Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Toby Perkins and Laura Trott

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend is completely right. We need that age limit, and we need the phone ban in schools. Polling out today shows that 40% of children are shown explicit content during the school day. That is happening right now. This is an emergency. No more guidance; no more consultations—the Government should legislate, do something about it, and vote to ban phones in schools tonight.

The Lords amendments on social media received overwhelming cross-party backing in the other place. They were put forward by the noble Lords Nash, Berger, Cass and Benjamin. The amendments have been extensively debated and are backed by a number of expert groups and bereaved parents. In the place of those amendments, we have the farcical situation where the Government are asking the House to support their own amendment, which does not tell us what the Government will do or even when they will do it. No action is required by the provision being put forward this evening.

[Mr Perkins]

The shadow Secretary of State has been speaking a bit tonight about parental choice. That is, until this amendment, where she does not believe parents are able to decide what their children should do. In fact, she believes that she is far better placed, as are many Members in the House of Lords who do not know how to take a photo on their phone, to tell people how to parent their children. Does she acknowledge that many parents recognise that their children have positive experiences on social media? Is it not sensible to have a consultation, as the Government have already announced, to hear from experts, from children and from all the people who have opinions on this issue, rather than legislating at great haste and making a huge difference to many young people’s lives?

[Laura Trott]

This is a safeguarding issue, and we have always taken steps when it comes to safeguarding young people. Let me be clear to Labour Members: the Government can choose to do nothing based on this amendment. Ministers do not have a view on whether social media should be banned, and they have put forward an amendment that does not tell us what they will do. It is extraordinary.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Toby Perkins and Laura Trott

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I rise to speak on a piece of legislation that poses more risks than benefits and proves that there is not parity of esteem for technical and academic qualifications within the Government. The Secretary of State is putting forward a Bill that allows her personally to write each apprenticeship assessment. Just in case you think I am exaggerating, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can see it in the explanatory notes. The Bill provides

“the option for each standard and apprenticeship assessment plan to be prepared by the Secretary of State”.

Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine the outcry if this was done with history GCSEs? If it were a Conservative Government taking these powers, there would be howls of outrage from the Labour party. It is extraordinary that the Government are, contrary to the words of the Secretary of State today, cutting out employers and giving sole discretion to the Secretary of State. They would not allow it with academic qualifications; we must not allow it with vocational ones.

I acknowledge the statement made in the other place about clarifying the situations when the Government envisage the Secretary of State intervening, but the specific criteria for using this power should be on the face of the Bill. At the moment, the Secretary of State has carte blanche to do whatever she likes, and we know from the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that that is a very bad idea. Can the Minister confirm that there will be some restrictions, and will the Government put those on the face of the Bill?

The Bill is another manifestation of the Department for Education’s centralisation spree. As with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, everything must be controlled by the Secretary of State, and no innovation is allowed. The Bill abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—shortened to IfATE—and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State, in effect absorbing them into the Department for Education. The Government say that they will set up Skills England, but there are no details on the plans for Skills England in the Bill, or on how the Government’s proposed changes to the funding of skills-based qualifications will work in practice.

Simply creating a new agency will not address any of the issues that we need to address within the skills system. Even putting aside my severe doubts about the wisdom of progressing down this road in the first place, the very least the Government could provide the House with is some information on Skills England itself in the Bill. The only thing we know from debates in the other place—the Secretary of State has confirmed it today—is that Skills England will not be on a statutory footing and therefore will unquestionably be less independent than IfATE. Can the Secretary of State explain why this is an improvement?

This matters because the framework document published in the autumn is, at best, vague and, at worst, silent on the role of employers. There are some statements in the section on aims saying that employers will be engaged in the preparation of occupational standards, but it does not say how. Does the Secretary of State think that she knows better than employers? I urge her to explain why employers are so much less visible in the framework document, or to agree to amend the Bill. Reducing the role of employers will harm the apprenticeship system.

The change will also create unnecessary turmoil in the skills system. A cross-party amendment was passed in the other place to try to minimise the impact that this uncertain upheaval will have. The amendment will delay the provisions of the Bill to ensure that Skills England has time to set up before taking on its role and to ensure that the administrative duties do not get in the way of providing quality apprenticeships. That seems the bare minimum of what we would expect, and I hope the Government will not oppose that amendment, because to do so would be absurd.

The skills system needs a stable landscape, but the Bill presents real risks with no obvious benefits: risks that the Government will erode standards in our skills system by removing the relationship with the employer and replacing it with diktat from the Secretary of State; risks of poor leadership by replacing a good organisation, which is liked by employers and apprentices, with an unknown and undefined body.

[Mr Perkins]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady. She seems to be evangelising the role of IfATE, but I have heard far stronger criticisms of it than she appears to make. Is her position that IfATE does not have many faults and should carry on the way it is, or does she think that the organisation’s remit has grown and is vague, and most employers feel that it is a block to getting the standards they need, rather than the vehicle for that, as she seems to suggest?

[Laura Trott]

I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and thought his earlier question was spot on. There is much that needs to be improved, but that is much less vague than Skills England, which is what we have in front of us at the moment. There are risks of distraction, with the time and cost involved in creating a new agency in the Department for Education. If the Government were serious about progressing quickly with the urgent strategic issues that I accept are needed in skills reform, the most effective step would be to build on the success of IfATE, rather than dismantling it. Instead, the Bill threatens to undo much of the progress made under successive Conservative Governments in building a world-class apprenticeships and technical education system. It is fiddling for no reason, change for no purpose and, as is so often the case with this Government, the opposite of what is required.