Early Years Funding: Hampshire
Olivia Bailey Excerpts(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members who are present. I will start by also thanking all the wonderful staff who work in early years settings in her constituency and across Hampshire. They do a brilliant job and give all our children the best possible start in life. They deserve all our thanks and recognition.
The hon. Lady made a number of fair points that I will address in my speech, but I will say at the outset that for the first time in a long time this Government have prioritised the early years. We have put record investment into the early years, with £9.5 billion next year. We have stretching targets to ensure that record proportions of children are ready for school. We are opening Best Start family hubs across the country and network sites, encouraging integration between our local services and early education providers. Through our best start in life strategy, we are determined to have the back of providers, ensuring that the workforce is brilliantly supported to continue doing such a fantastic job for our children and young people. It was important to start my remarks by situating us in that important context.
I will move on to my substantive speech and address the points that the hon. Lady raised. The Labour Government have delivered a record expansion of free childcare, halving childcare costs for families, boosting family finances and improving children’s life chances, driving towards record proportions of children being ready for school. Not only are we saving working parents thousands of pounds, but we are giving every child excellent early education, which they will need to thrive later.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does she agree that there is genuine excitement and joy from families when they see the benefits of this investment? She and I have both witnessed that in our community in Reading. The Government are building on a great tradition in that local authority; I wish other local authorities invested to that extent.
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving me the opportunity to thank the fantastic early years staff in my constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire and across Reading, who do a brilliant job for our children. As a constituency MP, as well as a Minister, I know that giving every child the best possible start in life is so important for their future life chances. If we get it right in the early years, it makes a transformational difference as they grow older.
The work we are doing is thanks to our brilliant early education sector, which has worked tirelessly to deliver the large expansion of childcare, making it such a success. We have a responsibility to ensure that the sector is financially sustainable to deliver the entitlements and high-quality early years provision. That is why we are investing record amounts in early education and why, through our proposals, we have the back of the sector. In 2026-27, we expect to provide over £9.5 billion for the early years entitlements, more than doubling annual public investment in the early years compared with 2023-24. We are investing over £1 billion more than last year to deliver a full year of expanded entitlements and an above-inflation increase to entitlements funding rates.
The national average funding rate increases continue to reflect the forecast cost pressures on the sector, including the national living wage, and they take into account the wider workforce pressures felt by the sector that the hon. Member for North East Hampshire mentioned. On average nationally, we have increased the three and four-year-old hourly funding rate by 4.95%, the two-year-old hourly funding rate by 4.36% and the funding rate for the nine months to two-year-old entitlement by 4.28%. That investment, alongside the hard work and dedication of countless colleagues in the sector, means that working families are saving an average of £8,000 a year.
There has also been a benefit in Hampshire from those rate increases. The rates set for Hampshire have seen increases of 3.6% for three to four-year-olds, 2.9% for two-year-olds and 2.8% for under-twos. That means that Government-paid rates for Hampshire are £6.38 for three to four-year-olds, £8.73 for two-year-olds and £11.81 for under-twos. That compares relatively favourably with average rates, which are marginally above those figures. This demonstrates, I think, our commitment to properly funding our early years settings to continue to deliver on this vital mission.
Hourly rates vary between local authorities, reflecting the relative needs of the children and the different costs of delivering provision across the country. Those rates are calculated using the early years national funding formula, which is used to target funding to local authorities where it is needed most. We believe that that approach is fair, efficient and transparent. Of course, we keep funding rates under review, and I assure the hon. Member that the team will have listened carefully to her points today. She may also be interested to know that, as we committed in the best start in life strategy, we plan to review early years funding and consult on changes to how we distribute that funding. I would welcome her contribution to that review. The consultation will begin imminently, and I ask her and everybody here today to encourage their constituents to feed into it.
We are also investing to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds and with additional needs to ensure that every child, no matter their circumstances, has the best start in life. On top of the largest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium in 2025-26, this year we increased early years pupil premium rates by 15%, equivalent to up to £655 per eligible child per year. We also expect to spend over £90 million on maintained nursery school supplementary funding in 2026-27. The best start in life strategy sets out our plan to boost uptake of the 15-hour entitlements to two, three and four-year-olds by working with local authorities and family hubs and tracking data through the local outcomes framework.
The hon. Member for North East Hampshire mentioned the vital issue of SEND. To support children with SEND, a further £47 million is being provided in 2026-27 to support greater inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities as part of our three-year £1.6 billion inclusive mainstream fund. That is on top of mandatory SEN inclusion funds, through which providers can access support for children with early and emerging needs in their settings. Through the disability access fund, eligible children can also receive £975 per child per year to support reasonable adjustments.
Early years settings will also benefit from a dedicated early years offer within a £200 million national training package and access to specialist advice from health and education professionals through Experts at Hand. I assure the hon. Member that we are working tirelessly on this vital issue to ensure that every child with additional needs gets the help and support they need.
The hon. Lady also talked about the vital importance of the workforce. We know that we must invest in the workforce to ensure the best possible future for the early education system in this country. That is one reason why, earlier this month, we launched a £4,500 payment to attract and retain qualified nursery teachers in the communities that need them most, starting in 10 areas and expanding to 30 later this year. The scheme will boost outcomes for children and allow more families to access their funded childcare entitlement. Alongside that, we committed in the BSIL strategy to continue supporting the sector to grow and professionalise, and I assure Members that work on that is continuing at pace.
Our record expansion of childcare means that the Government now fund around 80% of childcare hours in the country, which is a remarkable figure. In effect, it means that we have created a new public service, and we must ensure that that public service is working for providers, parents and children. We announced at the autumn Budget 2025 that the Department is leading a review of early education and childcare support, provided by different parts of the Government. Our review will set out a new vision for the early education and care system—one that builds children’s life chances and supports parents’ work choices, and one that is simpler and easier to use for both providers and parents, improving access and the impact of the Government’s investment in children and families.
I look forward to engaging with colleagues from across the House as we make progress on that review. I also look forward to engaging widely with the sector, which is wonderfully diverse. It is important for me to say at the Dispatch Box how much we value the many private and voluntary nurseries that are operating at a brilliant level to provide such a great service for our children and young people. They will be at the heart of the review and of any future system.
I conclude by thanking all Members for their thoughtful contributions. It is clear that we share a common goal to ensure that every child has the best possible start in life and that every family can access high-quality, affordable and flexible childcare. Despite our record funding, I recognise the challenges faced by some in the sector, particularly the costs that providers face and funding distribution. That is why we are continuing to work closely with them to refine our funding approach through consultation and to always make sure that we are listening, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Hampshire. Through our consultation and review, we can ensure that our early education system fulfils the ambition that we all have for it. This is about more than childcare; it is about opportunity and life chances. I remain confident that, working together, we can deliver a system that truly meets the needs of every child and every family.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Conversion Practices Bill
Olivia Bailey Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Olivia Bailey)
If I may, I will start with an apology to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). I had intended my statement to be sent much earlier today, and I understand that it did not reach her in time; I apologise for that, because that certainly was not my intent.
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Conversion Practices Bill, which we are publishing in draft today. Across the House, we can all agree that nobody deserves to be abused, no matter who they are, but right now, gaps in the law are allowing a very specific form of abuse to occur: abuse driven by the false belief that being LGBT+ is shameful, that it can be forcibly changed, and that if you cause someone enough pain, you will somehow stop them being who they are. We are talking about people being shamed in front of a congregation, and pushed to the ground in an effort to remove the devil; about families threatening to rape and murder people, if they do not change their identity; and about people being beaten or sexually assaulted by those trying to “correct” who they are. These are real stories, real people, and real abusers getting away with it. Today, with this legislation, that stops.
The draft Bill that we are publishing today fills gaps in our criminal law in order to ban abusive conversion practices. It gives victims and authorities a clear definition with which to identify, tackle and prevent this abuse. Specifically, the Bill creates a new criminal offence of abusive conversion practice, measured by three specific criteria: first, conduct intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or transgender identity; secondly, conduct that is abusive, in line with other criminal law; and thirdly, conduct that causes serious harm, alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on the victim’s day-to-day activities. We have listened to concerns that this legislation must not create a loophole that pushes abuse abroad, and have included a second offence of encouraging or assisting an abusive conversion practice outside England and Wales.
We are also creating new conversion practice protection orders, to support victims as well as those at risk of abuse. These will be similar to protection orders for forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and can protect people even before abuse has happened. Breach of a protection order may be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Offences will carry a maximum penalty of five years in custody or a fine, while breaching a protection order carries a maximum penalty of two years or a fine. In addition to bringing in the new measures in this Bill, the Government will continue to fund the conversion practices support helpline, and are taking wider action to tackle abuse against the LGBT+ community, including by equalising hate crime legislation through the Crime and Policing Act 2026.
In developing this Bill, I have consulted widely and spoken to many who have legitimate concerns about legislating in this area. I have heard concerns about freedom of expression, parental rights and religious freedoms. I have spoken to therapists who worry that their important exploratory work with young people might be impacted, and that they may be accused of conversion practices. I want to be completely clear today: I have heard those concerns and acted on them. This Bill does not remove anyone’s right to freedom of expression or religion, or to choose how to parent; this Bill simply prevents abuse. To ensure that there is no inadvertent chilling effect on important healthcare, there is an exemption in the Bill for all healthcare professionals.
Across the globe, countries are acting to ban conversion practices. We have learned from the 28 countries that have some sort of ban in place. We have drawn on the important framework from the Council of Europe, fought for by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). We have studied the evidence on the prevalence and types of conversion practice abuse, and we are clear about where there are gaps in the law. In the Bill published today, we are confident that we have learned the right lessons and got the balance right. This will be a comprehensive ban on abusive conversion practices, with no loopholes, and we have clarity that we will not inadvertently impinge on freedom of expression, important healthcare and people’s ability to parent how they choose.
There has been a cross-party consensus for years on the importance of this ban. It was Baroness May who first promised legislation on this back in 2018, and there are Opposition Members who have held my job and worked hard on this issue. This ban has been in the manifestos of parties from across the political spectrum, because despite our other political differences, we can all agree that abuse is unacceptable. I hope sincerely that we can work constructively on this issue across the House. I welcome cross-party engagement as we discuss our draft legislation, and that is why we have requested and welcome pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill by a Joint Committee. I am confident that this process will make our Bill stronger.
There are people today suffering crushing, hateful abuse because someone has decided that their identity is wrong and can be changed—abuse that is allowed to happen because our legal framework simply does not acknowledge it. I understand that this draft Bill will cause debate—these are not easy issues—but I welcome that challenge and that debate, because we cannot let fear of argument prevent us from remembering what matters: it is our job and our moral responsibility to prevent this pernicious abuse. I am confident that the Bill we are publishing today will do just that.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the brief sight of her statement and for her apology. Let me start by setting out a principle that I believe rightly commands support across this House: we must protect people from harm. Violence, abuse and coercion are wrong—unequivocally so—and they are also already illegal under our current framework. The offences and the powers exist, and many of the examples the Minister used are already, rightly, illegal.
This is a challenging area, so we must be careful that bad laws do not get on to the statute book. The duty before us is to consider whether any new legislation is necessary, proportionate and workable. There is a fundamental question about the current evidence base underpinning this proposal, so in any change, the Government must demonstrate why existing criminal law is insufficient and how a new offence would materially improve outcomes. If a non-abusive conversion practice is not a crime, why would we write it into a new law? Is the Minister reassured that a mother helping their child with their feelings when growing up is not accidentally being criminalised? What are we doing when it comes to invasion of young lives and how we support children and parents through any childhood issues?
We must be honest about the risk of unintended consequences for families and parents. It is right to highlight the real concern that broadly drafted provisions, particularly in relation to gender identity, could have a chilling effect on those acting in good faith and stop our young people having the time and space to find out who they are and are comfortable being. Parents, teachers, clinicians and therapists must be able to support, guide and, where appropriate, challenge. That is not harm; that is safeguarding.
Gender-related distress is complex and requires careful, sensitive and roundly exploratory engagement. If this Bill has the effect—intended or not—of creating an affirmation-only culture, we risk failing the very young people we are trying to protect. We have already seen the catastrophic impact where professionals have felt unable to raise legitimate concerns, most notably on the grooming gang scandal, and we must never sacrifice safeguarding for ideology.
Let me turn to questions for the Minister—these are real ones; as the Minister laid out, this is difficult. Will she confirm that the pre-legislative scrutiny will be by a Joint Committee of both Houses? Given the legal, ethical and societal complexity of this issue, will the Government ensure that vital scrutiny is broad and rigorous? Will the Government undertake their own full public consultation, in addition to any evidence-gathering process carried out by the scrutiny committee? This issue affects families, clinicians, faith groups and individuals across the country, and their voices must be heard directly.
Can the Government guarantee that exploratory therapy will be explicitly protected in the Bill, alongside appropriate support for those who detransition? Cases such as that of Keira Bell have highlighted the importance of ensuring that individuals can reflect on and, where necessary, reassess any earlier decisions. Professionals must not be deterred from providing that support. Will the Minister explain how the Bill will recognise the principle of informed consent for adults engaging in exploratory therapy in relation to gender distress? Consenting adults must remain free to discuss, question and explore their experiences without fear of criminal sanction.
How will the proposed legislation interact with existing safeguarding guidance, particularly in schools, children’s homes and social services? Those working on the front line in safeguarding need clarity, not confusion, and must be able to act in the best interests of the child without fear that fulfilling their duties could expose them to legal risk. We currently have a lack of clarity in that area regarding consent in the new puberty blockers trial, so this area is already unclear. Puberty blockers are in reality a form of conversion therapy. How will they be separated from this process?
Will the Minister point out any abusive conversion practices that she has directly identified that are not already criminal offences, and spell out directly the current problem she is seeking to fix? Will she clarify and be specific about the current legal gap, and say what she sees as the true gaps in the law and what is currently legal? Can she guarantee that a young person who is simply same-sex attracted will not be encouraged to go down a pathway that will actively lead them away from their sexuality and being the gay person they are, as they need to be helped to be happy and comfortable with that?
Those questions go to the heart of the Bill. We have seen well-meaning legislation such as hate crime offences have a chilling effect on free speech. Conservative Members believe in pragmatic evidence-based policymaking and in strong safeguards. In conclusion, we firmly stand against abuse and coercion. We must ensure that this Labour Government are seeking to prevent harm, and that they do not create any new harm.
Olivia Bailey
I understand that the shadow Minister did not have my statement in enough time, but I am disappointed with the way that her comments have massively broadened and misrepresented the scope of the draft Bill. I would encourage people to look at the detail of the draft Bill, and the very specific thresholds that we have established, because it is beholden on us all to ensure that this conversation is based on real facts. I am also disappointed that the Conservative party, to which I gave credit for its commitment to equalities issues in the past, has found itself in the position of having promised for years that it supports a ban on conversion practices, but now sounds as though it does not. That is a grave shame.
The hon. Member asked some good questions, which I will attempt to answer. She asked whether such practices are already illegal, and my answer to that is no. There are two reasons for that. First, gaps in existing law mean that we cannot prosecute offences properly. With domestic abuse legislation, for example, or coercive control, the legislation is designed for someone who has a relationship with an intimate partner, and it would not capture an offence committed by someone they did not know. There are many such examples where there are gaps in the law. Secondly, it is important that we have a definition of conversion practice in law. As with other offences such as upskirting or non-fatal strangulation, a definition is important to help victims understand what has happened to them and be able to come forward, and for prosecutors to build a case. I am confident that there is a need to legislate in this area.
The hon. Lady asks about the evidence base for the use of conversion practices. I have just come from an event this morning, and a report published by Galop—I have it here today. It contains hundreds of case studies of people it has spoken to on its helplines over the past few years, and of the appalling abuse that is happening right now in this country. The examples I used in my statement were from those case studies—people being threatened with rape and assault; people being beaten because of their identity in an attempt to change them. The evidence is clearly there, and I say to the hon. Lady that one case of abuse is too many.
I also say categorically to the hon. Lady that the cases she mentioned steered widely clear of the remit of the draft Bill. For example, the case of a mother helping a child is categorically not captured under the draft Bill. The case of an exploratory therapist helping somebody to understand their identity, and taking time in asking supportive questions, is categorically not included in the Bill. A healthcare exemption is included in the Bill to ensure that we do not have a chilling effect on healthcare professionals providing this vital service to young people, and indeed any person—[Interruption.] They are legitimate questions, and I am answering them today.
The hon. Lady asked me about the pre-legislative scrutiny process, which will be a Joint Committee of both Houses. I look forward to it—I genuinely want to have cross-party and good conversations about the draft Bill, and I hope that Conservative Members engage with that process in good spirits, just as I intend to engage with it. She asked about the principle of informed consent. We are talking about a criminal threshold for an abusive practice that is in line with other forms of criminal abuse, for example domestic abuse. I do not think someone can consent to abuse. That is a fundamental principle, and it is right that it moves forward in the legislation.
The hon. Lady asked other questions about how, when the Bill becomes law, it will interact with other safeguarding requirements or guidance in schools. Those are all important questions, and we will, of course, address them in detail as the Bill moves towards the statute book. I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement, but I remind her that she says she stands against abuse, so I urge her and her party to think again. This Bill fills a gap in the law to stop the most abhorrent and pernicious abuse faced by LGBT people in our country, and I urge her to change her mind.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the Minister on publishing this draft Bill, and I very much welcome the fully trans-inclusive ban on abhorrent conversion practices. Although the Bill will enable the punishment of those who carry out those abusive practices, its real value will be as a deterrent to stop anybody being subject to such practices in the first place. What plans does the Minister have to develop a real understanding of the Bill, particularly among communities where such practices are currently prevalent?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for everything she did when she held my role to get us to a position where we are now able to publish the draft Bill. She did a great service in her role, and I am grateful to her for it. She is right to say that the value of the Bill is a simple statement of intent and principle to the LGBT community: “there is nothing wrong with who you are, and it’s not okay for somebody to forcibly try to change you, to abuse you, or to harm you”. This place sends out that important message to the country, and to people who are in these terrible situations and feeling fear and shame.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the draft Bill, because conversion therapy is not a thing of the past. One in six LGBTQ+ young people today have been offered it in an attempt to cure them. The Minister referred to the Galop report. That is an important piece of reading, and I recommend that all Members take time to look at those harrowing testimonies. It has always been a form of abuse, far too often carried out by those in positions of trust, whether family members, religious leaders or medical professionals who have been conducting this archaic practice.
It is offensive and dangerous to suggest that sexual orientation or gender identity is a problem to be treated or cured. As far back as 2018, Baroness May, the former Prime Minister, promised to end these abhorrent practices, which can cause mental and physical harm. That position was adopted by the Labour Government, who promised legislation to address it in their first King’s Speech. Since those initial promises were made, individuals from LGBTQ+ communities have continued to face abuse and discrimination for years under the guise that they can be cured. We should all celebrate finally seeing the legislation that will end that horrendous practice, protecting vulnerable individuals and allowing people to live freely as themselves.
The Liberal Democrats are ready to scrutinise the draft Bill to ensure that it is comprehensive and inclusive, and to work cross-party to ensure that legislation can be put into law as soon as possible. Will the Minister lay out a timeline for the legislation, especially given current uncertainty around the Administration? What engagement is the Minister having with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, so that they can ensure the legislation is shaped with them, not for them? Does she agree with me that while France, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and many other countries have already passed legislation to ban the practice, the UK has significantly fallen down the inclusivity league tables, and that today marks an important step in reversing that decline and establishing the UK as a world leader in being a safe society for all to live in?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I am grateful for her party’s support for the principle of the legislation and look forward to engaging with her further as we go through the process of pre-legislative scrutiny.
On the timeline for the legislation, we will set up a joint Committee with both Houses as soon as possible. That process tends to take about 12 sitting weeks, on average, but the Committee will be able to set out more details once established. We will then press on with the legislative process as fast as we can, to ensure that we get the Bill on to the statute book. I emphasise that this is a manifesto commitment for this Government and that we will continue to adhere to it.
On representations and engagement, I have already had many wonderful conversations with members of the LGBTQ+ community as I have gone about designing the legislation, and I will continue to do so. At an event this morning I was able to thank those organisations for the work they have done over many years to campaign for the ban. I particularly thank those who have come forward with their own stories about the appalling abuse that they have suffered. I thank them for having the courage and bravery to share their stories so that others may not have to experience the same fate.
The hon. Lady mentioned legislation in other countries. There are now 28 conversion practice bans around the globe. We have been able to learn from the wonderful experiences that those countries have had and the approaches that they have taken in the development of our legislation, which has been very useful. She points to the league tables. We are hosting the European International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia—IDAHOT+—forum in London next year, which I am very exciting about, and I hope and expect that we will climb back up those tables.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for talking to me in advance of her statement and the publication of the draft Bill. Does the symmetry in the Bill allow detransitioners to bring retrospective cases against therapists and professionals who transitioned them using the affirmative approach that was in use at the Gender Identity Development Service and is still prevalent in many settings today?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her conversations with me on this important topic. Let me be clear about what the Bill does. The legislation is symmetrical in its approach to abusive conversion practices that attempt to change somebody from one gender identity to another or from one sexual orientation to another. There are three parts to the criminal threshold as set out in the Bill: first, there must be an intent to change somebody; secondly, that must be through an abusive practice in line with other legislation, including the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and thirdly, that practice must have caused significant harm. Those are the tests that will be used by the courts when determining whether prosecutions should be brought.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I am concerned about the Bill’s impact on families, which the Minister has touched upon, and I am worried that positive, healthy interactions within a family could potentially fall in scope of the Bill. It is good to hear that she does not think the Bill will cover such interactions, but it is written quite broadly and I am sure that we will have further conversations about that. If a child wants to transition and to participate in the Pathways clinical trial, but their parents do not consent, will that be an abusive conversion practice under this legislation?
Olivia Bailey
I am clear that the Bill will not impact the ability of parents to parent how they wish. The abuse thresholds, which I have set out several times this afternoon, are clear about that. To repeat: there has to be an intent to change somebody, there has to be abuse —the abuse that we have defined in the legislation mirrors the abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act—and there has to be serious harm. It is not the case that there are exemptions for parents relating to any other form of abuse that takes place in a family relationship, and I do not think that it is appropriate for such an exemption to be in place in this legislation.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the draft Bill and on all her work on it. Having grown up as a gay person in the early ’90s, I know what it is like to feel as if you are not normal and do not belong. There are some parties, particularly Reform UK, whose Members are not in their places, and seemingly, from the words of the shadow Minister, the Tories, who would take us back to the days of section 28. Does the Minister agree with me that alongside this draft Bill that prevents the evil practice of conversion therapy, we must also protect the freedoms of the LGBTQ+ community to be their authentic selves in our society?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work campaigning for those freedoms. When considering the legislation, I reflected on the impact of my experiences growing up as a young lesbian and the impact that shame had on me. I cannot even begin to comprehend how that might feel for someone who has been subjected to this kind of abuse, which is one of the important reasons why we must act to prevent it. This Labour Government are committed to defending and extending the rights of LGBT people everywhere. I am proud that we have equalised the hate crime laws, and I am proud that we are putting this draft Bill before the House today.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister on the Bill, which has been a long time coming. I was in the Chamber in 2018 to hear the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, promise that there would be a conversion ban. It seems that it was almost impossible for the Conservative party to live up to that promise, and at last we have it coming from a Labour Government. The timing is important, reflecting what the Minister said about sending a clear message to the LGBTQ+ community that they will be respected and protected, but does she agree that the Bill sends a message to those in this place and beyond who seem determined not to protect the rights of the LGBTQ+ community? It makes it absolutely clear that Parliament will do everything it can to ensure that they are free to live the lives that they want, as the people they are.
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the draft Bill and I look forward to engaging with her further on it. It is vital that we continue to defend and protect LGBT rights in our country and around the world, where we have a proud role to play too. That is something that this Government and I are committed to doing with our equalisation of the hate crime laws and through this draft Bill.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate all the campaigners who have brought us to this moment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and the Minister, who has really spearheaded this work in the few months that she has been in the job. She should be really proud of what she has achieved.
I have spoken to the Minister about this Bill extensively. As has been said, the community of victims has been waiting eight years for this legislation since it was first promised by a Conservative Government. People do not need fixing; they are not broken. Abuse is not and should never be permissible, so abusive conversion practices should be outlawed, and that really should not be a controversial topic.
Will the Minister tell me about the work she will do on this Bill with the devolved Administrations? It covers England and Wales, so we need to look at Scotland and Northern Ireland and consider what best practice they can follow to ensure that there are no victims. As she said, consent to abuse is not a thing and should never be a thing. We should get this law on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and engagement on this important topic. He is of course right: abuse is never acceptable, wherever we find it, and this is a really important piece of legislation to make that completely clear. To be clear, LGBT people are subject to that abuse at the moment because we have not legislated in this area, and legislate we must.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend’s question about the devolved Administrations. We are going into the process of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I hope very much that conversations with the devolved Administrations will be very productive in that period. We look forward to working with whoever wants to work with us to make this legislation a reality.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I really welcome the Minister’s statement today and the introduction of this draft legislation, and I look forward to writing to constituents who have been in touch with me to express their disappointment that conversion practices are still legal. In particular, I will mention Isabelle from Offerton, who is the most recent constituent to write to me about this matter. The Minister mentioned in her opening remarks the carve-out for health professionals and how to mitigate the risk that somebody, under the guise of being a health professional, might set up a mental health charity in an attempt to circumvent the aims of the Bill. Will she say a little more about that?
Olivia Bailey
That is a really important question. Let me explain how this will work. It is my view that legitimate healthcare would not fall under the remit of this Bill in any way, shape or form, because legitimate healthcare would never be abusing somebody to try to change their identity and causing them serious harm. However, I recognise the concerns about the risk of a chilling effect. We do not want that, because good therapy and good conversation is really important. That is why we have put this exemption on the face of the Bill.
I am clear that if somebody falls below the standards expected of them in a healthcare profession, they will fall under this Bill. That would prevent the example that the hon. Lady outlines, in which somebody pretends to be a healthcare professional in order to perform an abusive conversion practice. I am confident that there is no loophole here, but that is a clear statement that healthcare professionals can continue to do their important work.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Today has been a long time coming. I thank the Minister for her hard, relentless and committed work in delivering this comprehensive and inclusive draft Bill. We were promised it in 2018, and it has been in four King’s and Queen’s Speeches.
The LGBT community will rightly welcome today’s statement, but it is unfortunate that the official Opposition have not. As an LGBT person myself, that is a reminder of how much fear there is in the community now about the change of discourse in this country in relation to LGBT rights. That has been fuelled by the far-right and by international Christian and other organisations in America funding organisations here in the UK. We have seen the official Opposition potentially abandon their support for this Bill, and we have seen the unofficial opposition in Reform champion hatred and push against equality for LGBT people.
I and others in the community are afraid. That is why today is important, because the Government are making a clear and definitive statement about conversion practices. Does the Minister agree that conversion practices are abuse, plain and simple? Will she assure me that, as this is a draft Bill, there will be time to discuss the issue, mentioned previously in Committee, of the definition of medical professionals? That must be tightly defined so that we can ensure there is no back-door get-out for those who would seek to continue these abusive practices.
Olivia Bailey
On my hon. Friend’s last question, I can say that there will absolutely be time. One of the many merits of the pre-legislative scrutiny process is that we can work through those issues together. The question of the definition of healthcare workers is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, which I know will work closely with us on that process.
I agree with my hon. Friend that conversion practices are abuse, plain and simple, and that is why we are legislating to stop them. I also agree with him about the toxicity and hostility towards the LGBT community in our current debate. I reflect on the fact that one hon. Member from Reform has written something essentially calling for a return to section 28 in our schools, and I note that Reform has defunded Pride events across our country and said that we should not be advertising Pride events. We must stand up to that divisive, hateful politics as firmly as we can.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the hard work and conscientious effort she has put in to get us to this point. This is not just a Government promise; this is a long-standing request by the LGBT community, and it is a significant gap in our 30-year journey to legislative equality. That journey has been underpinned by a need to prove that we are not people to be pitied, treated, cured or, dare I say, reformed, but people to be respected, and this legislation will do that.
My hon. Friend is wise and experienced, and she knows that there will be pushback—the same old tropes and bigotry dressed up as plausible excuses and sympathetic concerns. Does she agree that the key to fighting that is to put the voices and experience of those who have been abused in this way at the front and centre—people like my friend, who had to flee his house, his family and his city to avoid being forcibly “treated and cured” of being gay? Does she agree it is the case not just that they need to be protected from that abuse, but that their voices and experiences should be heard?
Olivia Bailey
I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. As I said earlier, I really want to thank the brave people who have experienced these appalling practices for having the courage and strength to come forward and talk about their experiences. I agree that they should be at the front and centre of this conversation as much as they want to be. It is because of their courage and strength that we are acting today and can prevent this abuse from happening to anybody else.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I am so grateful that the Bill is finally approaching this stage in its journey towards becoming law. I think of my younger self, in the 1980s—a gay man in a religious household. Family relationships were put under so much strain because of religious pressure not to come out as gay and not to be honest. Frankly, the community pressure at the time had an impact not just on me, but on my parents. It is so great that we can get to a point in our country’s development where parents will get support and will not be put under pressure forcibly to convert their children. This is an incredible moment.
I want to explore a little the protection around health professionals, as others have mentioned, particularly for people who might not fit the more common boxes that people think about, such as being gay, lesbian or transgender. For example, people who are asexual come under insidious and forcible pressure to have sex. Some of that pressure comes from assumptions in the medical community that all human beings should aspire to have an active sex life, but this is part of normal human variation; some people just do not have that desire and are coming under pressure, under the guise of clinical interventions. Will the Minister explain how that will be addressed in the Bill?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work and support, and for his very important question. I can confirm that asexual people will be included in the remit of the Bill, because our simple principle is that abuse is not acceptable, no matter to whom it is done or where we find it.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
With your grace, Madam Deputy Speaker, and with the consent of my constituents, I wish to put some people on the official parliamentary record. Mich says:
“Conversion therapy taught me to be ashamed of being non-binary and gay, and taught me how to pretend to be someone I’m not, by changing my outward appearance and body language, and suppressing my real thoughts and feelings. It made me miserable, it made me waste years of my life pretending to be someone I’m not, but it never truly changed me. Because it can’t, it doesn’t have that power. The promise of conversion therapy is a harmful lie.”
Three of Rosie’s friends suffered from conversion therapy, one through electric shock aversion therapy and two through church-based prayer ministry. The one who underwent electric shock aversion therapy went blind and has since died. One of those who underwent prayer ministry eventually took her own life.
There is also Johnnie, who, like the two other constituents I have mentioned, fully backs a ban on conversion practices.
I could no more be straight than a trans kid could make themselves cisgender. The alternative is to stay in the closet and feel shame wash over you—a shame that leads to anxiety, depression and sometimes suicide. Our sexual orientation or gender identity is not chosen by us, but being gay or trans and living gay and trans lives very much is a choice, because being gay or trans is about choosing yourself. I am glad that this Labour Government have the backs of my LGBT+ constituents as they choose to live as they wish—to live lives that are full and happy.
My constituent Vanessa has concerns, which have been characterised unfairly by Opposition parties, that this Bill will not be trans-inclusive. In response, will the Minister confirm that the Bill will be fully trans-inclusive?
Olivia Bailey
I can confirm that the Bill is fully trans-inclusive, because abuse—no matter to whom—is unacceptable. I concur wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s sentiments about the importance of being able to choose yourself and live your life with pride, and I thank him for sharing the testimonies of Mich, Rosie and Johnnie. They are really powerful stories that remind us of the importance of action.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on all the hard work she has done to bring this Bill forward—she should be incredibly proud of herself. It is particularly timely in the month of Pride. In 2026, we still have people who are questioning the need for Pride, including Reform councils and councillors. It is an important reminder that despite the progress we have made, there is still a long way further to go.
As colleagues have said, this Bill has been in four Speeches from the Throne since 2018, and successive Conservative Prime Ministers have promised it and not delivered. To respond to the contribution made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), questions are fine, but the tone of that contribution will have disappointed a great many people who will now consider that the Conservative party is, in effect, a fair-weather friend when it comes to fighting for equality. Will the Minister join me in recognising the fact that it is a Labour Government who are finally bringing this Bill forward and will get it on the statute book?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work on this important issue. I often reflect on the difference that a Labour Government made to my life, as well as the difference that this House made to my life. I am very proud of our party’s record on LGBT rights in government, and I am very proud that this Labour Government are going to continue that journey towards proper legislative equality.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her determination and hard work in bringing this draft Bill to Parliament—the trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban that has been eight years in the making after it was first proposed. Labour promised this legislation, and I am really proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering it. We all know that much abuse happens in family relationships between people who know each other very well, so we should be clear that conversion therapy is abuse—no ifs, no buts—and no one can consent to abuse. However, some people are taken abroad to undergo that horrendous abuse, so will the Minister explain how the Bill will prevent abuse from being outsourced?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for the many conversations I have had with him on this topic, and agree with him that people cannot consent to abuse. There is a provision in the Bill to prevent people taking others abroad for abuse; we saw that was a potential loophole, and wanted to make sure it was closed. That is an offence in the Bill.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister wholeheartedly for her statement, and for the way in which she always carries herself at the Dispatch Box. I am very proud to call her my hon. Friend. I hope that one day I will be able to call her my right hon. Friend, but that is just my personal view and not that of the Labour party—I should be careful what I say.
I have many former teaching colleagues who still talk with fear about section 28. I am really proud that it was a Labour Government who removed the terrible and divisive section 28, and I am proud that this Labour Government will ban conversion practices. Will the Minister confirm that this is a sign that this Labour Government are on the side of all of the LGBTQ+ community, in Harlow and beyond?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for being a fantastic ally to the community. He is often in debates on these topics in the House, and I am grateful to him for that—he is a fantastic champion for his LGBT constituents in Harlow. I agree with him that this Bill is a really important, line-in-the-sand statement of intent that it is not shameful or wrong to be LGBT, and if somebody tries to change you, abuse you or cause you harm, that should be illegal. I am proud and pleased that this Labour Government are going to deliver that ban.
Oral Answers to Questions
Olivia Bailey Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I am delighted to see the enthusiasm for our reforms to school food. We want children to enjoy eating tasty, healthy food at school. That is why we are updating school food standards for the first time in a decade and putting young people’s voices at the heart of our plans. We will publish the new standards in September alongside our record expansion of free school meals, driving down poverty and delivering a revolution in school food.
Jim Dickson
Mr Speaker, I know that looking at me you would never guess that my children are now well past school age, but when they were at school—long past Jamie Oliver’s campaign against turkey twizzlers—the school food served was still not as healthy as it should have been, so I am delighted by the Minister’s assurance that the Government have consulted on the first update to school food standards in a decade. I am, however, slightly puzzled by the phased approach to improving the drinks served in secondary schools until September 2028. Will the Government consider speeding up the timetable and moving towards alignment with primary schools, so that we do not miss a crucial opportunity to improve the health of our young people?
Olivia Bailey
Alongside updating the standards, we also want to support schools to implement them. That is why, alongside developing new governance and compliance proposals, it is right that we give schools the time they need to prepare and embed the new standards, including phasing some changes in secondary schools. The consultation on our proposals closed just over a week ago and we will consider all responses carefully.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I recently visited Ralph Allen school in my constituency and saw how students were leading the way in improving the standard of their food. They have created a vegetable bed in an empty space, and are now offering vegan and vegetarian choices. How will the Department support schools in pupil-led improvements to their food?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for that really important question and I am really glad to hear of the fantastic example in her constituency. It is really important that our approach to food is embedded right the way across the school curriculum, whether that is children planting their own vegetables in schools or designing their own menus. That is why, as part of our consultation, we have been listening to young people’s voices. Young people will continue to be at the forefront of our new school menus.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has done to secure that new hub in Cotmanhay. All the evidence shows that children who start school on the backfoot find it much harder to catch up. The Conservatives gutted Sure Start and let school readiness flatline, but this Government want the best start for every child. That is why we are setting a stretching target for record proportions of children to be ready for school, and why we are transforming early education and family support services with record investment and a strategic focus that has long been lacking.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Olivia Bailey
That is a critical question. This Government are determined to give every child the best start in life, and we are backing that commitment with record investment of £9.5 billion in early years. We have a huge ambition for the whole early years infrastructure, including Best Start family hubs and our early education and childcare review.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I recently visited the Chances family hub—[Interruption.] It is indeed a very fine hub, one of several set up by Cumberland council to fill a need left by the Conservatives’ short-sighted decision to abolish Sure Start. Will the Minister please assure Carlisle families that this Government will ensure that all family hubs receive the support they need to give children the best start?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for all of her hard work on behalf of her constituents, and join her in congratulating her council on its work. She is right to condemn the outrageous cuts to Sure Start under the Conservative party, and she is also right that councils and voluntary organisations have stepped up to fill the gap. This Government will have their back, not just through our £900 million investment—£3 million of which will go to Cumberland—but by driving the reforms needed to link up services and reconnect our communities.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Pride Month
Olivia Bailey Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—
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.
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(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
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)
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
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)
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
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)
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)
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Olivia Bailey Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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
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.
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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]