Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Sadik Al-Hassan Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

Lords amendment 105 is named Benedict’s law for Benedict Blythe, who was just five years old when he suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction at school after being exposed to allergens. No child should go to school in the morning feeling anxious that they will not be safe, and no parent should fear at drop-off that they may never pick up their child again, but that was the unfortunate reality for Helen and Peter Blythe. Since that day, they have fought to make sure that every child is safer in school. Benedict’s law would ensure that every school has a mandatory allergy policy and holds spare adrenalin medications on site, and that every member of staff is trained and knows how to protect children. One in three schools in our country currently has none of those things, but we would not have known that if it was not for Helen’s campaigning for the Benedict Blythe Foundation. That is why this law is needed.

I offer my thanks to the Government. The statutory guidance to which they have committed is a real step forward, and today’s announcement that the Government will accept our amendment by tabling it in the Government’s name is welcome. It finishes the job, and means that full protections will finally be in place. Every measure that protects a child with allergies is a good thing, and I am so relieved that we have reached this point. I drafted the Benedick Blythe amendment last September, and I pay tribute to Harry Warren and my team, with whom I have campaigned throughout this time. When the amendment was put to the Lords, the Government whipped their peers to vote against it. I thank every noble Lord who voted for it, because they brought us here today.

The Government had told me that legislation was not needed. When the guidance was announced, we welcomed it, but we said that it did not go far enough. That is why we pushed our amendment to a vote. We are glad the Government now recognise that the guidance does not go far enough, largely because we were determined to push the amendment to a vote. We will need to see the wording of the amendment as soon as possible, because in the Lords we learned that guidance can be given and guidance can be taken away. There was a view that a threat of losing what little had been offered would deter Helen Blythe, and that misjudged her entirely. I am willing to draw a line under this, but I put it on the record that I want the Government to maintain their resolve and make sure the amendment is laid, because on Tuesday last week we received a letter telling all of us in this place that the amendment would be voted down and was not needed. On Friday, that was still the Government’s position, which is why they missed the deadline to lay their own amendment.

I want to turn to the financing of this amendment. The Government do not plan to provide funding to schools for the medications needed to protect children having anaphylactic shock. That is not the right approach. It currently costs the taxpayer about £9 million to provide the additional adrenalin auto-injectors prescribed to children to take into school individually. By altering the distribution method, as the Benedict Blythe Foundation has recommended, the new measures in Benedict’s law could save the Treasury £1 million a year. Just as with defibrillators, which the Conservative Government funded for all schools, we are asking the Government to fund medications to save the taxpayer money. These savings are before we consider the estimated £1.5 million saved by reducing A&E and hospital admissions, improvements in school attendance and parental workforce participation. I ask the Government to look at that again as they draft the amendment for the Lords.

I want to close by paying tribute to Helen Blythe. Her asks have really been very simple:

“Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”.

That is why we come to this place—to protect those who need us—and I am so proud to have been able to stand beside Helen in her fight. I ask colleagues today to hold Benedict in their hearts tonight. I know that today is a good day, but such a promise will only be worthy of him when it is kept and when children become safer in our schools.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

As a father of two young boys, I want to be clear that I have approached these Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment 38, not only as a legislator, but as a parent. I have seen at first hand the pressures that social media places on children, and I have considered this matter with the utmost care.

To date, I have received 1,309 emails from residents across North Somerset calling for immediate action to raise the age of social media access to 16. That makes this campaign one of the largest I have seen since my election. The consensus is clear: parents, teachers and almost everyone who works with young people want to see meaningful change, including the Gladiator Steel—I am sure no one wants to mess with him. Social media was sold to us as a tool for connection—a way to stay close to friends and family, to find community and to share in each other’s lives—but that promise has been broken.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Government already had an opportunity to raise the age of digital consent from 13 to 16 with the amendments put forward to the Data (Use and Access) Bill by the Liberal Democrats, but they are dithering yet again while children could have been benefiting from that change. Why does the hon. Member think the Government are continuing to dither on this issue?

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I will talk about that in a second, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s patience.

Social media was sold to us in that way, but these platforms have been driven not by connection, but by engagement algorithms optimised purely for profit—something altogether more troubling. Parents such as me are locked in a daily battle, which they simply cannot win alone, of fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked. This is not just my experience. A 2024 report found that 78% of young people have experienced at least one form of online harm—body shaming, harassment, non-consensual sharing of sexualised images—or been publicly outed. As a pharmacist, I know that if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78% of young people, it would be withdrawn, reformulated or placed behind the counter with strict controls on who could access it. We would act because that is what the evidence demanded, and the same logic must apply here. We have an identifiable source, we have overwhelming evidence of harm and we have the power to act.

Big tech companies are billion-dollar corporations that have built their business models on capturing the attention of young people for as long as possible. If we are serious about holding these companies to account, we should go further. I urge the Government to consider a windfall tax on social media companies, so that those who have profited from the exploitation of children begin to pay for the damage they have caused. Like the tobacco industry before them, these companies knew their product was harmful and took steps to make it more harmful and more addictive, but then denied responsibility for the consequences. We do not accept that argument from tobacco companies, and we should not accept it from big tech either.

The revenue raised could make a real difference. Youth centres have closed, and the pubs and community spaces that once gave young people somewhere to go and something to belong to have disappeared. Mental health services are overwhelmed. Education support is stretched. A generation has been harmed and the companies that profited from that harm should contribute to repairing it. That is why I welcome this debate today and any discussion on raising the digital age of consent, regulating social media and, crucially, holding big tech to account.

I understand the urgent call for action, to put our boot on the neck of big tech companies that have hurt an entire generation and put our children at risk—I share that desire completely—but I also understand that we need to get this right. It is relatively straightforward to identify what change is needed. The harder and more important question is how we make those changes in a way that is enforceable, durable and genuinely protective of children. A well-intentioned measure that cannot be properly implemented or enforced helps no one. We must learn from Australia’s model. The world is watching. Our teachers, parents and healthcare professionals are watching. Our children depend on what we decide in this Chamber today, tomorrow and in the future. Their opportunities, hopes, and dreams are in the balance, so we have to get this right—for them.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

There is now overwhelming evidence that addictive algorithms and harmful content are deeply damaging to our children’s wellbeing. We Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment 38, which would ban social media for under-16s, although our preference is for online regulation with film-style age rating of user-to-user services.

While the Government dither and delay, children across the country are being exposed to deeply harmful content every single day. I have spoken many times about the saturation of pro-eating disorder content that children view on social media, but the harms do not stop there. Social media is increasingly acting as a marketplace for the illicit drug trade. Researchers at the University of Bath have found that up to a quarter of vapes confiscated in secondary schools contained the deadly drug Spice. The Government’s own data reveals an eightfold increase in young people entering treatment for Spice in 2024-25.

How are young people getting their hands on these dangerous drugs? Through social media. Researchers have identified nearly 10,000 accounts involved in the supply and distribution of Spice, using TikTok as a means of communicating and advertising to children. Ofcom agreed that the content is “priority illegal content”. However, it declined to use its powers under the Online Safety Act 2023. We are facing a shocking reality. Children, right now, can buy the most dangerous prison drugs on mainstream social media: Snapchat, TikTok, Telegram. If Ofcom will not step up and the Government will not make it, what choice do we have but to prevent children accessing these platforms altogether?

The Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 38 and 39 completely miss the point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) outlined. The Government must act now to stop children being exposed to illegal and harmful content online. We cannot allow endless inquiries, consultations and delays to stand in the way.

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Sadik Al-Hassan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Diolch, Gadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate on the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities.

My constituents, Glyngwyn and Iona Foulkes, have been directly affected by this issue, as they tragically lost their daughter to suicide in 2020. Mared Foulkes was a conscientious and high-achieving second-year pharmacy student at Cardiff University. On 8 July 2020, she committed suicide after receiving incorrect exam results. This error led Mared to believe that she could not progress into her third year of studies. By the time the university had sent her the correct exam results, Mared had taken her own life.

Mared had had a clear career path since her time at Ysgol David Hughes secondary school. All she ever wanted to be was a pharmacist. She worked at local pharmacies during school and university holidays. She became a peer guide for other students, and she participated in voluntary work at a hospital in the Philippines during her time at university. Sadly, all her dreams and aspirations ended on receiving those incorrect exam results.

Many people assume that universities already have a clear legal responsibility to look after students’ wellbeing, particularly where risks are known or foreseeable. However, the extent of any such responsibility remains unclear, and guidance and best practice across the sector are inconsistent. Sadly, this inconsistency results in a postcode lottery in the quality and accessibility of mental health care and other services.

As public services and universities struggle, the line of responsibility becomes blurred and our young people fall through the gaps. Too many young lives have been lost to suicide, and I believe that something concrete now needs to be done to safeguard them.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

As a pharmacist, I remember when this news came out. My entire sector shares the grief of the family for the loss of a potentially amazing pharmacist. Does the hon. Member agree that pharmacy is a little lesser because of it?

[Llinos Medi]

I totally agree. The importance of today’s debate is that Mared’s name is recorded here and is always in our minutes and in our memories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on leading it; I also pay tribute to the families who have brought their tragic stories to hon. Members, which have informed the debate. That is how serious problems, such as the lack of consistent safeguarding for students, are brought to public awareness, and it is how change happens.

The themes that have come up today show a clear pattern and demonstrate the challenge across the whole United Kingdom. The main theme was the lack of consistency in safeguarding and care. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe was eloquent in making his case that deciding the law through litigation, not legislation, causes uncertainty and distress for families. Equally, some of the difficulties that exist—such as the need to recognise that students are adults with their own autonomy and responsibility, while parents obviously want to help their children in young adulthood—were also set out well.

University should be a rich and rewarding experience for every student. University is when so many young people have a chance to grow, learn more about their passions inside and outside the lecture hall, and decide what they want to do in future. It is when many young people begin to discover who they want to become.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Here with us in the Public Gallery is John, a constituent of mine from Nailsea. John’s beloved son Max devastatingly lost his life to suicide in 2017, at just 23. Max’s mental health difficulties emerged while he was studying for an economics degree at the University of Edinburgh. Tragically, Max is not alone. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a crisis of care in universities, and that we need a funded statutory duty of care to protect other students like Max?

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that very sad story. I reiterate that I know the bravery that it takes for families to share these stories, and the importance of hon. Members repeating them so that we can fully understand this problem. Although my party’s position is not yet fully established on whether we need a statutory duty, we certainly need to do a lot better than we are right now.

As well as being an exciting time, university can be when young people are at their most vulnerable. Universities have several legal duties, including health and safety legislation to ensure that they minimise accidents and injuries on campus. There is the basic maintenance needed to ensure that buildings and public spaces are safe, and in recent years we have seen universities take more seriously the task of offering mental health services to students and making sure that there is help available.

The proportion of students with a mental health condition has increased from less than 1% in 2010 to 5.8% in 2022, and the Office for Students has recorded an average of 160 suicides a year among students between 2016 and 2023, which is an extraordinary statistic. Like other colleagues here today, I have been contacted by constituents whose families have been affected by this awful trauma. One told me about a relative who committed suicide as an undergraduate. Legal proceedings against the university found that it had failed to make the changes needed to support the student in question. As we have heard today, my constituent is not alone, and so many others have not had the help that they needed during a critical time in their life.

These are often complex cases, but universities are obliged to find ways of addressing common problems experienced by students struggling with their mental health. Some students need help to cope with the stress of workloads and exam pressure, moving away from home for the first time, losing touch with friendship circles and family, as well as financial pressures, as we have heard during this debate. In those moments of crisis, universities can and must help.

It is also very much the job of universities to make their campus as safe as possible from criminal behaviour. The Office for Students found that 14% of surveyed students reported being a victim of sexual violence, and one in four students reported being a victim of sexual harassment. While this obviously reflects wider social problems, universities must still put in place sufficient preventive security measures and offer support for victims of these very serious crimes.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Sadik Al-Hassan Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. As a SEND parent myself, and an MP who has received extensive correspondence and held many face-to-face meetings on this issue, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the topic. The issues around SEND affect some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Too often our debates, reviews and policy considerations on this matter are disproportionately centred around the cost implications for local authorities and educational institutions. Families in North Somerset must routinely fight hard to obtain the special educational provision their children need, and that the law says they should have, and keep fighting to hold on to it.

After previous years of underfunding of the system, however, the SEND system is now in dire need of change. But that cannot come at the cost of any child’s future. We cannot have changes that mean that any child is worse off, has less of an education or less of a chance at a successful and happy life. Families in North Somerset are telling me that they are fearful and that even though support as it stands is inconsistent and often delayed, changes to SEND legal rights would leave families and their children with even less.

It is crucial that we focus on the human impact rather than the numerical bottom line. Every child deserves the support they need to succeed, and it is our legal and moral obligation to ensure that they receive it.