Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott]

There is a huge coalition of charities backing a ban. We have tried to police content online, and it has not worked, but we know that policing age will work and make a difference. This is urgent; there is no time for delay. Real harm is happening and children are dying. We must act, and a ban is the most effective way to do that.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Let me try again with the question that I put to the Minister. We have the opportunity today to carry a motion tabled in the other House that would introduce the ban. The can is being kicked down the road. We cannot have consultation indefinitely. The question on the consultation paper is not, “How do we do this?”, but, “Shall we do it?” That is not necessary—am I right?

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Action this day—that is what is required, and that is what we are pushing for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

The House of Lords has identified clear gaps and proposed practical solutions, and has sent improvements back to us. The Lords has acted to put in place clear safeguards, and the Government respond by stripping them out and pressing ahead regardless. Let us take Lords amendment 38. The Lords were clear that they required action to protect children from harm online, including stronger age assurance and a clear expectation of progress within 12 months. The Government have chosen to strip that out, and replace it with a broad power to make regulations at some future point. If the Government agree that there is a problem, and Ministers clearly do, why remove the mechanism that would ensure something is actually done about it?

Similarly, Lords amendment 102 was straightforward. It said that high-performing schools delivering good outcomes and in demand from parents should not have their admission numbers reduced unless that decision is necessary and proportionate. The Government have rejected that safeguard. Instead, they offer softer language, asking the adjudicator to “have regard” to certain factors, but “have regard” is not a protection. It does not guarantee that parental preference will carry any weight. I ask the Minister directly: why remove a clear safeguard for high-performing schools and replace it with something that offers far less certainty? Why take out measures that provide clarity, certainty and protection, and replace them with looser powers and softer language? Once again, we see the same approach—sensible safeguards that have been put forward are being swept aside by this Government. That is why I cannot support the Government’s position at this stage, and why I urge Ministers to think again.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I have a very personal interest in this: I have five grandchildren, ranging in age from 15 to nine, and there are another five Ukrainian children in roughly the same age group living with my family. I want to see all of those young people protected. I understand peer pressure only too well. I understand that if one child has a smartphone, every child has to have a smartphone, or they feel left out. However, I know from all the surveys that have been carried out that the overwhelming majority of young people are crying out for guidelines, and for the ban that will make them all feel the same, and not feel excluded.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, we have the opportunity in the House of Commons, through this vehicle that is available to us, to take action this day, not in three months’ time, six months’ time or two years’ time. If we do not take this opportunity, a generation of young people will suffer, and we will be responsible. There is no need for that to happen.

Geriatric though I may be, I understand the difference in definition between a smartphone and a brick phone. It is perfectly possible for any child who has to have a phone to have a brick phone, at very modest cost, so that they can communicate on medically essential matters, or if there are caring issues. That is not a problem. We are not talking about brick phones; we are talking about smartphones.

[Helen Hayes]

I hesitate to intervene, but I think the right hon. Member perhaps has not understood that children with a modern hearing aid, for example, use an application on a smartphone, which cannot be put on to a brick phone. That necessitates having a smartphone in the classroom.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I do understand what the hon. Lady is saying. Those cases are very few and far between, and there can always be exceptions, where they are medically necessary. I do not believe that is a problem. I am saying to the Minister that we have an opportunity today to legislate. Do not prevaricate; do it!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Patience is a virtue, and as we have made up time, the final Back-Bench speaker will get five minutes. I call Damian Hinds.