Government act but how they act to deliver strong and enduring protections for children online. The House should also be clear that the Government will act quickly.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

Can I thank my hon. Friend for the Government’s work on this important matter, which is much appreciated by many parents—in particular the work of looking ahead at what further measures might be taken to tackle online harms?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention and for all his work for his constituents in Reading Central.

To underline the fact that we will act quickly, we have committed to responding to the consultation by the summer and have made a legislative commitment to report to Parliament within six months.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time, as always. I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee. I hope that I do not steal the thunder of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is sitting next to me. Yesterday we received evidence from representatives of social media companies and from academics, although we were all hugely disappointed that one social media company did not provide representation. Does the Minister agree that whatever the Government decide when it comes to social media—whether it is restricted, banned or an age restriction is put in place—it is hugely important that young people learn about the dangers? We must ensure that goes into the expanded school curriculum, as discussed in the White Paper.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work. I do agree with him; this is an important point. The issue is a part of our revised national curriculum and also the relationships, sex and health education curriculum.

I am grateful for the engagement of peers and Members across the House on this vital topic. As a result, we have made a number of other changes that strengthen our position, including clarifying that this power can only be exercised to protect children from online harm and that we will share draft regulations with Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople. I welcome the constructive engagement from Lord Nash and the Conservatives as we come to a solution on our small areas of difference. I can assure the House that we intend to return to these matters on Monday in the other place and put beyond doubt the Government’s plans to act and to do so swiftly.

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

It seems to me as though the Government are just kicking the can down the road. We have an opportunity in the legislation before us, and particularly in Lord Nash’s amendment—which we are not being allowed to vote on as I understand it—to limit the use of social media outlets to those who are over 16. We also have the opportunity to tighten very seriously the regulations relating to the use of mobile phones in schools, but again, there is a loophole. Why are we being so wishy-washy?

[Olivia Bailey]

I reject the right hon. Member’s characterisation that we are kicking the can down the road. In fact, we are having a wide-ranging consultation—much wider than the amendments before us—that enables us to act swiftly and decisively. We guarantee that we will protect our children from harm.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am going to make progress.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 106 on our shared objective on banning phones in schools. As the House knows, at the start of the year the Government took decisive action to ban phones in schools. We strengthened the Conservatives’ weak guidance, including making it clear—to directly quote the guidance—that we expect schools

“to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day including during lessons, the time between lessons, breaktimes and lunchtime.”

We wrote to every headteacher in the country to make it clear that the Government have their back when it comes to banning phones in schools. We asked Ofsted to enforce the ban, which it started doing this month, and we have rolled out a targeted programme of support to ensure that any struggling school gets the help it needs so that this ban is fully in place.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I will finish this section of my speech and then give way.

As the Government have consistently said and as sector leaders have repeated, this is a challenge of enforcement, and I genuinely believe that the package of measures we have already put in place will ensure effective bans of phones in schools.

I have the greatest of respect for colleagues across the House who have argued that placing this guidance on a statutory footing could support enforcement, and we have tabled that amendment today. I am thrilled to see that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), has indicated her support for this position.

The Bill before us contains vital measures to keep our children safe online and offline. These measures are desperately needed, yet this Bill has been languishing for 15 months. The time has come to stop playing political games and get this Bill on the statute book.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate, which I found very engaging. I will try, in the few minutes that I have, to respond to some of the key points made.

I start with my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who asked some really important questions, in particular on the matter of medical and other exemptions, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) also asked about. I seek to draw Members’ attention to the guidance that is available, which is very clear that schools are able to use their judgment to make exemptions where appropriate, in medical situations or otherwise. I think that is the right and proportionate thing to do. I am, of course, happy to keep the application of this policy under review; it is obviously a great strength of the nature of statutory guidance that we can keep it under review.

I share my hon. Friend’s frustration about the unwillingness of Opposition Members to engage with the nuance and variety in the debate on social media, unlike us. We are properly and rightly looking at a range of options. We must do so, in order to act decisively, as we are determined to, in order to keep our children safe online.

The hon. Member for Twickenham also asked me for a clear declaration that we will act. I feel that I gave such a declaration in my opening speech, but I will repeat that our consultation is broader than the amendments before us, and enables us to act on a wider range of harms. I am sure that we will continue to discuss this point, but I have been extremely clear that the Government will act, and will act swiftly.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[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

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

11. What progress her Department has made on the roll-out of Best Start family hubs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

This Government are opening thousands of Best Start family hubs and network sites in every part of England, building on our proud legacy of Sure Start, providing families with community and connection, and ensuring that every child is supported to get ready for school. The Conservative party eroded support for families; we are bringing it back.

[Perran Moon]

Cornwall has a strong network of family hubs, including in Pool and Hayle in my constituency. Although I am sure that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would love for us to forget, it should never be forgotten that the failed austerity adopted by their coalition Government hollowed out such services. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the Best Start in Life initiative, areas with the highest level of social deprivation will be prioritised for funding?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has done to support family hubs in his constituency and across Cornwall. Yes, we have asked local authorities to ensure that 70% of hubs are in the most deprived areas, so that support gets to the families and communities under the greatest pressure. What a contrast with the Conservatives: on their watch, pressure on families grew while support shrank.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

I welcome the Government’s ambitious roll-out of Best Start family hubs, and I am thrilled that Elmhurst family centre in Aylesbury has been selected as Buckinghamshire’s first family hub—something for which I have been proudly campaigning. Will the Minister set out how that programme will make a difference to families in Aylesbury, including on a matter close to my heart, namely the mental health and wellbeing, and the social connection of parents of young kids and their families?

[Olivia Bailey]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything she has done to secure a Best Start family hub in Aylesbury. Family hubs are places where people can drop in, meet other parents and get help without feeling judged, including vital mental health support. They do not just improve outcomes for children; they also create a sense of community for parents.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I welcome the decision to have a Best Start family hub in Kendal West in my constituency, which is a very deprived part of our community. Kendal is the biggest town in our community, but it is only one of 95 parishes in my vast constituency, and many people who live in often quite poor neighbourhoods, from Appleby and Brough to Flookburgh and Grange and all places in between, are nowhere near that centre. Will the Minister think carefully about how to support communities in rural and dispersed areas such as mine so that they have family hubs close to where they live?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am pleased to hear about the family hub in Kendal West. The hubs that open this month are just the start. We have committed to 1,000 hubs by 2028, and an additional 2,000 network sites within the same time period. The hon. Gentleman’s point about rural communities is important, which is why we are keen to work across the private and voluntary sectors to ensure the maximum possible reach for these services.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

7. What plans she has to review school food standards requiring mandatory servings of meat, fish and dairy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

This Government are updating the school food standards for the first time in more than a decade to reduce sugar, increase fibre and reduce unhealthy foods. Parents want this, it is crucial for children’s health, and it will drive a transformation in the quality of the food on our children’s plates.

[Fleur Anderson]

I am pleased that the consultation on school food standards was launched last week. Many constituents have contacted me about the benefits of having more and better vegetarian school meals. Having fewer meals from processed meat is healthier, better for the planet and better value. Does the Minister support updating the guidelines so that the required number of protein-based meals can be met through delicious plant-based options and not just meat and fish?

[Olivia Bailey]

Our revised standards will ensure that children can enjoy eating nutritious, familiar foods. That includes ensuring that delicious and varied vegetarian options are available every day, including pulses as the main protein three times a week. The consultation closes on 12 June, and I invite Members across the House to encourage their constituents to take part.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am concerned that we do not serve more British-sourced food in our schools. Indeed, it is estimated that between 20 million and 40 million chickens are imported each year from China. That number has gone up 172% since the general election. What are the Government doing to ensure that our young people are eating British-sourced foods?

[Olivia Bailey]

I agree with the objective that the hon. Member sets out. That is why we are working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to support our pledge that 50% of all food purchased across the public sector will be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What steps she is taking to support schools with falling rolls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

14. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of 30 hours of free childcare on early years providers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

This Labour Government’s record expansion of free childcare is saving working families across the country over £8,000 a year. We have worked closely with early education providers across the sector throughout the roll-out, and I thank them for their tireless work. We are investing over £9 billion in early years entitlements this year, and I am pleased to say that we have seen a huge increase in the number of places that providers have on offer.

[Mr Bedford]

I recently met several early years providers, who told me that the 30 hours funded childcare scheme is placing real strain on their businesses because the policy does not take into account the setting up time, the packing away time, and the time spent training and dealing with compliance issues with their staff. Combined with the recent national insurance rises, this is threatening the financial viability of these businesses. Will the Minister agree to review the policy’s implementation so that providers, particularly smaller ones that rely on that funding, are kept financially viable and can provide their services to the people who need them?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hard-working staff in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. When the Government say we are prioritising the early years, we mean it. We are investing £9.5 billion this year. Rates have increased more than ever before to reflect inflationary pressures and the increases to the national living wage; we have increased the pass-through rate from local authorities to providers, and we have continued to lift the early years pupil premium. We are determined to give every child the best start in life.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

15. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the governance of multi-academy trusts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement that there will be eight Best Start family hubs across Bassetlaw—including in Manton, Retford, West Bassetlaw, the Oasis community centre, Hallcroft, Harworth and Bircotes, and Misterton. That is the highest number in the country. Does the Minister agree that this will guarantee an excellent start for hundreds of children across my constituency?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for all she has done for children and families in her constituency. We are determined to ensure that every child gets the best start in life, and that every family gets the community and connection that these hubs will offer.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

T5. Some 25% of Selston high school has had to be closed down because of structural problems. It has submitted a bid to the school rebuilding programme. Can the Minister please ensure that it gets the funding it needs to reopen its doors?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 17B.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 38, but does not insist on its Amendments 38A to 38D and proposes Amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 41B.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 102, but proposes Amendments (a) to (e) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 106, but proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

That this House agrees with Lords amendment 105B.

[Olivia Bailey]

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will cut the cost of sending children to school, drive high and rising standards in our schools, and is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation. This Labour Government are ambitious for every single child in this country. This Bill will lift over 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals, deliver breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, and make our children safer, both in and out of school, online and offline.

Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, both in the Commons and the Lords. In response, we are offering, where appropriate, amendments in lieu. I will speak first to the two Government amendments made in the House of Lords.

Government amendment 17B, on sibling contact, strengthens the right of children in care to maintain contact with their siblings. It is a travesty that children in care can end up losing contact with their brothers and sisters, and we want that to change. I particularly acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who has been campaigning for this measure for a long time and deserves huge credit. I also thank others who have campaigned on the issue, including Baroness Tyler of Enfield, for their continued championing of this hugely important topic.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome Government amendment 17B, which strengthens obligations to support sibling contact for children who are looked after. As the Minister knows, this is often the most important relationship that those children have. I pay tribute to the Family Rights Group and Become, as well as the campaigners she mentioned, for their important work in this area. The Education Committee recommended that the Government collect data on sibling separation in the care system in order to drive improvements in this area. As part of the implementation of amendment 17B, will the Minister commit to data collection, so that we can be certain that this measure is having the intended effect?

[Olivia Bailey]

I echo my hon. Friend’s congratulations to other campaigners, including Become. On her point about data collection, my the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is sitting next to me, is happy to meet her to discuss the issue further.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As well as being a member of the Education Committee, which has done sterling work on this point, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is undertaking an inquiry on human rights in the care system. We held a powerful roundtable with care-experienced young people, and that point was powerfully made to us. We have not yet reached the end of our inquiry and do not yet have recommendations, but I want to put on record my gratitude to those young people for sharing their experiences, and to the Government for making this really important change; I know that it will make so many lives better.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important work, both on the Education Committee and for his constituents. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will meet the Chair of the Committee soon, and we commit to working with it.

Let me turn to Government amendment 105B, on allergies in schools. I thank everybody who has worked so hard campaigning on this issue. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), and other Members from both Houses. I particularly thank the fantastic Helen Blythe, the Benedict Blythe Foundation, and the wide range of allergy safety charities that have engaged with the Government on this matter.

As I promised when the Bill was last before this House, we have introduced a Government amendment to place allergy safety on a statutory footing for all schools. It requires all schools to have allergy safety policies, to review them regularly, and to publicise and publish them. Schools must have regard to the statutory guidance, which we have co-produced with expert stakeholders. Through regulations, we will put in place duties covering the content of allergy safety policies, stocking adrenalin devices, securing allergy awareness training, and incident reporting. Benedict’s law, named in memory of Helen Blythe’s son Benedict, is intended to ensure that every child with allergies can attend school safely.

Let me turn to Lords amendments 38 and 106, which relate to social media and phones in schools. Protecting children online is a priority for this Government, and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology have made it clear that it is a matter of how, not if, the Government will act to deliver further protections for children and young people.

Whereas the amendment proposed in the House of Lords is narrow, our consultation will allow us to address a much wider range of services and features. It will also allow us to consider different views on the way forward. It is crucial that we do not pre-empt the Government’s consultation, which will close next month.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the consultation that the Minister is holding on this important issue. I declare an interest, as I am a member of the Education Committee—that seems to be something we should mention—and I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Will she ensure that as this consultation progresses, the voices of young carers are heard? That is really important.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work supporting young carers. I can give him that promise, and I am happy to arrange any meetings that he would like with my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

The Government amendments to the Bill will allow us to act quickly and respond directly to the consultation. There will not be endless rounds of consultation; the Government will act. We have listened to the concerns raised in both Houses regarding a desire for swift action, a more specific power and appropriate scrutiny.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Will the Minister confirm that the consultation is targeted at young people, parents and consumers of social media, and that the Government will not take input from social media companies?

[Olivia Bailey]

I can confirm that the consultation is targeted widely, at everybody with an interest in, or affected by, this issue. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail, setting out how the consultation is taking place.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Olivia Bailey]

I will make some progress, if hon. Members do not mind. I am happy to come back to them in a bit.

We have tabled an amendment in lieu that commits the Secretary of State to reporting to Parliament on progress within six months of the Bill passing. We will also share future draft regulations under the Online Safety Act 2023 with relevant Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople prior to laying those regulations before the House. Finally, we have made several amendments to our power, which specify how it will be used; for example, they stipulate that it can be exercised only to protect children from harms. The Government are committed to taking swift action to protect children online.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

Very briefly, and then I will make progress.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Minister has said that she wishes to take swift action. Surely the swiftest action she could take is to use this Bill to ban smartphones from schools, and to ban children under 16 from using social media. What extra information does she need to take those steps?

[Olivia Bailey]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will address smartphones in schools in a moment. Our consultation allows us to act at real speed. Through the additions we are making to the Bill today, we are committing to report back to the House within six months, if we have not acted before then. The range of options that we are considering in the consultation is significantly wider than the options in the amendments from the other place that we are debating. The consultation will allow us to address a much wider range of issues, including critical ones, such as addictive design.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I apologise, but I am going to make some progress.

I turn to Lords amendment 106, which deals with phones in schools. The amendment is unnecessary, as this Government are already crystal clear that mobile phones have no place in schools at any point during the school day. We have strengthened the weak guidance provided by the Conservative party to make it absolutely clear that schools should be mobile-free environments by default. We have written to every headteacher in the country to tell them that phones should not be in their schools. We have asked Ofsted to ensure that phone bans are properly enforced, and we have rolled out targeted support, through our attendance and behaviour hubs, for every school that is struggling to make that ban a reality. The Conservative party seems to be deliberately ignoring those facts. Of course, if the consultation tells me that making the guidance statutory will make a difference, we will do it—our amendment in lieu makes that possible—but my honest opinion is that the issue is not whether or not the ban is on the statute book. Rather, the problem is with the clarity of the guidance, and the quality and enforcement of policies, and we have already acted to fix all three.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm for the record that the ban on mobile phones in schools will not extend to alternative and augmentative communication devices? Laura in Taunton has put those devices to use for her son. That has transformed his life; it provides an autistic child with an alternative means of communication in school. I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Laura on her work.

[Olivia Bailey]

I do congratulate the hon. Member’s constituent on her work, and can confirm that there is provision in the guidance—which he can show her—for schools to make exceptions for such exceptional cases.

I turn to amendments dealing with school uniforms and admissions. On Lords amendment 41B, I welcome their lordships’ support for tackling school uniform costs. However, the amendment is unnecessary, and risks creating uncertainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent and the direction of policy at a time when they will be implementing the limit. The Department for Education has surveyed parents and school leaders extensively over many years on school uniform policies, and we will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

We have also already committed to strengthening statutory guidance to clarify that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided, and will keep that guidance under review. As the legislation requires, we will also conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the implemented policy and assess any modifications recommended as a result of that review.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am just concluding this section of my remarks, but the right hon. Member is very persistent.

I have previously been clear on our concerns about a cost cap. A numerical limit is simpler, transparent, enforceable and overwhelmingly backed by parents. It was also explicitly in the manifesto on which this Government were elected.

[Graham Stuart]

I think anyone outside this place watching would think that the reason why the Minister will not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment on this subject is a sort of pride and an inability to change on behalf of Government. There is no real argument against the amendment, and she has not made such an argument. Neither is there an argument against having an immediate statutory ban on social media. Her earlier argument about the addictive design of social media being included in the consultation made no sense either, because if no children under 16 can access social media, it does not matter how it is designed, because it will not be having the noxious effect it currently has on them.

[Olivia Bailey]

The right hon. Gentleman’s opinion on the quality of the argument I have made is his opinion, and I happen to disagree with it.

Turning to Lords amendment 102, we have already committed to tighter regulations to make it clear that school quality and parental choice will be central to decisions on published admission numbers. Our amendment in lieu reflects that and will help ensure that decisions on PAN give parents a choice of high-quality school places close to home. In this age of declining rolls, it is important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I know the Minister wants the best for children and is working hard to achieve that goal, but the Government’s guidance makes it clear that non-statutory guidance is not to be

“taken as a complete or definitive statement of the law nor as a substitute for the relevant legislation.”

The fact is that the evidence is damning about smartphone usage and children. Why will she therefore not take the step now and support a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools?

[Olivia Bailey]

I say to the right hon. and learned Lady that on this point our objectives are the same. Phones should not be in schools at any point during the day from start to finish. I say in all good faith that I have looked at this issue—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Olivia Bailey]

I am in the middle of responding to the previous intervention; Members might just want to wait one moment. In all good faith, I have looked in great detail at the problem with why these policies in schools were not being enforced properly. It was a question of weak guidance, and the schools therefore not enforcing that guidance properly. Ofsted is now enforcing that, and teams of people are supporting schools to implement it. I have been clear that if the consultation says that a statutory ban is the silver bullet that will solve the problem, then of course we will do it, but in my honest view, we have already solved the problem of banning phones in schools.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I will make some progress.

This Bill is something that only a Labour Government—[Interruption.] I will give way because the right hon. Gentleman is looking so aggrieved.

[Damian Hinds]

I think I just heard the Minister say, “We have already solved this problem.” I do not know if any other colleagues heard that. She said that she has written to every headteacher in the country, and it is absolutely the right thing to be in contact with them. Has she heard back from any headteachers or headteacher representative bodies, who say that this ban would be so much more straightforward if it were written into law, because of the difficulties that arise with a minority of parents? Headteachers say how much easier it would be for their school and their authority in their school if this ban were written into law.

[Olivia Bailey]

It seems to me that the Conservatives have just had their fingers in their ears and have been ignoring the wide range of steps that this Government have taken to address this issue. [Interruption.] We have recently changed your weak guidance—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers have made it clear that not only Back Benchers but Ministers perhaps need to raise their game when they are thinking about the courtesies of this Chamber.

[Olivia Bailey]

I sincerely apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Opposition. I was simply trying to point out that we have taken every step necessary to solve the problem of why phone bans were not being enforced properly in schools. I have been clear that should the consultation tell us that this guidance must be on a statutory footing, we will proceed on that basis, because our objective is the same: there should be no phones in schools from the start until the end of the day. I share that objective.

This Bill is something that only a Labour Government could deliver—a Bill that will break the link between background and success, a Bill that will provide opportunity for every child in this country and a Bill that will lift thousands of children out of poverty. I urge Members across the House to support Labour’s vision for our children and get this vital Bill on to the statute book.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that he is trying his luck. However, it is worth reminding Members—everyone has been here for the best part of two years at a bare minimum—that the guidance is very clear that, if they wish to contribute to a debate, they are under an obligation, not a gentle request, to turn up in the Chamber for the start of the debate. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman was present, so I call the Minister.

[Olivia Bailey]

With the leave of the House, I thank all Members for the contributions they have made to today’s debate. It has been a really useful, wide-ranging conversation, and I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in it. Important contributions have been made about safety and opportunity for all of our children.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) made a powerful speech, and I join her in thanking Ashley John-Baptiste. My hon. Friend has truly honoured her word to the children she worked with.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made a wide-ranging speech, and in response to her points on uniforms, I repeat again that we will monitor the impact of the change and conduct a post-implementation review.

On the question of our intention to act on social media, let me be clear—I think I will be repeating this lots in the course of my summation this evening—that it is not a question of whether we will act, but how we act. The Government have been clear about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) is a passionate campaigner on tackling hate online, and he made a characteristically erudite speech. He demanded haste following our consultation, and I can give him that guarantee. We are clear that we will act swiftly following this consultation, which concludes in only a month’s time.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) made an engaging speech, and both his speech and the intervention from the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) reminded me of the broad consensus across this House about the need to act. However, he does not seem to accept the need to take the time necessary to get this right and to hear a wide range of perspectives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) made compelling arguments about the dangers of the online world. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) reminded us of the challenge faced by parents when tackling these challenges—I identify with that—and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) made a powerful speech. I welcome George and Areti to the Gallery, and I thank them for their bravery and strength in campaigning in memory of their son, Christopher.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a wide-ranging speech, but he talked in particular about early childhood. I share his concerns. The research that the Department has published and the guidance we have recently published warn that too much time online and on screens can have a detrimental impact on key measures for our youngest children. That is why we have acted by issuing clear guidance to give parents the support they need to navigate that challenge.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I will not, I am afraid.

Finally, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) made a moving speech that reminds us of the urgency of action. I, too, have met bereaved parents and those are the toughest meetings. I thank them for their bravery and courage. The question we have debated today is not whether we act, but how we act. I gently say to the right hon. Member that, instead of rushing to the narrow ban proposed by the other place, we need sufficient information. This Government are determined to take action to keep our children safe online, but we need to consider all perspectives and a much wider range of services and features.

I thank Members from across the House for their considered contributions this evening. The Bill we have before us today will lift children out of poverty, break down the barriers to opportunity and tackle the cost of living for families. I urge Members across the House who share Labour’s ambitions for our children to support this landmark legislation.

Lords amendment 17B agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 38, but does not insist on its amendments 38A to 38D and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.—(Olivia Bailey.)

“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. First, I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate. As Members have outlined, in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms man, woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. That means that a person will be considered as their biological sex for the purposes of that specific Act, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. The judgment also reaffirmed that trans people are protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.

This Government have always proudly supported the Equality Act 2010, and we continue to uphold its protections for separate and single-sex spaces and services based on biological sex. As Members from across the House have outlined today, the provision of single-sex spaces is vital for our constituents, and this Government will always protect it.

There has also been reference to the anxiety currently felt by the trans community, many of whom are deeply concerned about how this judgment will impact their daily lives. This Government will always protect trans people’s rights under the law and ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. My remarks today are underpinned by the Supreme Court’s vital reminder that the judgment should not be considered a triumph of one group at the expense of another, because pitting different groups against each other and stoking division hinders our shared endeavour of ensuring dignity and respect for women and trans people.

It has been important to hear contributions from Members in this debate, and I thank them all sincerely. The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me three direct questions at the end of her speech, and the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) also asked me about laying the code. We will lay the code as soon as possible after the local elections, and we have stated our intention to do so in May.

On the question of workplaces, we expect all duty bearers to follow the law and seek legal advice where necessary. That has been a consistent theme in the debate, and the Government have been crystal clear that we expect people to follow the law as per the Supreme Court judgment.

[Claire Coutinho]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would let me make some progress. I am sorry; I have quite a lot of important points to get through.

[Claire Coutinho]

It is a short question.

[Olivia Bailey]

If it is very short, she has twisted my arm.

[Claire Coutinho]

I am very grateful to Minister for giving up a moment of time. If she expects people to follow the law, can she confirm that all Government Departments are doing so?

[Olivia Bailey]

I can confirm that all Government Departments are currently ensuring they comply with the law.

The third question that the hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me was on the NHS. Issuing guidance before the EHRC code of practice is published presents a very real risk that guidance may be inconsistent; I am happy to keep her up to date with progress on that matter.

The right hon. Member for East Surrey and others welcomed visitors in the Public Gallery today. I welcome them too, and want to say clearly that everybody should be safe and respected at work. That includes women’s voices, rights and spaces being respected. I think the right hon. Lady was wrong to say that that has not been a priority for the Government—we have been working tirelessly on giving it the due care and attention it needs—and I think she is wrong to say that we are not determined to uphold the law, as I have hopefully just clarified.

I will also clarify that this Government are committed to the rights of women. The last Conservative Government had a terrible record from on women’s rights: victims of rape and sexual assault waiting for years for justice, women waiting years for diagnosis and care in the NHS, women at work suffering stubbornly high gender pay gaps and the Leader of the Opposition even saying that maternity pay had gone too far. This Government are delivering for women and girls. We are halving violence against women and girls in a decade, strengthening women’s rights at work and delivering a new women’s health strategy and cutting waiting lists. We are committed to protecting single-sex spaces and implementing the Supreme Court ruling, which I will come on to discuss.

Debates such as this are important because, in a conversation that is so often deeply polarised we must find ways to work together to move forward. We need more cool heads and constructive contributions, so that we can ensure the vulnerable groups at the heart of this debate—for example, women who have experienced violence and the trans community—are always treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Today my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities has tabled a written ministerial statement on progress with assessing the EHRC’s code of practice for services, public functions and associations. That follows the statement issued by the EHRC in which it explained that it has updated the code of practice and shared that with the Government this week. While we are unable to make further comment at this time due to strict pre-election rules, hon. Members should please be assured that we will take urgent action, with the intention of laying the code in May, as soon as practicable after the election period.

I also want to emphasise the importance of getting this code of practice right. It would be catastrophic for single-sex services to follow guidance that was not robust and then be placed in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we have taken the time needed to consider the code in full. When we lay the code, we will follow the process as set out in the Equality Act: namely, if the code is approved by the Minister, it will be laid before Parliament. If neither House disapproves the draft within a 40-day period, the Minister will then bring the code into force via a commencement order.

Beyond the process of the code itself, I have heard in today’s debate that some Members are concerned about what the Government have been doing to implement the Supreme Court ruling while the code is being considered. I reassure Members that since the judgment was received, the Government have been crystal clear that we expect duty bearers to follow the clarity provided by the judgment and to seek specialist legal advice where necessary.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

I will try to come back to the hon. Member at the end if I can. I do apologise.

I can also assure Members that all Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies have been carefully reviewing the ruling’s potential implications in full to ensure that their policies and guidance are legally compliant.

I have also heard concerns about the implications of the Supreme Court ruling for trans people. The Government firmly believe that trans people deserve to live their lives with dignity and respect, and without shame. That is why we will continue to uphold the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and why we are making progress on delivering our manifesto commitments, which will strengthen rights and protections for trans people. We will deliver a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We will also improve healthcare for trans people, using the findings of the recent Dr Levy review on adult gender identity services and the forthcoming Dr Brady review on LGBT+ health inequalities.

We are adding sex and gender reassignment to the list of protected characteristics under the aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to ensure that offences motivated by hostility against someone’s sex, presumed sex or trans identity can be charged as an aggravated offence where the evidence supports that. We are determined to make sure that women, girls and trans people feel safe and secure everywhere—in public spaces, at home, in the workplace and online. I thank all hon. Members for their important contributions, and I thank you, Mr Stringer, for your expert chairship.

Improving School Food Standards in England: Consultation Launch

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I have asked my Department to consult on proposed changes to the school food standards in England.

A good meal or a nutritious breakfast can set a child up for the day, helping them to concentrate, learn, and thrive. Working alongside the Office for Health Improvements and Disparities and as part of our 10-year health plan for England, we have committed to overhaul school food standards to ensure that every child gets the good-quality food they need that gives them the best start in life.

Too many children are not getting the nutritious food they need. The latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey shows children consume twice the recommended amount of free sugars, and most are consuming insufficient fibre. Over 10.5% of children aged 4 to 5 start school with obesity and by the end of primary school this rises to 22.2%. This is simply not good enough.

The school food standards are out of date, and that is why we are proposing to update the regulations to align with the latest nutritional guidance to reduce sugar, increase fibre and limit unhealthy foods. These are changes that respond directly to what parents, health experts, and the food sector have been telling us for years. It means increasing fibre by ensuring schools offer more wholegrains, vegetables, pulses and fruit across meals and snacks. It means reducing sugar by limiting sweetened breakfast items, desserts and drinks, and by lowering the added sugar content of everyday menu options. It means restricting foods that are higher in fat, sugar and salt, such as deep-fried items, processed meats, confectionery and savoury snacks, and ensuring these appear less often or in controlled portions. It also means doing this in a way that schools can continue to serve food that children are familiar with. For secondary schools, we propose phasing in some of these changes to give schools and caterers more time to adapt.

Improving nutritional quality must go hand in hand with ensuring that children and young people enjoy the food they are served. Our objective is not only to make school meals healthier, but to ensure they are appealing, familiar and fulfilling, so that healthier choices are enjoyed. Children’s voices will be central to this consultation. We want to hear directly from children and young people on how healthier meals can best meet their needs. To support this, the Department is working with youth organisations and representative bodies to ensure that children are engaged in age-appropriate and inclusive ways.

Schools must comply with the school food standards to make sure that children get the healthy meals they deserve, and we know that governing bodies play a central role in shaping the quality and nutritional value of school meals. These updated standards are not about making that job harder; they are about giving the whole school-food community a clear, modem framework to work to, with the support needed to make it happen. We recognise the importance of clear, nationally consistent arrangements for supporting and assuring compliance with the school food standards and are developing our wider approach. To underpin this broader compliance framework, we are setting out two targeted proposals to reinforce leadership and visibility in schools. We are proposing schools appoint a lead governor for school food and publish their food policies and menus online, which would strengthen accountability and improve compliance. Throughout this entire process, we will continue working closely with schools to identify the guidance they need to meet higher standards. We will also work alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as it develops a new food strategy to ensure the food on children’s plates is good quality, accessible and affordable.

These proposals apply to England only and the consultation will run for nine weeks, closing on 12 June 2026. The consultation and the Government response will be published on www.gov.uk. We will also place a copy of the Government response in the Library of each House.

A consultation will allow the Department to capture and consider a wide range of views, about how our proposals to change policy are likely to impact schools, local authorities, parents, children, and young people. We will consider all responses to the consultation and use them to inform our proposals for better meeting the policy objectives of state funded schools.

[HCWS1494]

School-based Nursery Capital Grant Outcomes

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

Early education is one of the most powerful drivers of a child’s future life chances. The earliest years shape children’s development, confidence and wellbeing, and we know that those who start school already behind their peers face a much harder journey to catch up. That is why I am proud this Government are putting their focus firmly where it belongs: on the early years.

Through our “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy, we committed to expanding access to high-quality early education across the country. We are ensuring a record proportion of children reach a good level of development by the end of reception year and we are building on Labour’s legacy of Sure Start with our Best Start family hubs. We have already raised early years pupil premium to its highest level ever and are transforming SEND support for under-fives. We have also significantly expanded access to early education, with savings of up to £8,000 on average for eligible parents accessing their full childcare entitlement and, importantly, helping every child get ready for school. Today we are further delivering on that promise—supporting families, strengthening local provision, and ensuring every child has the best possible start in life.

Since we launched the school-based nursery programme last year, 214 nurseries have already opened, creating more than 5,000 new childcare places. I want to recognise the headteachers, early years professionals, and wider school staff who have worked with such determination to bring these projects to life in under a year. Their work is already making a difference to families whose children now have access to high-quality early learning in their local communities and they represent a vital part of our early education sector. Providers already give parents the flexibility to choose what best suits their family needs and this programme builds on this by increasing provision and choice, seeking to draw on the rich expertise found across maintained nursery schools, childminders, private and voluntary providers, and primary schools.

Today, I am pleased to confirm the next step in this mission. We are investing £45 million to support 331 additional schools to establish or grow their nurseries, creating more than 6,000 further places. More than a third of these new places will be in the most disadvantaged areas, ensuring support reaches the children who stand to benefit the most. Children from low-income families gain particularly strongly from high-quality early education, which has been shown to improve outcomes throughout their school years.

I am especially pleased that 20 maintained nursery schools are included in this second phase. Maintained nursery schools have an exceptional track record in supporting disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs, and this investment will enable them to expand that vital work.

Looking ahead, phase 3 of the programme will go even further. Local authorities will lead multi-year proposals backed by up to £325 million of additional investment. They know their local communities best, and this long-term approach will give them the tools they need to plan strategically for sufficiency, inclusion, and quality.

For the first time, Best Start family hubs will be able to receive funding to create or expand a nursery. This presents fresh opportunities to bring early education together with wider family support, health services and SEND provision in a single, joined-up offer for families. It will also support new partnerships with early years providers across the private, voluntary, and maintained sectors.

We know that school-based nurseries play a central role in inclusion. They care for proportionally more young children with special educational needs, and the funding confirmed today will help strengthen that role—ensuring children with SEND receive timely, high-quality support from the outset.

Across every part of this work—whether expanding school-based nurseries, investing in maintained nursery schools, or linking childcare with Best Start family hubs—our mission is the same: to build a system that delivers the right support, in the right place, at the right time.

We are making sustained, significant investment in the early years so that all provider types can work together to deliver for families—strengthening local sufficiency, driving up quality, and ensuring parents can access provision that truly meets their needs.

Taken together, these actions form a single, coherent ambition: to give every child the very best possible start in life.

[HCWS1429]

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 21, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 37 and 38, Government motions to disagree, amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment 38, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38.

Lords amendment 41, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 44, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 102, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 105, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a).

Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 6 to 15, 18, 20, 22 to 36, 39, 40, 43, 45 to 101, 103, 104

and 107 to 121.

[Olivia Bailey]

Children’s voices are heard rarely in this place and are too often ignored in our society, so I say at the outset that it is truly a special privilege to play my part in the passage of this landmark legislation. This Bill is about creating the conditions in which every child can achieve and thrive, to ensure safer and more secure childhoods, to tackle the scrouge of child poverty and to deliver high and rising school standards. Today I ask the House to renew its commitment to that ambition for our children and our country. I extend my thanks to my colleague and friend, Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, for her skilful stewardship of the Bill. I ask hon. Members to back the Government amendments made in the other place that increase the ambition of the legislation.

In part 1 of the Bill, we have introduced a new duty on local housing authorities to, with consent, notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. We have also strengthened the Government’s work to put the voices of children at the heart of decisions about their futures, with amendments on family group decision making and the kinship local offer.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

Sorry, but I have to make progress as I have so much to get through.

Turning to part 2 of the Bill and schools, we are taking forward our historic strategy to lift children out of poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) set out last year, from September all children in households receiving universal credit will be eligible for free school meals. That will put £500 back in families’ pockets, support 500,000 more children with a nutritious meal and lift 100,000 children out of poverty. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making for children and families. We are supporting this by upgrading the eligibility checking system, making it much easier for local authorities, schools and parents to confirm free school meal eligibility.

Finally, the Government are also enabling the introduction of academy trust inspection and giving powers to the Secretary of State where academy trusts are not meeting acceptable standards.

I will now turn to the 13 non-Government amendments made in the other place, first the amendments relating to child protection. On Lords amendment 2, statutory guidance is already clear that a multi-agency conference should take place to review whether the child protection plan should be discharged. On Lords amendment 5, effective multi-agency child protection practices that prevent tragedies and save lives needs to happen now—further delay is unacceptable. In addition, evaluation is already under way, and regulations to give multi-agency child protection teams their functions will be subject consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is much positivity in what the Government are bringing forward. Back in Northern Ireland, Minister Paul Givan has brought forward a pilot scheme to take smartphones out of the classroom while children are in school. Has the Minister considered that positive strategy? If it is a positive in Northern Ireland, I think it would be a positive here as well.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention; I will turn to that matter in due course.

The Government cannot support Lords amendment 44 on principle. Extending the consent requirement would risk discouraging families from seeking or continuing to receive help or support. The amendment suggests that a child’s or a family’s circumstances can never change.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am sorry but I am going to make some progress.

I will now turn to the amendments relating to looked-after children and deprivation of liberty. Lords amendment 16 concerns a proposed review of the level of funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We all know the importance of effective support for the success of adoptive families. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), announced £55 million for the fund in 2026-27 and confirmed that the fund will continue in 2027-28. He also announced a 12-week consultation on adoption support, including the ASGSF. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that we do not undermine the integrity of the consultation by undertaking a separate review.

Lords amendment 17 intends to strengthen relationships between looked-after children and their siblings. In practice, it would require local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between looked-after children and any sibling they are not living with.

I am proud that this Government have set out the biggest reforms to the children’s social care system in a generation. In particular, we are implementing changes to expand fostering, creating 10,000 additional places for children, and resetting the system to back kinship care, so that more children can grow up safely with people who already know and love them. These changes will allow many more children who grow up in care to spend time with their brothers or sisters.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Government on making kinship care central to their policies. Many children in care experience significant disruption in their lives, through multiple home moves and school changes, and relationships with their brothers and sisters are so central to a child’s sense of identity, belonging and emotional security. Will the Minister look again at how regulations and guidance could better ensure that those relationships are protected?

[Olivia Bailey]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of sibling relationships. Lords amendment 17 would do little to advance that cause, but the reforms that we are driving forward on children’s social care will.

Lords amendment 19 seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that is important to include health partners in regional arrangements to improve looked-after children’s outcomes, but there are already legal requirements on local authorities to do this. These duties will continue to apply to local authorities that form regional care co-operatives, and the amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Lords amendment 21 concerns joint funding arrangements for children deprived of their liberty. Mechanisms for pooled funding already exist and work well in some areas, and legislating now would be premature ahead of pilots that will test effective models.

Lords amendments 41 and 42 seek a monetary cap rather than a numeric limit on branded school uniform. I welcome their lordships’ support of the Government’s aim to tackle the cost of uniform for parents. Our manifesto was clear that we will limit of branded items of uniform required, so uniforms make children look smarter but do not make families poorer. However, these amendments would undermine our shared aims. A cost cap would risk creating perverse incentives for schools by creating a financial target; many schools could require more branded items, reducing savings for parents.

A cost cap would require Government to regulate for wider, unworkable factors, including how many spares parents might buy, cost variations for clothing sizes and even promotional pricing. It would also impose new bureaucracy on schools to carry out regular retail price monitoring, often across multiple suppliers. We recognise concerns about high-cost individual items, which is why we will strengthen existing cost guidance to be clear that high-cost compulsory branded uniform items should be avoided.

Lords amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number following an upheld objection. Every parent should be able to send their child to a good local school, and we want a choice of good schools for all families. That is why, when we bring forward the updated statutory school admissions code, it will make securing a high-quality education and high levels of parental choice central factors in any decision on PAN. However, at a time of declining pupil numbers, schools acting unilaterally in isolation can put that parental choice at risk. That is exactly why clause 56, unamended, is essential to help to ensure that all schools and local authorities work together to ensure that place-planning delivers a choice of high-quality schools for all families.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I completely agree with the Minister’s position; parents should have the choice to send their child to whichever school they believe is best for them. In relation to admissions, one of my first cases after becoming an MP was an automatic off-rolling of a child after she had been absent for 20 days, despite the absence having been communicated to the school and extended due to a bereavement. She was off-rolled with no process and no review, and she was out of school for nine months. Will the Minister consider reviewing this punitive policy to ensure that there is a formal review before a child is removed from their preferred school?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The Minister is being very generous with her time. However, she will be aware that many Members wish to speak in this debate. As it stands, that will be very difficult, given the time constraints.

[Olivia Bailey]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about that case, I am happy to look into it for him. Off-rolling absolutely should not be happening.

Let me turn to the crucial issue of allergies. Lords amendment 105 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members across the House who have been campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools, including my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). Last week, we published draft statutory guidance, which will be in force in September. It sets out clearly that schools should have a dedicated allergy safety policy and stock spare adrenalin devices, as well as whole-staff allergy awareness training.

At the launch, I had the privilege of joining Helen and Peter Blythe, and their wonderful daughter Etta. Their campaigning in memory of their son, Benedict, has been both brave and instrumental. We recognise their argument about allergy safety requiring the strongest protections. That is why I am pleased to confirm—with Helen in the Gallery today—that we will put Benedict’s law on the statute book, with our own amendment to require schools to have and publish an allergy safety policy, to have regard to statutory guidance and to give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to allergy safety. This will protect children with allergies in schools and ensure that our guidance can evolve as clinical advice changes. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking Helen once again for her bravery and brilliant campaigning.

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

I thank the Minister for recognising that we need to legislate to protect children with allergies in schools. Can she reassure us that the Benedict Blythe Foundation, Helen and the MPs who have campaigned for this will see the amendment at the very earliest opportunity before it goes to the Lords, so we can ensure that Benedict’s law is delivered in full?

[Olivia Bailey]

Absolutely—I can give that assurance. I am afraid that I cannot take any further interventions, because I must get through the last section of my speech.

Let me turn to Lords amendments 37, 38 and 106, on social media, VPNs and phones in schools. I acknowledge the strength of feeling on these issues in both this House and the other place. The Online Safety Act 2023 brought in strong protections, but this Government have always been clear that we will build on its foundations. We know that parents across the country worry about what social media is doing to their children’s sleep, concentration and mental health. Many feel that they are fighting a losing battle against platforms designed to keep children scrolling.

Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s. Others, including children’s charities, have warned that a blanket ban could drive children towards less regulated corners of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared when they do come online. That is why last week the Government launched a consultation to seek views to help to shape our next steps and ensure that children can grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world. The consultation will be open until 26 May, and we will respond in the summer.

The consultation already addresses the areas covered by the Lords amendments. Crucially, the consultation goes beyond the Lords amendments and seeks a view on a range of other issues, including children’s use of AI chatbot services, mandatory overnight curfews, whether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features, and whether the digital age of consent in the UK general data protection regulation should be raised from 13.

We are also ensuring that we can act swiftly and decisively on the outcomes of the consultation. That is why we are proposing an amendment in lieu to allow us to act via regulation-making powers. These powers will allow the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to restrict or ban children of certain ages from accessing social media services and chatbots, limit access to specific features that are harmful or addictive on these services, age-restrict or limit children’s VPN use, and change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR if the outcomes of the consultation show that that is necessary. The specific measures will be shaped by what parents, children and experts tell us, and any regulations brought forward will require a vote in both Houses of Parliament, ensuring proper scrutiny.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I cannot; I must make progress—I am so sorry.

We understand that we need to act swiftly, and rest assured that through these powers we will be able to do so. Let me be extremely clear that it is not a question of if we act, but how.

Finally, let me briefly turn to Lords amendment 106. We have always been clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but because previous guidance was not sufficiently clear, we have published strengthened guidance so there can be no doubt that, from bell to bell, schools should be mobile phone free. We are also acting to ensure that bans are properly enforced. Our network of attendance and behaviour hubs will provide targeted support to schools that are struggling. From April, Ofsted will inspect schools’ mobile phones policies and enforcement. Our consultation is seeking views on whether we need to go further to support schools—for example, whether the guidance should be placed on a statutory footing.

Hon. Members have the chance tonight to vote to keep children safe online and offline, to tackle child poverty by putting money back into parents’ pockets, and to put in place a schools system that enables every child across all our schools to achieve and thrive. I urge the House to support this vision for our children and our country’s future, and to back the Government’s amendments in lieu. I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call the Minister to wind up.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank Members from across the House for their varied and valuable contributions. We have heard a number of powerful speeches that made really important points. I am very sorry that I do not have enough time to respond in detail, but I will endeavour to write to Members who asked specific questions.

This is a Bill with opportunity at its heart—opportunity for every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into. It will make children safer online and offline, with our ambitious, swift action on social media and phones; it will help to tackle the cost of living crisis with our action on free school meals and the cost of uniforms; and it will drive up standards in our schools and improve outcomes for children in care.

Tonight, the House has the opportunity to support free school meals for half a million more children, swift action to protect our children online, and the most significant safeguarding measures in a generation. This is a landmark Bill, but it is also a Labour Bill—because it is ambitious for every single child in this country. I urge the House to support Labour’s vision for our children and for our country’s future.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 5 disagreed to.

World Book Day

Olivia Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I am not sure it is possible to follow that, although I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on his efforts and his speech entirely in rhyme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Hobhouse.

I thank all hon. Members for attending and contributing to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), on securing it and on the valuable work that she is doing as Chair of the Education Committee. I look forward to hearing the outcomes of her inquiry into reading for pleasure.

I really love World Book Day, and I have had a wonderful World Book Day today; I went on a visit to talk about school food, and the entire school was dressed up, including the executive headteacher, who was dressed as a very impressive Gandalf, complete with a full beard. It was quite fun to have a full meeting with her to iscuss school food, and I congratulate her on her efforts and on her lovely school. I also have very fond memories of World Book Day with my children—who I packed off this morning in their outfits—especially from when they were younger. One year, my son chose to dress up as the green frog from “Room on the Broom”, which I think is a very good choice of outfit.

I was pleased to hear all Members’ reflections today. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was right to thank all those involved in running World Book Day and, of course, all parents scrabbling around to create outfits from brooms and the like. I look forward to hearing the outcomes of her inquiry. I also agree with her on the importance of children being able to find themselves in books—a theme that we have heard throughout the afternoon.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave a characteristically engaging speech, and I really enjoyed hearing about the joy that his five grandchildren find in reading—

[Jim Shannon]

Six.

[Olivia Bailey]

Six! I misheard the hon. Member; I do apologise. And I am sure that they really enjoy listening to him read to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) made a wonderful speech celebrating the literary past and present of the Isle of Wight, and was powerful in his clear determination to secure strong outcomes for his constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) painted a wonderful picture of his Cyclops outfit—I will be trying to google it—and made a powerful case for inclusive reading.

For my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), I would like to congratulate Martha on winning her competition, and all the entrants in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) told an amazing story about the book that she wrote to persuade Amazon to put Dunstable on the books. I congratulate her on that —what fantastic efforts!

The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) rightly highlighted the importance that this Government place on breaking down barriers to opportunity, and I agree with her that reading for pleasure is a central part of that—my speech will come on to that. She asked me about the role of family hubs and the importance of encouraging children to read at the earliest ages. I reassure her on that point: it is central to what we are trying to do with our best start in life strategy.

The hon. Lady—and the hon. Member for Windsor—also talked about screen time, which is very important to this Government. I am pleased that we are co-creating with parents the first ever guidance on screen time for the under-fives. We have published research that shows that too much screen time can cause challenges for language development. The research also says that the best thing people can do is pick up a book with their child. We are also publishing screen-time guidance for older children.

We have also published tougher guidance on phones in schools to be clear that, from bell to bell, there should be absolutely no phones in schools. We are working with attendance and behaviour hubs to make sure that schools are supported to deliver that, and Ofsted will also be inspecting on it. We do not want children in schools being distracted by buzzing phones in their pockets, and we are clear about that. On the wider question of the harms of the online world, I encourage all Members to contribute to our extensive consultation on social media and the online world, which is live now.

As Members have said today, World Book Day is a fantastic worldwide celebration of books and reading, marked in more than 100 countries around the world. I thank everyone for their enormous contribution. We know that reading for pleasure is hugely important and brings a wide range of benefits from increased wellbeing, confidence and empathy to better vocabulary and aptitude for learning, yet just one in three children says that they enjoy reading, which is an all-time low. That is why this Government have launched the National Year of Reading, a UK-wide campaign to tackle the steep decline in reading enjoyment among children, young people and adults.

The National Year of Reading campaign, “Go All In”, emphasises that reading is a great way to explore and deepen our interests and passions. Put simply, if you are into it, read into it. That might be a book about a fairytale world, a fascinating period of history or, for those of us who are passionate about parliamentary procedure—perhaps the hon. Member for Strangford were he still in his place—I suggest “Erskine May”.

Regardless of what we choose to read, the year is packed full of exciting events, webinars, resources and activities happening in communities, libraries, schools and early years settings up and down the country. I encourage all Members to get involved. World Book Day sits right at the heart of the National Year of Reading, offering children a selection of books to choose from for free with their £1 book token, and a range of activities and resources for schools to help generate a national buzz around reading.

As has been noted, libraries are at the heart of the National Year of Reading campaign. I am delighted that this Government have committed more than £10 million to ensure that every primary school in England will have a library by the end of this Parliament and, for secondary schools, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £5 million to purchase books and reading materials.

Alongside school libraries, public libraries have a strong offer to support children’s development as readers beyond school—for example, through the summer reading challenge—and are part of the vital social and cultural infrastructure of the country. This week, to support the National Year of Reading, the Government announced a funding boost to support local library services in areas with the greatest need to go further in engaging communities to boost library use. Further to that support, the Government will build on excellence by awarding a £1,000 cash prize to each of the five English regional winners of the library of the year award to continue local reading projects.

Reading is not just important for pleasure; it also holds the key to the rest of the curriculum. This financial year, therefore, we have committed £28 million to drive high and rising standards in reading and writing. That funding is delivering a range of support for schools, including new training for primary schools, to help children progress from the early stages of phonics to reading fluently by the time they leave primary school.

For secondary schools, we have launched a new continuing professional development programme, Unlocking Reading, to improve support for struggling readers in key stage 3. Our aim is that by the end of this academic year, 75% of secondary schools will have access to that training. Also, our RISE, or regional improvement for standards and excellence, English hubs are dedicated to improving the teaching of reading. Since their launch, they have provided targeted support to more than 3,000 schools across England.

In closing, I recognise the important contributions of charities and organisations to promote the importance of reading for pleasure, including World Book Day, the National Literacy Trust, the Reading Agency, the Book Trust and many more. Last year, I had the absolute privilege of meeting Peter Rabbit and the Queen at the Book Trust’s centenary celebration. It was one of my favourite days in the job so far. Reading books like “Peter Rabbit” shaped my childhood and I want that same joy for every child.

Ensuring that our young people in every corner of our country learn to enjoy reading is one of this Labour Government’s key priorities. In this National Year of Reading, we are laying strong foundations for learning, wellbeing and success throughout life. By working in partnership with schools, families, libraries and communities, we can create a lasting legacy where reading for pleasure is valued as an integral part of our childhoods.