Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons in the Lords
The Lords considered Commons responses to Lords amendments on child protection plans, home education consent, sibling contact, online safety, school uniforms, admission numbers and allergy safety, dividing on home education, social media age restrictions and school admissions.
B(opened the debateBaroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)Lab17:16 HansardThe Government cannot accept Lords Amendment 2 on discharging child protection plans: a multi-agency meeting is already required in statutory guidance before any plan ends, and Ofsted inspects on this. We will strengthen the guidance to require reasons and ongoing support to be recorded. On Amendment 5, delaying the pathfinder evaluation before Clause 3 multi-agency child protection teams come into force is unacceptable — effective safeguarding cannot wait. Interim findings will be published this summer and regulations are not expected until 2027. On Amendment 44 and Motion K1 in lieu, children withdrawn from school who are subject to current or recent child protection plans are almost all already caught by the Bill's consent requirement or are looked-after children whose education is decided by the local authority. We have already extended consent to children who have been on a plan in the last five years and extended the school attendance order power accordingly.My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, K and K1. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school. For each, I will set out the rationale for why the Government cannot accept these amendments. I will speak first to Motion A relating to Amendment 2, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection plans for under-fives when care proceedings are initiated or a care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin, the child protection plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision. The Ofsted inspection framework reflects this statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable. This is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded. We expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans ending. These teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know the circumstances of the child well, so they are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children’s services should get involved only when needed, this is already provided for in the statutory framework. Motion B relates to Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requiring that the Secretary of State delay an evaluation of the families first for children pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency child protection team measures come into force. Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs…
These Benches are not minded to oppose the Government's proposals, but we are putting them on notice that we will continue to watch progress and hold them to the reassurances they have given.My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I thank the Minister in her absence for the meetings we have had away from your Lordships’ Chamber. Clearly, protecting our young people is close to all our hearts and is something that we will keep a watching brief on. We have looked at the Government’s proposals. Early on, when I arrived at your Lordships’ House, I worked with the Children’s Commissioner and a briefing was sent to all noble Lords in June last year about something I was trying to bring forward on Report to try to make young people’s lives better. On that occasion, I failed to convince noble Lords on both the main two Benches and, as we live in a democracy, I chose not to pursue that. I wish the Government well with their intentions. Clearly, as the opposition here—the smaller opposition—our duty will be to continue to hold the Government to account on the reassurances they have given us in briefings and, more importantly, on what they have written to us both from your Lordships’ House and the other place. These Benches are not minded to oppose what the Government are proposing, but we are putting them on notice that we will continue to watch the progress and we wish this Bill well.
Motion K1 seems the very way of tightening oversight without penalising adoptive parents — that is the crux of it. As the Bill stands, a local authority cannot require a child who left care three years ago to attend school, but it can for a child who came off a child protection plan three years ago. That makes no sense at all. I implore the Government to accept this.My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion K1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for our very useful meeting yesterday, and, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state school teacher. When we talked to the Bill team yesterday, I thought that they almost seemed to use the language of this amendment. As we have heard, the Sara Sharif review says that the overview is at fault, not the system; but this amendment seems the very way of tightening oversight without, as has been mentioned, penalising adoptive parents and children, where the concern was about a previous iteration of their life. This seems to be the crux of the amendment. The Minister actually said the Bill says that “almost all” children fall within the Bill. I think this tightens it up, so hopefully all children will fall within the purview of this Bill. Moreover, it seems to me that, in the Bill as it stands, the local authority could not require a child who left local authority care and returned to their family, say, three years ago, to attend school, while they could for a child who came off child protection three years ago. I do not understand that at all. At the moment, I am not clear about the Bill as it stands. I think Motion K1 makes it much clearer, and I implore the Government to accept this.
Everything that can be done to put added pressure on making sure that children who are home educated are kept under proper supervision by local authorities is absolutely crucial. I vividly recall an appalling case in Liverpool where a continuing supervision order was utterly disregarded — the Director of Social Services seemed to think it did not really matter.My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has just said. As a family judge, I had a number of cases where children had been on protection orders—and, in particular, supervision orders—and I vividly recall an appalling case in Liverpool where there was a continuing supervision order that was utterly disregarded. I called the Director of Social Services to explain it, and she was absolutely thinking that it did not really matter; so everything that can be done to put added pressure on making sure that children who are home educated are kept under proper supervision by local authorities seems to me to be absolutely crucial.
The pathfinder model in selected family courts has been a success and has reduced delays significantly by focusing on the child rather than parental disputes. The very recently announced expansion into child-focused courts will be welcome and we should not delay moving this forward.My Lords, I will confine myself briefly to supporting Motion B. It is commonly agreed now that the pilots of the pathfinder model in selected family courts have been a success and represent the way ahead. This model has been shown to reduce delays significantly and has forced the focus on to making things better for the child concerned, rather than on the parents’ disputes and confrontations. That model has developed sufficiently well, in that the delay in moving it on into the mainstream should really now be avoided. It means that the very recently announced expansion into child-focused courts will be welcome.
The Bill's scope is clearly too limited even with the five-year backward extension for child protection plans. Nearly three-quarters of children in care have special educational needs, their parents' capacity has already been shown to be inadequate, and once a child is home-schooled it may not be seen by any adult from outside the family for years. There should be local authority consideration of proposals to home-educate any child who has ever been in care, had a supervision order or been under a child protection plan.My Lords, I will o speak to Motion K1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. The Government are rightly acting to give local authorities the power to prevent children subject to a child protection plan being withdrawn from school. However, the scope of the Bill is clearly too limited, even with the amendment to give effect to a backward extension of five years for child protection plans. I will briefly remind noble Lords of the characteristics of the children we are talking about. Clearly, they have all experienced abuse or neglect, but even apart from this we are talking about an exceptionally vulnerable group. Nearly three-quarters of children in care have special educational needs—often conditions they were born with that can make them particularly challenging to bring up and to educate—and often complicated physical or behavioural needs as well. Alongside that, these are children of parents whose ability to care for and protect their own children has already been shown to be inadequate, at least for a time. Even after a care order or child protection plan has been discharged, these are, in the main, children with serious challenges and complicated needs, whose parents have limited capacity. They are very often fragile families needing a lot of support and with a strong likelihood of further social care intervention being needed in future. Therefore, there should be local authority consideration of proposals to home-educate any child who has been in care, had a supervision order or is under a child protection plan: first, to make sure that the child will actually get the education and support they need at home; and, secondly, to make sure that the child can safely be removed from view. Once a child is home-schooled, it may not be seen by any adult from outside the family for years. That may have been exactly the thing that was keeping that fragile family in balance.
I am pleased Motion K1 carves out adoption — requiring a family to jump through a bureaucratic hoop for a child adopted at two, ten years later, would be wrong. But adopted children are not the only ones inappropriately caught. I know of a boy whose mother placed him on a care plan precisely to help speed the arrest of the father who had raped him — that family is not the same family it was. How will the Government ensure that adopted children and others like him are not retraumatised by this process? And how will you make sure that, in the regulations, the response is truly proportionate — recognising that the vast majority of home educators are reluctant ones who deserve to be treated as parents, not criminals?My Lords, I am pleased to see that, in Motion K1, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has reduced the issue to being about only Section 31 and that she has provided a carve-out, as it were, for adoption. Imagine if you adopted a two year-old who had been in care and, 10 years later, you have to jump through another bureaucratic hoop, so I am very pleased to see that. I am sorry that the Government do not have that provision within their current approach. When I raised this in an amendment—I think it was on Report—the Minister told me that in such a case, it would be a pure formality: that, in relation to an adopted child, the local authority would simply pass it through. In your Lordships’ House, we all know that what is a formality for the local authority can be a real worry and threat for the individuals involved. It is a threat of people passing judgment on them, and that is a really important point. However, this is not the only example of people who will be inappropriately caught within this amendment and within the Government’s current approach. I want to give one example, which is known to both the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Minister. It is of a young boy who was abused and raped by his father. With the permission of his mother, I will read out or paraphrase a short extract from an email she sent to the Government. At the time when the care plan was created for her son, she said, he “had made detailed disclosures of serious sexual abuse” to the mother, to four police officers, to two doctors and a social worker “yet the police had still not arrested the perpetrator and the family court offered … no protection”. Under those circumstances, she said, the chair of the initial child protection conference agreed with herself, a doctor, a nurse and a police liaison officer that he should be placed on a care plan “until his rapist had been arrested. This was done, and, I suspect, helped to speed up the arrest”, she said. This seems to be yet another classic ca…
Without my amendment, the Government's own Secretary of State's promise — that "the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests" — will not be kept. Sara Sharif was on a child protection plan at birth but never again; there were two sets of failed care proceedings. She is precisely the child the Bill should be thinking about. Two children, one returned from care three years ago and one off a child protection plan three years ago — the local authority can act on the second but not the first. I find it extraordinary that Ministers' letter sent last night does not mention children in care or care proceedings anywhere. Outside this place, people will judge us not by what we said but by what we did.My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments regarding Motion A and the commitment to strengthen statutory guidance, and for the publication of interim findings in relation to Motion B for the multi-agency child protection teams. To the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I say that there are multiple pathfinders, and the one to which he referred—the one he was worried that my amendment might delay—was a different pathfinder from the one to which my amendment referred. It is easy to be confused with so many paths going on. I turn to my Motion K1, and again acknowledge that the Government have done the right thing by introducing a new power for local authorities to withhold consent to home-educate a child where there are significant safeguarding concerns. Noble Lords know that we spent time testing the limits of what these concerns might be, in Committee and on Report, to ensure that they are proportionate. That has been informed in part by the tragic death of Sara Sharif, whose father took her out of school. As we heard, in response to our debates, the Government broadened their initial definition of children who are eligible. Then, on Report, we tested the appetite of the House for a much wider scope, but this was rejected in the other place. Last night we all received a letter from Ministers that covered the response to the Sara Sharif safeguarding practice review. I have read the letter several times. I find it extraordinary that, although I explained to the Minister on Monday that my amendment would simply cover children who had been in the care system, there is no mention of those children or my amendment anywhere in the letter—unless I missed it. Either officials and Ministers do not understand the significance of care proceedings, which I find very hard to believe—particularly of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today—or there is no political will to engage with this subject. I feel uncomfortable saying this in the House but, reading the letter, that is what it feels…
- We will strengthen expectations for reasons to be recorded when child protection plans are discharged. On Motion K1, children subject to care or supervision proceedings would almost certainly already be caught by the consent requirement through a child protection plan, or would be looked-after children. Using historic Section 31 orders as a blanket trigger could unfairly brand families long after risks have reduced. The Sara Sharif review highlighted long-term multi-agency failings — extending consent to all children ever subject to supervision proceedings was not actually a recommendation. Should it become clear that extending consent to children subject to care or supervision proceedings would substantially strengthen protection, we would of course be open to considering how that could be delivered.
My Lords, I am exceptionally grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I recognise the commitment and contribution they have all made during the passage of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for not pursuing any of the points further, as he said. To address the main points raised, as I said in my opening speech, I fully recognise the importance of what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve with Amendment 2 on the discharge of child protection plans. I hope I have provided reassurance that, although the statutory framework already requires robust multi-agency oversight of child protection plans, we will strengthen expectations for reasons to be recorded.
- Can you acknowledge that in Sara Sharif's case and the 41 home-educated children who were killed or seriously harmed, the current system clearly did not work — and that this small but important loophole could be closed by my amendment?
Can the noble Baroness acknowledge that in the case of Sara Sharif and many other children—she will be aware of the report into the 41 children who were home-educated and were either killed or seriously harmed—the current system clearly does not work and that this small but important loophole could be closed by my amendment? I would be grateful if she could confirm that that is this case.
- I cannot express my sadness enough, but the provisions we are bringing in will be sufficient as we move forward. I am confident the Minister in the other place responded in meticulous detail.
I cannot express my sadness enough about the issues that the noble Baroness raises, but I am seeking to reassure her and the House that the provisions we are bringing in will be sufficient as we move forward. That is the issue. I think the Minister she referred to from the conversation on Monday was the Minister in the other place, not me. I am sorry that she is not satisfied with the letter, but I know that he went into meticulous detail and I am confident that he responded.
- The meticulous detail in the letter did not refer anywhere to children in care or those who had been in care proceedings — only to my previous amendment and children classified as being in need.
I am sorry, but the meticulous detail in the letter did not refer anywhere to children in care or those who had been in care proceedings. It referred to my previous amendment and children who were classified as being in need. I will let the noble Baroness progress.
- The £55 million adoption and special guardianship support fund is confirmed for 2026–27 with continuation into 2027–28, and a 12-week public consultation on adoption support is already under way — a review as proposed in Amendment 16 could inhibit balanced consideration of those responses. On sibling contact, Amendment 17 would not alter duties on local authorities, so instead the Government proposes Amendment 17B in lieu, adding siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989, making clear that looked-after children must have reasonable contact with whole, half and step-siblings, consistent with their welfare — the same duty that already exists for contact with parents. On Amendment 21 and deprivation of liberty, a national programme is under way backed by £15.5 million of DfE funding over three years, with pilots testing integrated, joined-up working and pooled budgets.
My Lords, I beg to move Motion C and shall speak also to Motions D, E, F and F1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, sibling contact, regional co-operation arrangements and deprivation of liberty. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments. I will speak to Motion C, relating to Amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerning a proposed review of the per-child funding level for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Government have confirmed £55 million for the support fund in 2026-27, with continuation into 2027-28. A 12-week public consultation on adoption support is under way, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses. We therefore cannot accept this. Motion D relates to Amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, the amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities. There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between a looked-after child and any sibling with whom they are not living. This is why the Government do not support this amendment. Instead, we propose Amendment 17B in lieu, to add siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations on local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole, half and step-siblings where this is consistent with their welfare: a duty that already exists for contact between children in care and their parents. I acknowledge Liberal Democrat Peers’ constructive engagement, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and ac…
Amendment 17B in lieu is a major step forward — it lifts the sibling contact duty from the schedule into Section 34 of the Children Act 1989, giving it the same weight as contact with parents. I have heard directly from care-experienced young people about the crushing impact of losing contact with siblings — sometimes the only people who share what they have been through. Getting this on the face of the Bill is a lifelong bond recognised in law. On deprivation of liberty, I would be grateful if the Government confirm the £15.5 million DfE funding and commit to providing the House with regular updates on the programme's outcomes.My Lords, I will speak to Motion D and briefly to Motion F. I place on record the fact that I am extremely grateful to the Government for bringing forward Amendment 17B in lieu, in response to the amendments that I tabled in Committee and on Report. It is a major step forward in strengthening and protecting children in care’s relationships with their brothers and sisters, including half- and step-siblings. I am particularly grateful that the wording of the government amendment is broad and inclusive—something I very much support, as we discussed in earlier stages. I thank the Minister, Minister MacAlister and the Bill team for their very constructive engagement on this issue. Over the years, I have heard directly from care-experienced children and young people about the absolutely crushing impact of not having consistent or adequate contact with their siblings. Sometimes their siblings are the only other people who know, who understand, who have shared experiences of what they have been through and the emotional distress it has caused them. They are the ones who can provide mutual support; it is a lifelong bond. So this amendment is a really important step forward in ensuring that contact with siblings is given the same weight in legislation as contact with parents. Getting to this point has felt like a long journey. I place on record my heartfelt thanks to the colleagues across the House and in the other place who have supported us in getting through this process. I also thank two charities, Become and the Family Rights Group, for their unwavering support; they have campaigned on this issue for many years. It is vital that this change, which I hope we will see in legislation, drives practice so that all children who are separated from their siblings are supported in having the contact with their brothers and sisters that they need, whenever it is in their best interests to do so. I will be monitoring this with great care. I turn briefly to Motion F and the deprivat…
- The government amendment adding siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989 is a pleasant surprise and very much to be welcomed. It promotes a positive duty to allow contact between siblings, gives the court a say in the type and level of contact, and recognises in primary legislation the real significance of sibling relationships — particularly when siblings have been separated and have differing needs.
My Lords, I was going to be brief in agreeing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just said and in welcoming Motion D, because the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu, which relates to sibling contact, is to be welcomed; indeed, it is a pleasant surprise. It promotes the local authority’s duty from the schedule to the Children Act to Section 34 of the Act, and reinforces it as a positive duty to allow contact between siblings; at the same time, it gives the court a major say in the type of contact, the level of contact and how it should progress. Through their amendment, the Government have recognised in primary legislation the real significance of sibling relationships, particularly when siblings have to be separated and have differing needs. These are children whose parents have failed them, and the most important relationship left to them is with a sibling. The courts and legal professionals are familiar with the working of Section 34, which will now govern these cases, and the amendment will be a valuable, beneficial addition to it.
- I chaired a Select Committee on adoption and this sibling amendment is absolutely excellent. A 15-year-old boy with four younger siblings told us, 'No one tells me how my brothers and sisters are getting on — I brought them up.' The Government are very much to be congratulated.
My Lords, I chaired a Select Committee on adoption some years ago and very much welcome this sibling amendment. It is absolutely excellent. I remember we met a number of children who were in care. One boy of 15, with four younger brothers and sisters, said to us, “No one tells me how my brothers and sisters are getting on—I brought them up”. This is excellent, and the Government are very much to be congratulated on it.
- We warmly welcome the sibling contact amendment. On my Motion F1, the Minister promised that integrated care board involvement would be 'locked in from the outset' — if that is what the Government will do, alongside innovation funding for true integrated health and social care work, I look forward to seeing it in practice. The cost of ICBs not being at the table is borne by children: cases repeatedly delayed by health/social care disputes, placements that shift without any join-up, emergency services without up-to-date information.
My Lords, like other noble Lords, we very much welcome the Government’s amendment in relation to sibling contact and hope very much it makes a tangible difference in practice. I will speak briefly to my Motion F1, which relates to how we can provide the highest-quality care for the most vulnerable children: those who are deprived of their liberty. As we have already debated, this must involve the local authority and the integrated care board. The Minister will be very familiar with the difficulty of getting health to the table, even if the door is often held wide open by the local authority. But of course the cost of them not being there is borne by children, whose cases end up being repeatedly delayed because of disputes between health and social care as to who is responsible, who are moved from placement to placement without any join-up, and who attend emergency services without up-to-date information about their needs. My amendment would go some way to addressing this. However, I am encouraged by the Minister’s promise—which is what I wrote down in very large letters, anyway—that the integrated care board involvement would be “locked in from the outset”. If that is what the Government are going to do, and if the Government are going to create some innovation funding opportunities to see true integrated work between health and social care, then I am grateful to the Government and look forward to following how that develops in practice.
- The ongoing public consultation on adoption support has already received over 600 responses, so a further review is not needed. On sibling contact, adding siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989 is a huge step forward. On deprivation of liberty, relevant ICBs will be required to state their commitment when expressing interest in the next wave of regional care co-operatives — and financial incentives are an excellent way of moving this forward.
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her comments, and also say that I am totally confident she will keep a good check on how this goes forward. I am very appreciative of her role. The Government recognise the vital role of adopters and kinship carers and the need for timely, appropriate support. That is why we are continuing to fund the adoption and special guardianship support. The department is also consulting widely on the future of adoption support, with over 600 responses received already and consultation events planned after Easter. Therefore, with the ongoing work, we do not believe a further review is necessary. I note all of the comments from around the Chamber recognising the importance of the work we have done in adding siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act. I am sure that makes the Government’s commitment absolutely clear and I very much welcome the support of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We are committed to best practice in helping children to see their siblings; it is a huge step forward for the experience of so many young people. I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for highlighting through his Amendment 19 the importance of health involvement in the creation of regional co-operation arrangements. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I was very fortunate in having very good relationships with health colleagues, and I know through that the potential of when we get it right. I fully agree that integrated care boards need to move forward. The statutory mechanisms will be strengthened through the detailed guidance we will publish, alongside the expression of interest for the next wave of regional care co-operatives. I reiterate that this will require relevant ICBs to state their commitment as we go forward. I hope that gives noble Lords the reassurance they require. A financial incentive is an excellent wa…
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)Lab18:15 HansardLords Amendment 37 would prohibit under-18s from using VPNs; Amendment 38 would require the Chief Medical Officers to publish advice on children's social media use and mandate regulations banning under-16s from user-to-user services within 12 months. The Government will do more than this — we have already created new priority offences under the Online Safety Act and closed gaps for unregulated chatbots. Over 30,000 responses to our consultation have been received; we will respond by the end of summer and any regulations will require a vote in both Houses. The Government's amendments enable swift action on consultation findings through regulation-making powers. On Motion N and smartphone prohibition, the majority of schools already have effective policies; what changes pupil behaviour is enforcement backed by a whole-school approach. From April, Ofsted will inspect schools' mobile phone policies.My Lords, in speaking to Motion G, I will also speak to Motions G1, G2, N and N1. Lords Amendment 37 requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that prohibit under 18s from using VPNs. Amendment 38 requires the UK Chief Medical Officers to publish advice about children’s use of social media and requires us to make regulations to prevent under-16s from accessing user-to-user services within 12 months. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his continued commitment to these important issues. Protecting children online remains a priority for this Government. The noble Lord’s amendments require us to legislate for an under-16 ban on social media. Many noble Lords have declared that they do not support an under-16 ban but are supporting this amendment to push the Government to do more. I assure the House that the Government will do more, meaning there is no reason to support this amendment. The Online Safety Act introduced one of the most robust systems globally and we have already taken action to build on it. We have created new priority offences under the Act and we are closing gaps for unregulated chatbots. We know many people support a social media ban for under-16s, but other respected voices are concerned it is not the right approach. That is why the Government’s consultation is the responsible path forward. The consultation seeks views on the areas raised by the noble Lord’s Motion and beyond, including harms from gaming and AI chatbots. We have already received over 30,000 responses from experts, parents and young people. It is right we assess these properly, but we are clear we will take further action. Turning to VPNs, I understand the noble Lord’s concerns, but I believe that a consultation is the best way to consider the issue. We are determined to act swiftly on the issues once the consultation has concluded, and we will respond by the end of the summer. That is why we have tabled amendments enabling us to act quickly and decisively on its find…
We need a dual-track approach: put the onus squarely on companies to make their products safe using safety-by-design principles, and combine that with a minimum age of 16 for the most harmful platforms — written into law before the summer. The evidence of harm is unambiguous. A court in Los Angeles found today that Meta and Google were negligent and intentionally built addictive platforms; yesterday a New Mexico court fined Meta $375 million. The Government's 62-question consultation does not meet their own accessibility principles, lacks structured engagement for clinicians, social workers and police, and has no transparency about how evidence will be weighted. Amendments 38A and 38B commit the Government to absolutely nothing — they are a blank cheque with no definite timescale. I cannot stand here in six or twelve months with even more bereaved parents in the Public Gallery.My Lords, in moving Motion G1, concerning my social media amendment, as an amendment to Motion G, I will support the spirit of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I believe we need a dual-track approach. I pay tribute to those noble tech Lords, many of whom are here tonight, who worked so tirelessly on the Online Safety Act, but now it clearly needs updating and strengthening. Nobody could have foreseen the pace of technological change that has taken place in recent years. I believe that, in relation to children, we should have a dual-track approach to social media, which puts the onus squarely on the companies to make their products safe for children, as we would with any other product, using safety-by-design principles. I have been a director of tech companies in California. The Californian techies are some of the most able, innovative, entrepreneurial, wealth-creating and job-creating people in the world. However, in the cavalier approach that they have taken to harmful content online for our children, they have gone way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts. We need to act now in a way that is truly effective—and of course we know that many of these techies do not let their own children anywhere near social media. I do not need to spend much time talking about the clear evidence and causal link between social media and harm to our children, but I was horrified to hear the right honourable Liz Kendall say on the radio a few weeks ago that there is no proven causal link. Where has she been? This shows just how far behind the A ball the Government are in their thinking and why we can have no faith in the outcome of the consultation. I provided noble Lords with an evidence document compiled by health professionals and others, showing the harmful effects of social media from 50 examples. Every day, I receive more research from around the world from experienced academics, health professionals and others to the same effect. This includes…
I support Motion G1 and also urge the House to reject Amendments 38A and 38B on constitutional grounds: they give Ministers unacceptably wide Henry VIII powers — to amend any Act of Parliament, to set the age threshold by ministerial decision rather than Parliament, to restrict any internet service including news services and search engines, with no criteria based on harm, and with powers to impose curfews, time limits and biometric digital ID checks. No Executive should have the power to restrict access to the entire online space without clear limits defined in advance by Parliament in primary legislation.I support my noble friend Lord Nash and Motion G1 following his amazingly powerful speech. I also suggest that Commons Amendments 38A and 38B be rejected on constitutional grounds as they would give Ministers unacceptably wide Henry VIII powers. I declare my membership of the Constitution Committee, but of course I am not speaking on its behalf. I draw your Lordships’ attention to seven features of these amendments. First, there is the power to amend other Acts of Parliament. Secondly, powers are given to the Secretary of State to restrict access by children of an age to be determined by the Secretary of State. In other words, it is not for Parliament to determine the age. Thirdly, these amendments apply to any internet service, site, feature or functionality. It is not restricted to social media, which of course is my noble friend Lord Nash’s main objective. Rather, it applies to any internet service, including news services and search engines; that is unacceptably wide. Fourthly, and as importantly, nothing is said about the criteria on which these powers are to be exercised. There is no mention of harm, or of any rules or other constraints on the power of the Secretary of State. Fifthly, there are provisions that enable the Secretary of State, in effect, to impose curfews—one must not listen at night or at certain times of the day. Sixthly, there is the power to impose time limits, such as half an hour a day, 40 minutes or two hours. These are very wide powers. Finally, there are provisions about mandating digital ID checks and setting an age of consent somewhere between the ages of nine and 13. The essential point is that no Executive should have the power to restrict access to the entire online space, by children or anyone else, without clear limits defined in advance by Parliament in primary legislation, specifying in particular the age at which and the grounds on which such restrictions should apply, the limits of such restrictions and clear safeguards to pro…
The choice is between two options: Lord Nash's Amendments 37 and 38, which set out the nature and extent of changes in primary legislation with finer detail left to regulations — transparent, with the strongest form of parliamentary scrutiny — or the Government's Amendments 38A to 38D, which delegate to the Executive the nature and extent of the changes through sweeping Henry VIII powers, including power to modify the Online Safety Act, amend or repeal any primary legislation, and amend our data protection law. Secondary legislation can be debated but not amended — take it or leave it. The public need the reassurance that this seismic cultural change has been decided in primary legislation, not rushed through via delegated powers.My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy; I will reiterate the points that they have been making. The amendments pose the question of how best to make meaningful change to online safety law for our children. We must choose between two possible options. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, proposes in Amendments 37 and 38, is to make the changes through primary legislation, setting out the nature and extent of the changes to online safety in this Bill, with the finer details left to regulations. The second option, as the Government propose in Amendments 38A to 38D, is by delegating to the Executive the nature and extent of the changes to online safety by means of sweeping Henry VIII powers. These powers would enable Ministers to modify any provision of the Online Safety Act 2023, amend or repeal any provision of primary legislation to make consequential changes, and amend, repeal, revoke or modify any provision of our data protection legislation. The first option is transparent and gives the decision on the nature and extent of the changes to Parliament by means of the strongest method of scrutiny and accountability in our constitution—primary legislation. Those changes would have to be implemented by the Secretary of State within a boundary set by Parliament in the primary legislation. The second option requires blind faith that the Government will in fact do anything at all—and, if they do, it means accepting a lesser form of scrutiny and accountability in the form of secondary legislation, which can be debated but not amended. It is very much a “take it or leave it” approach to whatever the Government come up with. For example, the secondary legislation that the Government might at some point bring forward could provide that what is unsuitable for children on social media is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State, taking into account the extent to which the platform in question displa…
The Government's amendments commit to nothing — they buy time and the opportunity to push through a compromise half-measure with minimal parliamentary scrutiny via a Henry VIII clause. The cross-party amendment would raise the social media age to 16 within 12 months for the most harmful platforms — written into law before the summer. Every single day of delay, more children are harmed. We should not gamble with our children's lives.My Lords, although the Government’s amendments have been put forward as a signal of their determination to act, sadly they commit to nothing. They simply buy the Minister a bit more time and the opportunity, at some unknown moment in the future, to push through a compromise half-measure with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. I am appalled at this thought on this crucial issue. The Government are asking Peers to take a gamble on our children’s safety. They are placing their faith in a consultation that delivers nothing but more and more delay. Regulating social media companies and keeping our children safe online are among the most defining challenges of our time. That is why we should vote for the cross-party amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which would raise the age to 16 within 12 months for the most harmful platforms—to be written into law before the summer. It is the safest option for our children at this time. The Government’s complex, 62-question consultation is heavily framed towards the positive benefits of social media rather than towards the horrific harms which front-line professionals report every single day. On age assurance, the perceived downside is emphasised over obvious benefits. There is no clear process for managing conflicts of interest within the technology industry. How can this consultation be trusted? Reliable findings are precisely what this issue demands. It is also worrying that the Government have introduced a Henry VIII clause which would give sweeping powers via secondary legislation, leaving little or no opportunity for this House to consider or scrutinise such measures. It would mean that the Government could dodge any scrutiny of their ultimate choice. This cannot be allowed to happen, because we would not be able to amend it. We would be able only to accept or reject it in full. We are gambling with our children’s lives. That is why I strongly believe that the cross-party amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, i…
My Motion G2 reflects what experts, campaigners and the Government themselves promised in opposition: access to children must be conditional on treating them fairly and safely. The chasm between Ofcom's powers on paper and its ability to impact survivors was laid bare in this Chamber earlier. Since we last debated this barely two months ago, AI chatbots have been found to be among the most dangerous technologies for promoting violence against women and girls, the Internet Watch Foundation reported a 26,000% increase in AI-generated child sexual abuse material, and Alexa+ has arrived despite American parents raising concerns about inappropriate behaviour with very young children. While we consult, children are harmed in real time.My Lords, Motion G2 is in my name. I shall speak also to all the other amendments in this group. I think we have acknowledged that everybody in this House wishes to protect children, but there is a vast difference of opinion in respect of our approach and the Government’s sense of urgency. If I understood the Minister’s argument in setting out the Government’s position, it was that Ofcom would take responsibility and that it had sufficient powers. Many of us were in this Chamber earlier when the chasm between Ofcom’s powers on paper and its ability to impact on survivors was laid bare. If people do not feel the impact of the law, and if the lived experience of children and the ability of parents to get help are not properly impacted, the law has failed. This is central to the problem and to the debate that we are having here tonight. I think the House knows that I prefer to speak not of banning children but of banning products which are poorly designed and unsafe to have access to our children. That may appear to be a subtle point, but it is hugely important, because access to children must be conditional on treating them fairly and safely. Equally, many of us would like to see age-appropriate services, designed by companies with children in mind, be available to children. Motion G2 sets out that conditionality. Experts and campaigners across the sector contributed to its drafting—in short form, it is what we want from government. Frankly, it is what the Government promised when in opposition. Since we last debated this issue, barely two months ago, researchers found that AI chatbots are becoming one of the most dangerous technologies for promoting violence against women and girls. The Internet Watch Foundation reported a staggering 26,000% increase last year in the number of AI-generated child sexual abuse materials. Specialist police email me to alert me to offenders using TikTok’s virtual gift system to incentivise children to perform sexual or compromising acts.…
Amendments 38A and 38B impose no obligation whatsoever on the Government — they simply confer a power on Ministers to introduce regulations. If approved, it would be entirely consistent for Ministers to do absolutely nothing whatsoever thereafter. Given the gravity of the problem and the urgency of addressing it, that is an entirely unacceptable position.My Lords, I add one point to the powerful speeches that have been made in support of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. It is very important that noble Lords understand that the Minister is inviting the House to support Amendments 38A and 38B, neither of which imposes any obligation whatsoever on the Government. Those amendments simply confer a power on Ministers to introduce regulations. If those government amendments were approved, it would be entirely consistent for Ministers thereafter to do absolutely nothing whatsoever. Given the gravity of the mischief that we are addressing and the urgency of addressing that mischief, that seems to me to be an entirely unacceptable position.
The Minister said 'if, after consultation, there is a decision to act'. The House is already very clearly of the opinion that this is not an if — it is a call to action. Send Lord Nash's amendment back to the Commons and ask them to think again.My Lords, I pick up on one issue that the Minister mentioned in her opening speech. To paraphrase, she said, “If, after consultation, there is a decision to act”. I hope that she is getting the sense tonight that the House is already very much of the opinion that it is not an if; it is a call to action, which has been made so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. As we have already heard from a number of noble Lords, having spent many hours debating online safety issues in this House, we have seen progress with the Online Safety Act, but more is to come. There is a simplicity in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash. We should send it back to the House of Commons and ask them to think about it again. If the Government decide in the Commons that they are still going to resist, disagree to the amendment and send it back, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that there is a way forward so that it is not, as we have just heard, left to regulators or the Government to decide to act if they feel like it. There is a power in the Bill before us—we do not have to wait for the next online safety Act—to protect young people from harmful content online. I urge Ministers to take the opportunity offered by the Bill being amended again this evening and going back to the other place—as I suspect it will—to really listen and engage with those of us who want to act now to protect young people from the harmful material that we absolutely know is, as we have heard, doing them no good online.
I welcome the consultation but am distressed by how wide its scope is and how vague the outcomes are. Regulations under the Government's powers will not be able to be amended by Parliament — all the concerns about severely limited parliamentary scrutiny are just as pressing this week as they were last week on the Crime and Policing Bill.My Lords, I welcome the government consultation, but I am distressed by how very wide its scope is and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, how very vague the outcomes seem to be. The arguments that I put forward in my AI chatbot amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill also apply here. These amendments will allow the Secretary of State to age-gate any internet service or function. She will be able to determine at what age and by what methods a platform can be restricted. Any regulations under these powers will not be able to be amended by Parliament. All the arguments made by noble Lords last week about the severely limited parliamentary scrutiny of regulations are just as concerning this week with these amendments. I support the Government carrying out a consultation on a social media ban for under-16s. Evidence of the effect of such a powerful measure needs to be examined and responded to. But I urge the Minister to look at the important changes that would be made to the Government’s amendment by Amendment 38E from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The government consultation needs to have parameters, which are provided by her amendment, as she has already set out. Many are issues that do not seem to have been covered by the Online Safety Act—addiction, different developmental ages, unsolicited contact and live-streaming. The restriction of these harms to children could be rapidly implemented under the amendment by the prospect of tech companies facing business disruption measures. These are the enforcement measures that so many of us campaigning against online harms have been calling for. All these issues would be considered not in a consultation without time limit but in one that must conclude within six months. I call on the Minister to take on board the concerns expressed in Amendment 38E and put them into action.
Today a California court found Google and Meta guilty of causing pain and suffering and awarded $3 million in damages, with punitive damages for malice and fraud now being considered. We are the jury today. We have heard about the malice and fraud these companies visit on our children. Give a resounding verdict.My Lords, as mentioned earlier, Google and Meta were today found in the Supreme Court of California to be guilty of causing pain and suffering to a plaintiff who had brought the case. The jury has initially ruled that $3 million in damages will be paid for that pain and suffering. The jury is now considering punitive damages for malice and fraud. I put it to your Lordships’ House that today we are the jury. We have heard about the malice and fraud that these companies are visiting on so many of our children and, indeed, on their unfortunate parents. We as the jurors should deliberate today and give a resounding verdict.
I represent the army of parents bitterly disappointed that the Government are failing to act decisively. A consultation is always code for a fudge. The Government's amendments offer very little certainty and create space for a future compromise that may arrive with limited scrutiny — an olive branch to social media companies that have already done so much damage.My Lords, I will be brief, because others have spoken so eloquently. I support my noble friend Lord Nash in his heroic efforts to stop social media for under-16s, and I support the spirit of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as well. I feel that I must represent the army of parents out there who are bitterly disappointed that the Government are failing to act decisively and quickly. A consultation is always code for a fudge. We have been there; we know what that is. The Government’s amendments are presented as action, but in reality they offer very little certainty. They create space for delay and a future compromise that may arrive with limited scrutiny, as we have heard so eloquently put. We are being asked to accept a risk, and not an abstract one. It is a risk with our children’s safety and it offers an olive branch—a wholly inappropriate olive branch now, with all the court rulings that we are hearing about—to social media companies that have already done so much damage to our children and their childhoods. They must be absolutely delighted with this compromise that the Government have come up with. I predict that, over the coming months, there will be a PR blitz about how great they are, how concerned they are with safety and how much safety by design they are putting into progress—all of which will no doubt have to be policed by us, the parents. Instagram’s recent effort, which I am sure it wants a medal for, was to alert parents who have put the highly complicated safety notices on that their child is searching for self-harm material. Here is an idea: let us stop them seeing that material in the first place. Like so many families, we are constantly negotiating this space: what is allowed, what is not, what feels safe, what suddenly does not feel safe. Something that seems harmless can very quickly change. The point that the Pinterest boss made is very powerful, because a lot of these sites that feel harmless are in fact constantly trying to…
The Government's consultation is not fit for purpose — their pilot of 300 children would not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and there is extensive literature from Australia we could examine without running such an exercise. The Government are taking a narrow view, locked into psychological harms while missing the wider direct harms that professionals in schools and clinics report every day.My Lords, I was going to talk about the consultation, which is fundamentally not fit for purpose, but other noble Lords have covered that well, so I want to make a couple of other points about the way in which the Government are failing to understand the impact of social media on our children, as exemplified in the press today by this latest quick and dirty pilot on 300 children and young people, which would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. What on earth are we going to learn from that when there is extensive literature, not least from Australia, that we can look at without doing something on which we are apparently going to base part of the government response? It is ludicrous. The Government are taking a very narrow view of social media. They are locked into the psychological aspects of it, which are hugely important, but they are failing to look at the wider aspects and the direct harms that are being reiterated time and again by professionals in schools and clinics and by the families who are sitting up in the Gallery now. It is disrespectful to the trauma of those families and to the people who are suffering direct harm to continue to grab headlines with these cheap efforts to say that we are piloting something that will give us no information at all, when the strength of feeling in this House and outside this House is manifestly clear. I will again be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I also support the approach outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her amendment.
I had sympathy with the Government's position on Report — but I am now deeply disappointed that they have brought forward at this late stage amendments giving draconian delegated powers to control the internet in general. Why are the Government asking us to legislate so comprehensively before the consultation is complete? We are being asked to hand over major powers with no control over how they are used.My Lords, I am not trying to deprive other noble Lords of the chance to speak, but the idea that we go to the Front Benches because we have all heard these arguments before is not fair, because the Government have put before us the widest set of proposals that are completely new and came out of nowhere. I am rather disappointed not to be supporting the Government. When we discussed this on Report, I did not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to ban social media for under-16s, despite how powerful his speech was, because I thought that the Government had a sense of proportion. Everybody here is saying, “What is the point of consultations? They are all a waste of time”. That is good for people who are in Parliament to admit. There are a lot of consultations around, on all sides, and we all know—
- Nobody is saying that all consultations are a waste of time — what we are saying is that this particular consultation is deeply flawed in its construction.
Nobody here is saying that consultations are all a waste of time. What we are saying is that this particular consultation is deeply flawed in its construction.
- Why is the bar for evidence in this area always after the event? Most critical industries have to prove a product is safe before it reaches consumers. On a day when a US court has found the evidence against these companies, why are we still talking about lack of evidence with bereaved families standing in the Gallery?
Can the noble Baroness say why the bar for evidence in this area of policy is after the event? Most critical industries have to abide by standards and they have to prove that a product is safe. Why are we, with all the bereaved families standing in the Gallery, talking about the lack of evidence on a day that a court case in the US has found the evidence against the companies? It does not make sense.
- Lord Nash tabled his amendment in Committee and on Report and it was debated at Second Reading — not introduced for the first time on Report as has been suggested twice.
The noble Baroness has said a couple of times that my noble friend Lord Nash introduced his amendment on Report. It was tabled in Committee and on Report and it was debated at Second Reading. Maybe she would like to correct her remarks.
- This is a long way from a ban on all teenagers going on the internet — it is highly selective for those apps that are clearly harmful.
It is a long way from a ban on all teenagers going on the internet. It is highly selective for those apps that are clearly harmful.
There are those on the Labour Benches — and I am not alone — who are very keen to support the movement detected in the House today. Part of the problem is that we are running towards the end of a Session without the right Bills; there is no guarantee of Bills in the next King's Speech that allow us to continue at the pace we want. Something has gone wrong with the legislative structure in this area.My Lords, there have been very few speakers from the Labour Benches and I want to make sure that those who are supporting the amendments before the House today understand that, within this party, it is not exactly as was set out by the Minister. There are those of us who are very keen to support the movement that we can detect today in the thinking of this House. I want to be quite clear that I am not alone in that. I want to say three things. First, part of the problem we have here is that we are running towards the end of a Session that does not have the right Bills, which makes it very difficult to get the issues we want into play. Secondly, there is no guarantee that there will be Bills in the next King’s Speech that will allow us to continue the debate and move forward at the pace we want to. The feeling that the House has, and I am sure I speak for all of us when I say this, is that something has gone wrong with the legislative structure that we have in place in this area and, in line with what so many people have said today, we need to find a way of getting into our laws the sorts of measures that are needed to take us forward on this. I offer the Minister the following option: the only way we can get this in play, continue it and get to the right solution is to back the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I think we should do that. I do not agree with all that he is saying, and he knows that because I have talked to him about it, and I do not think bans are generally a good thing, but it is the only way to get in play a chance to look again at the other amendment that is before us today on this issue, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I know that she has worked hard on trying to get a form of words into her amendment, which she will not press, that would take the Government to a place where I think they will be comfortable, limiting the powers they want to take, focusing on the areas that they have not yet covered but which they…
Henry VII's son is all over the Government's amendments and that is never a good thing for a Bill. What the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has done with considerable success and skill is seize the argument and throw it back to the Government. These Benches will support him in the Division Lobby.My Lords, to sum up this debate briefly, I have nothing new to add. I merely agree with certain noble Lords who have already spoken. As for the Government’s approach, Henry VII’s son is all over it, and that is never a good thing for a Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on that. The approach I and many on these Benches would have preferred is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but what we are dealing with here is something that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has done with considerable success and skill: namely, seize the argument and throw it back to the Government to see what they are going to do. I suggest that the Government listen very hard to us. What they have proposed is not meeting it for this House. What we want to do is to get something effective in play. I hope the Government will listen. We will be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in the Division Lobby if he decides to come forward.
- The Government's new guidance on mobile phones does not go far enough for pupils, parents or teachers — hence my Motion N1. Head teachers and educational psychologists are clear: they need a statutory ban so they can tell the minority of parents that smartphones have no place in school. Evidence from the University of Birmingham shows head teachers spending literally hundreds of hours dealing with individual school policies. A statutory ban is the only way to give head teachers the authority they need.
My Lords, I will be brief. I shall say a few words on smartphones and Motion N1 in my name. I acknowledge that the Government have made efforts in their new guidance on mobile phones, but their approach does not go far enough to meet the needs of pupils, parents or teachers—hence the need for my amendment. I thank Generation Focus and Health Professionals for Safer Screens, who have helped many of us have the privilege of listening to a range of head teachers and educational psychologists who have been able to share their experience. Their views are absolutely clear. First, they are calling for a statutory ban so that they can be clear with the minority of parents that smartphones have no place in school. Evidence from the University of Birmingham shows that head teachers are spending literally hundreds of hours that they do not have dealing with the implementation of individual school policies. Clearly, that is not a good use of their time. Secondly, they want a clear focus on smartphones. I noted that the Minister referred to my amendment as the “mobile phone amendment”. Of course, that was the slip of the tongue, but it is important because it is the connection to the internet in general and to social media in particular that is causing such a huge problem in relation to safeguarding incidents and suspensions in our schools. As I said on Report, smartphones are the gateway drug to social media. One head teacher reported in a round table that we held recently that prior to having a ban in their school for children in year 7—that is, children aged about 11—almost a quarter of all suspensions in the school were for children in year 7, and they were linked predominantly to smartphone use. That is unrecognisable from a few years ago, when it was an exception to suspend a pupil in year 7. Thirdly, those schools which ban smartphones are seeing a delay in the age at which a child receives one. Brick phones and Balance Phones do not pose the same threats to attention, co…
- It is not if we act on online safety, but how. Lord Nash's amendments would commit the Government to a specific set of measures before the consultation concludes, which may not represent the most effective approach. We are determined to act on the consultation's findings swiftly, and any regulations will require a vote in both Houses.
My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive and heartfelt contributions made in the House today. We have heard a wide range of views, and I reiterate my thanks to noble Lords who have engaged so closely with Ministers in recent weeks as we work through these complex questions. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not only for the expertise that she brings but for her comment that all in this House share a commitment to children’s well-being online. It is this that motivates us all. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has set out the reasons behind Amendments 37 and 38 and why he wants to see swift action. I fully understand those intentions. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I said that it is not if we act, but how. It is the intention of the Government to act. The question is how. The noble Lord’s amendments would require us to act before the consultation is concluded and would commit the Government to a specific set of measures that may not ultimately represent the most effective or proportionate way to protect our children. That is why the Government cannot accept Amendments 37 and 38; it is not because we do not agree with the objectives but because legislating could risk unintended consequences. It would mean acting before listening to what the consultation tells us and to what parents and children need. Some 20,000 parents have responded to the parent-specific survey. We are extremely keen to assess and hear what parents and children say. Additionally, these amendments are restricted to user-to-user services under the Online Safety Act. It is hugely important that we seek views across other services. We know that children use other mechanisms, such as AI chatbots and gaming, which are not consistently caught by the definition of user-to-user services. I just want to say that we are taking the consultation extremely seriously, as we are the national conversation. Alongside the publication of the consultation, we announced that a parallel academic…
- I have read the consultation carefully and listened to the DSIT Secretary of State's public statements. I can only conclude that the Government have no real commitment to do anything serious about the harms children are experiencing on social media. I ask the House to agree to my Motion G1.
My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister has to say, but I have also read the consultation very carefully and listened to the statements made publicly by the DSIT Secretary of State. I can only conclude from those that the Government have no real commitment to do anything serious about the harms that our children are experiencing on social media, and I ask the House to agree to my Motion G1. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my social media amendment.
The Government's manifesto commitment is to reduce uniform costs by limiting the number of branded items — not a monetary cap. A cost cap creates a target price, incentivising schools currently below the cap to raise prices and brand more items, which would reduce savings for parents. We will monitor the effectiveness of the limit as it is implemented. On published admission numbers, we want a system that can properly balance the needs of all pupils; on allergies, Amendments 105B and 105C put allergy safety policy on the face of the Bill.My Lords, in moving Motion H, I shall also speak to Motions H1, J, L, L1 and M. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to school uniforms, published admission numbers and allergies. For each, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments. I turn first to Motions H and J, relating to Amendments 41 and 42, and Motion H1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The amendment in lieu, Amendment 41B, seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. I thank the noble Lord again for raising the important issue of uniform costs. We will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it. However, our manifesto commitment is clear: to reduce the cost of uniforms by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require. This approach is overwhelmingly backed by parents, with the Children’s Society finding that 78% agree with such a limit. We believe that a cost cap would not create the same level of parental savings as a numeric limit. It is complex and burdensome for government and schools, and it risks appearing protective, while failing to constrain actual costs. It creates a financial target and could encourage schools to increase the number or price of their branded items. It risks strengthening supply and monopolies, reducing parental freedom and increasing costs. A numeric limit opens the market, giving parents greater choice and affordability. A cost cap would entail unnecessary regulatory complexity and assumptions about retail pricing for size variations, promotions and parents’ purchasing of spare or replacement items. Enforcement would create significant burdens for schools, forcing annual reviews of uniform policies and prices, and drawing them into disputes between parents and retailers about prices and compliance. A numeric limit is…
- A monetary cap remains my preferred option. But if the Government will push ahead with a numbers cap, they should at least leave all options open: support Motion H1 so that in 12 months' time, if the numbers cap has not met the Bill's aspirations, there is an alternative provision to fall back on.
My Lords, my Motion H1, as we heard earlier, is around the issue of a monetary cap on school uniforms. I will not rehearse the arguments that we have had already in Committee and on Report. However, if the Government are minded to continue to push for a numbers cap, as opposed to a monetary cap, on which your Lordships’ House voted before, I say to them that, ultimately, they should leave all the options open. If their numbers cap does not work, they should therefore have the option to revisit this. The numbers cap is not my preferred option. I still would like them to consider the actual monetary cap, but what is wrong with coming back in, say, 12 months’ time when they do their review? Supporting my Motion H1 today would allow them to say, “Okay, we thought this would work and it doesn’t”. If it has not quite met the intentions of their aspirations in both their manifesto and this Bill, there would be an alternative provision that your Lordships have voted on previously. That is why I wanted to move this Motion. I do not want to prolong the debate, because we have had a bet on that we were going to keep our contributions to a minimum, so I shall stick to below two minutes.
- I strongly welcome Amendments 105B and 105C on allergy safety. Having these details on the face of the Bill — rather than in regulations — gives real assurance to those who care passionately about this. The tireless campaigning of the Benedict Blythe Foundation, and Helen Blythe in particular, has culminated in this amendment tonight.
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion M. I support the amendments in lieu, Amendments 105B and 105C. I would like to thank the Ministers; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is here speaking tonight but perhaps he would pass on thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the House of Commons for their engagement and the fact that they have listened on this issue. In particular, there are details in these amendments which I think the Government had talked about putting in regulations, but it has given real assurance to those who care passionately about this amendment to have these matters on the face of the Bill. I thank all the noble Lords who signed the original amendment and spoke in favour of it. I also thank Alicia Kearns MP, who led the campaign in favour, but most of all, as the Minister has said, the thanks should go to the tireless campaigners, particularly Helen Blythe. If she is looking for alternative things to do, she would make an excellent legislator in this House. She has been indefatigable in her pursuit of Benedict’s law; it is a pleasure to welcome both Peter and Helen to Parliament today and, I think, friends of Benedict as well. Helen Blythe was clear that this should not just be statutory guidance, although that was a great step forward, and that legislation was needed. I welcome the fact that the change will come in from September of this year. In her article for The House magazine—this was just before the vote in the House of Commons—Helen said: “We are closer than ever to allergy-safe schools. Progress has been made. The government has shown it takes the protection of children with allergies seriously. The question now is whether we can secure that progress in a way that guarantees equal protection for every child in every classroom, for children like our son. Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”. I think the Government have risen to the challenge in putting down this amendment. As…
Amendments 105B and 105C are a gift to allergic families — they will save lives and help children with life-threatening allergies attend school safely. The allergy community's hundreds of positive responses show what this means to families.My Lords, please bear with me again; I will keep to the two-minute limit. I too speak in favour of Amendments 105B and 105C, tabled in lieu in Motion M, and in doing so declare my interest as COO of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for all her work on behalf of all those children living with allergic disease and their families. Tonight, I want to briefly emphasise the importance of these amendments, which are testament to the efforts of the noble Baroness but also to the Benedict Blythe Foundation and Helen and Peter’s work. I want to read out a couple of the hundreds of positive comments that the Natasha foundation received when the allergy community learnt of the Government’s intention to bring forward statutory guidance on allergy safety in schools. The mums said: “This is a gift to allergic families”; “As an allergy mum I can’t tell you what amazing news this is. This will save lives and help so many children feel safer in school”; “This will mean so much to so many parents and children in this country living with allergies”; “This will change everything for my family, my son has multiple food allergies. This is a life changing moment”. These words demonstrate the impact on people’s lives the Government can make when they listen, engage and work collaboratively with charities and Members from all sides of both Houses. My noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath cannot be in her place today but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, we too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the other place, along with their civil servant teams, who have worked constructively with allergy charities over many months. Of course, there is always more to do and we look forward to continued discussions with the Government on what practical support and funding will be available to enable schools to effectively implement this guidance. But to conclude, these…
- Motion L1 is a 'last resort' according to the Minister, and the Bill team suggested the scenario of a successful school next to a struggling one is unlikely. But I know from my own professional and parental experience that it happens. As a parent, I would be deeply unhappy if access to my preferred school were closed to even up numbers. Should Baroness Barran be minded to take this to a vote, I would go with her.
My Lords, I will speak to Motion L1, and I am looking round to see where everybody is. The Minister described Motion L1 as a “last resort” and, when we met them yesterday, the Bill team seemed to think that the example of a highly successful school next to a school that is struggling is quite unlikely. But I know from my own experience what it is like, both professionally and as a parent of two children. This seems to be an efficiency drive that ignores both parents and children. While I admire the intent, as a parent I would be deeply unhappy if access to my preferred school was closed in order to even up numbers. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, be minded to take this to a vote, I would go with her.
I chair an academy trust and have faced this directly — last year it was suggested we restrict places at two of our best schools to keep failing schools nearby going. If the Government were serious about protecting improving schools, they would accept the amendment being proposed. The letter arriving at the 11th hour makes some attempt at compromise, but it is not enough.My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with this reinstatement of her original Amendment 102. I speak as the chairman of an academy trust; I have faced the dead hand of the bureaucratic tidying-up exercise. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton: just last year, it was suggested that we restrict our PAN at two of our best schools, so that failing schools nearby could be kept going. The inconvenience of having to enact cuts to their own schools, faced by local authorities in particular, is such that it is much easier for them to go after another body that has to bear the financial burden. I accept that the letter, which arrived amazingly at the 11th and a half hour last night, makes some attempt at compromise. If the Government were serious about protecting improving schools, however, they would go with the amendment that is being proposed. I can tell your Lordships’ House how hard it is to improve previously failing schools. The Minister may be interested to know that failing schools already receive a huge subsidy in what is euphemistically called “lagged funding”. In the year following a falling roll, they receive the full amount that they were been paid in the previous year with more children. The opposite effect occurs for improving schools with rising rolls. So this year, we are educating nearly 240 children for free in my trust, which is nearly £1.5 to £2 million. Next year, that will be 300 children. The question, then, is how difficult does the noble Lord want to make it to improve previously failing schools?
At a time of greatly falling rolls — particularly in primary — an adequate regulator for school admissions is essential, especially as a broader curriculum will require sufficient pupil numbers in every school to deliver it. Very good schools that simply expand can leave other schools unable to operate at all.My Lords, I stand to support the Government in their attempt to create a situation where there is an adequate regulator for school admissions. At a time of greatly falling rolls, particularly in primary, this is especially important, and even more so when there is going to be a much broader curriculum as a result of the curriculum assessment review. It will be important that all schools can teach this broad curriculum. To do so, we need to have children in those schools. As I said in Committee, the problem with schools that simply expand is that very good schools can be left unable to operate. I also have a question for the Liberal Democrats on the opposite Benches: in Committee, they supported the opposition to the local authorities having a say as an admissions adjudicator. The last Lib Dem election manifesto of 2024 promised parents and the public that local authorities would be given the power and resources to act as strategic education authorities for their area. This included responsibility for place planning, exclusions and administering admissions, including in-year admissions and SEND functions. I simply ask whether that is still the Lib Dems’ position. If it is, will they be supporting the Government’s position?
- On uniforms, we share the noble Lord's concerns about the Government's rigid approach and would have been happy for him to bring back his previous amendment unchanged. On allergies, we warmly welcome Amendments 105B and 105C and recognise the incredible work of the Benedict Blythe Foundation. My Motion L1 simply supports the rights of parents and pupils to attend the school of their choice. Cutting places in the most popular local schools is not the way to address financial pressures from falling rolls.
My Lords, on these Benches we share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, about the rigidity of the Government’s approach to trying to control school uniform costs. Indeed, we would have been quite happy if he had wanted to bring back his previous amendment unchanged. We also warmly welcome the Government amendment in relation to children with allergies in school, and I echo the remarks made by others across the House to recognise the incredible work of the Benedict Blythe Foundation—in particular, Benedict’s mother Helen—that has culminated in this amendment today. My Motion L1 simply supports the rights of parents and pupils to attend the school of their choice and get the best possible education in an area. We understand the financial pressures faced by schools that are dealing with falling rolls, but the way to address them is not by reducing choice, nor by cutting places in the most popular local schools. Furthermore, if the Government are to be successful in closing the disadvantage gap, which we all want to see, they will need these schools and should not be shrinking them. In the letter that the Government sent to Peers last night, they set out the principles they intend to follow in the updated regulations and School Admissions Code. I accept that the Government have moved and have tried to clarify their position. It is a pity that this arrived so late and that there has been no time to discuss any of this with Ministers, despite having requested meetings since early February. I am very open to discussing further with Ministers but, as drafted, I do not think that the proposed wording is as watertight as the intent of my Motion. In particular, the language of “long-term sufficiency” seems to give more wriggle room than is needed. At this stage, it is also hard to see the point of the measures in the Bill, given the statement that we have just heard from the Government. The Bill’s own impact assessment is clear that it will limi…
- A monetary cap on uniforms creates a target price and could incentivise schools to brand more items — reducing savings for parents and adding complexity. A numeric limit is clearer, simpler and will deliver savings more quickly; it is what the Children's Society survey shows parents overwhelmingly back. On admission numbers, we want a system that can properly balance all pupils' needs, and Clause 56 already provides for regulations about what the adjudicator must consider.
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. I start by addressing the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. To be clear, and as I said in my opening speech, we will of course monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it. One of the concerns I and the Government have is that the cost cap effectively creates a target price, incentivising price rises for any school currently below the cap. Many schools could in fact brand more items, reducing savings for parents, and it would be more complex for parents and place unnecessary burdens on them. So I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position. I think a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, it will deliver savings more quickly—which is what the Children’s Society survey says is overwhelmingly backed by parents—and it is of course a commitment in our manifesto. Lords Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can set a lower published admission number. We want a system that ensures that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have committed to updating the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school standards and parental choice are central to any decision on PAN. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged, we have been developing proposed changes to the code and associated regulations, considering stakeholders’ views and the important points raised by Members as the Bill has progressed. I note what the noble Baroness says about the timing of the publication, but our proposed framework, which was deposited in the House Library yesterday, contains at its heart new statutory principles to help ensure that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places will always be a last resort. We will conduct a full public consultation on the proposed changes, and the updated code and regulations must be laid before Parliament. Finally, I turn to allergy safety. I am…
- I am still not convinced the numbers cap is the right approach — the Government need to keep another option available. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support. I am still not convinced; the Government need to have another option at the end of it. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.