Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons in the Lords
The Lords considered Commons amendments on social media restrictions for under-16s, mobile phones in schools, school uniform limits, and published admission numbers, with motions tested and ultimately withdrawn or divided on.
T(opened the debateThe Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)Lab15:25 HansardThe Government's consultation is the most responsible way to get this right — not whether but how and what action will be taken. Amendment 38Q risks giving too much discretion to platforms in setting age restrictions without waiting for consultation evidence; Amendment 38R would raise the digital age of consent only for social networking services, whereas the consultation asks whether it should apply more broadly. The government amendment enables clear and decisive action once we have the evidence.My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall also speak to Motions A1, A2, D and D1. In this group, we will debate amendments on restricting social media for under-16s, digital literacy in the school curriculum and mobile phones. I turn first to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which disagrees with Amendments 38J and 38P and proposes new Amendments 38Q and 38U. I will also speak to Motion A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Amendment 38Q would require social media services to set their own minimum age of access based on their children’s risk assessment under the Online Safety Act. Amendment 38R would amend UK GDPR, so that the digital age of consent is raised from 13 to 16 for some social networking services. Motion A2 seeks to amend government Amendments 38A to 38C, requiring the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Nash, and other noble Lords for their sustained commitment on these vital issues. Let me be clear that it is a commitment that the Government share; protecting children online is as much a priority for this Government as it is for noble Lords. The question is not whether but how and what action will be taken and who is involved in making sure that that action is right. It is to facilitate this that the Government launched their consultation in March. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord’s revised amendment considers the variety of measures on which we are seeking views through the consultation. It acknowledges that there are numerous approaches to securing the safety and well-being of our children: a blanket ban for under-16s to access social media; restricting specific “addictive” features or functionalities and risky features; and raising the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR. This is what our consultation is focused on. This shows that the nobl…
- #1passedLords division on the bill (no recorded tally) A division was recorded in the House of Lords on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. No aye or no vote totals were recorded for it.Ayes 282Noes 156Tellers: Baroness Williams of Trafford, Lord Jamieson, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Baroness Wheeler
- #2passedLords division on the bill (no recorded tally) A division was recorded in the House of Lords on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. No aye or no vote totals were recorded for it.Ayes 257Noes 178Tellers: The Earl of Courtown, Baroness Williams of Trafford, Baroness Wheeler, Lord Kennedy of Southwark
- #3passedLords division on the bill (no recorded tally) A division was recorded in the House of Lords on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. No aye or no vote totals were recorded for it.Ayes 274Noes 167Tellers: The Earl of Courtown, Baroness Williams of Trafford, Baroness Wheeler, Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My concern is the Henry VIII powers the Government are seeking — whenever a Government wants to take on sweeping powers, this House has issues, and a sunset clause from Lord Nash is helpful but doesn't fully address what a future government might do. We've never favoured an outright ban for under-16s; we want an age rating that puts the duty on social media providers to deal with the addictive features — endless scrolling and the like — rather than blanket exclusion. On smartphones in schools, it is smartphones specifically that parents and head teachers say are the problem, not the older basic handsets. I take reassurance from the Minister's commitment to strengthen the guidance, because head teachers need that backing against a vocal minority of parents who block sensible policies.My Lords, I personally welcome the noble Baroness back to her place after a short period of illness and thank her for taking the time last week to engage with us to better understand where we are coming from and give us the opportunity to understand where she is coming from. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, for her engagement over the Easter period. Both engagements have been very helpful for us. My reason for tabling this group of amendments is that we have some concerns around the Henry VIII powers that the Government are seeking. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, may not hold as strong a view as I do on the Henry VIII powers, but noble Lords across this House have issues whenever a Government want to take on lots of powers, and I note that the noble Lord proposes a sunset clause. I have concerns about how the Government intend to make changes once the consultation happens. My view is always that, if these are powers that are required for a set period, so be it; however, I still have concerns around what may happen in future if another Government come in and want to use them. I am sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has proposed but, through my amendments, we hope that the Government may take the opportunity to support our quest and bring in their own primary legislation. There is also the issue of whether we have a ban or regulate addictive features. We have always been clear in the amendments we have proposed previously that we did not favour an outright ban for under-16s, but wanted an age rating so that the duty fell upon the social media providers to deal with those features that young people get addicted to, such as constantly scrolling and so on. That is where we stand, and I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House, if they were able to vote on our amendment, might well be there as well. That is what we need, rather than an outright ban. I get that your Lordships’ House has previously voted for the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord…
The verdicts in the two US cases are game-changers — the evidence from the social media companies themselves is damning. The Prime Minister made very strong statements about protecting children, and the right honourable Liz Kendall spoke yesterday about highly effective age verification: you can barely get a fag paper between her position and mine. So instead of batting my amendment back again, I'm proposing that the Government must — not just may — raise the access age to 16 for those specific harmful sites within 12 months, with a two-year sunset clause on the Henry VIII element of the powers.My Lords, I too welcome the Minister back to her place, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for his remarks. I will speak to my Motion A2. For anyone who has studied them, the verdicts in the two US cases are clearly game-changers. The evidence from the social media companies themselves is damning. I have a treasure-trove of these documents, if any noble Lord would like them. Immediately following these cases, the Prime Minister made some very strong statements about protecting children from the harm of social media, and the right honourable Liz Kendall spoke only yesterday about the importance of highly effective age verification to ensure that children cannot access the harmful features of social media. This is exactly what my proposal does. I listened very carefully to what she said yesterday and, if you can get a fag paper between us, it is a pretty thin one indeed—so I have decided to take the Prime Minister at his word and, instead of batting my amendment back again, to lay an amendment to the Government’s amendments to the effect that they must, rather than just may, raise the age for access to those harmful social media sites to 16 within 12 months. Those sites would be chosen very selectively and, I am sure, would be very few in number—definitely not an outright or blanket ban—and this would be stated in the Bill. I have also proposed in the amendment a sunset clause of two years on the Henry VIII element of the powers that the Government are proposing to take.
Several countries have already brought in or are discussing bans on social media for under-16s — even China is bringing in restrictions. Those who worry our children will be disadvantaged should realise that most children in the world will be in the same boat. That's why I'm supporting Lord Nash's Motion.My Lords, during the short time we have been debating a ban on social media for under-16s, several countries have brought in or are discussing such a ban. Even China is due to bring in restrictions on the use of mobile phones and social media. Those who argue that our children will be at a disadvantage for not accessing social media should realise, that most children will be in the same boat: they will not be at a disadvantage. That is why I am supporting the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
I'm not sympathetic to banning, and I'm still very concerned about the Government's Henry VIII powers — I can't just keep handing power to the Executive and saying "we trust you." The Australia experiment shows children routing around the ban to unregulated sites, which is a genuine danger. Can the Minister confirm that the consultation will also weigh the unintended consequences — could age-gating lead to illiberal digital verification for adults? And on Lord Nash's motion: the phrase "are likely to cause, encourage or facilitate compulsive, obsessive, addictive or other unhealthy behaviours" doesn't look evidence-based to me. Accepting the "addiction" label medicalises bad habits and relieves young people of responsibility for their own behaviour. I'm also uneasy about putting into primary legislation a requirement that the national curriculum explain to children why they're banned from social media — that feels like PR for the Bill, not open-minded education.My Lords, I think we have all agreed that there are troubling aspects of social media usage among young people, which are taken very seriously. It is very appropriate for parents, teachers and policymakers to be concerned and to discuss how best to help children navigate the digital world. From previous contributions, people will know that I am not sympathetic to the banning approach. I am not going to rehearse that, but I want to make a couple of points. First, I am still very concerned about the Government’s proposed Henry VIII powers. I appreciate the sunset clause from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but I tend to go along with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, has explained it, because we cannot just keep handing over power to the Executive and saying, “We trust you to get on with it”. I am not convinced that that trust is merited. In general, however, I appreciate that the Government have been more open about consulting on this difficult issue. I hope that continues and I encourage the Minister, and the Government in general, to consider new evidence as it comes in. The experiment in Australia shows things not just about social media or the big tech companies, but about the way that children have got around the ban and are now using unregulated sites, with some danger to themselves. If the Government are still open, that is very important, because there are enough experts—scientists and other people working in this field—who really are concerned that the pressure for a drastic policy such as this, with social media harms becoming a go-to explanation and bans becoming a go-to solution for a wide range of the cultural and political challenges facing young people, is something we need to be careful of. Oxford psychologist Lucy Foulkes describes it as a “neat explanation”. She says that “social media makes a nice bogeyman, but the claim is just not backed up by the data”. Can the Minister clarify, in terms of the consultation and the gathering of i…
I voted against the Government at the first stage not because I was against them but to make them think again — and they have. The legislation they've now proposed is considerably stronger than what we last considered. In my professional experience I've seen the sort of pornography available online, and it is quite vile; the access required to reach it is a much bigger problem than people realise. So I again support Lord Nash, but in his more sophisticated approach of accepting the government amendments while proposing improvements.My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tabled his amendment at the first stage, when we were battling with the House of Commons on the drafting of the Bill, I gave him my support and voted against the Government. I voted against the Government not because I was against them but because, as I told my noble friend the Minister, I wanted them to have another thought about this issue. They have now had another thought about this issue and proposed legislation that is considerably stronger than the legislation we last looked at. Therefore, I welcome the position that the noble Lord has now taken. A few years ago, in professional circumstances, I had the duty to look at some of the pornography that is available, and I have to tell your Lordships that it is quite vile. I have no reason to think that it is any better now: it is probably more vile. The other thing that we should take strongly into account is the access that is required to get into and view the pornography that is available on the internet. It is a much bigger problem than we might perceive. So, my present position is that I again support the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but in his more sophisticated approach of accepting the government amendments but suggesting that there could be some improvements. I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept the proposed improvements that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has moved.
I'll support Lord Nash's motion if he tests the House. The scope, timing, lack of scrutiny, the consultation itself and the idea that a report to Parliament constitutes meaningful scrutiny are all problematic. I'd rather ban unfit companies' access to children than ban children from the internet. Even if these amendments were perfect in form, they still wouldn't be effective: Ministers admitted to me last week that neither their plans nor the amendments address the fundamental problem of enforcement. If we pass any of these amendments we'll simply give Ofcom more duties but no powers, and parents will still have nowhere to go when their child is in danger. The Government keep rejecting individual redress mechanisms, injunctive powers for parents, individual liability for senior executives, and a proper review of Ofcom's enforcement powers — none is in the amendments, the consultation, or the King's Speech. The Prime Minister said last week that "this cannot go on" — I agree. Two years in, every promise made to parents has been kicked down the road.My Lords, I say at the outset that I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, should she choose to test the opinion of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. What I have already said at great length is recorded in Hansard, so I will just say that the scope, the timing, the lack of scrutiny, the consultation itself and now the idea that a report to Parliament is an effective form of scrutiny are all problematic. I would prefer banning unfit companies’ access to children rather than banning children. However, even if the amendments in front of us were perfect in all those ways, they still would not be effective. I met Ministers last week, and they freely admitted that neither their plans nor the amendments address the fundamental problem of enforcement. If we pass any one of the amendments in their current form we will simply give Ofcom more duties but no powers, and parents will still have absolutely nowhere to go when their child is in danger. Over the past six weeks, I have put forward measures on an individual redress mechanism, injunctive powers for parents when their child is at immediate risk of harm, individual liability to concentrate the minds of senior executives, and a review of Ofcom’s wider enforcement powers, including its ability effectively to issue a business disruption notice. Each is essential to making this regime work, and each has been rejected by the Government. None is included in the amendments, none is included in the consultation and none, I am told, will be in the King’s Speech. The Prime Minister said last week that this cannot go on. I agree. It is staggering that, two years into his Government, every promise made to parents has been kicked down the road. The Government are building on top of a regime that they know does not work. In the best-case scenario, we will get regulations with more unenforceable duties that have not been scrutinised in 2027, maybe in 2028—indeed, if we do not pass the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lo…
All parties have moved and the amendments are much closer than before — but the pressure is still on the child, not on the tech companies. When the next group of amendments comes back — as I suspect it will need to — I ask the Government to think about what Baroness Kidron said: internalise the risks within the company, so the company bears the cost of proving its products are safe enough for children. We don't ban children from using toys; we enforce health and safety so unsafe toys can't be sold. Too much of this is banning children and not enough is holding executives and businesses to account.My Lords, I shall briefly add to the eloquent contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I recognise that all parties have moved and that the groups of amendments are much closer than they were when we last debated this topic. However, I worry that the pressure is still on the child, not on the tech companies. I too will support my noble friend Lord Nash should he choose to divide the House, but I ask the Government to think carefully, when they bring back the next group of amendments—as I suspect they will need to—about what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, just said about setting up a regime that, in technical economist-speak, internalises the risks within the company so that the company has to bear the cost to work out how its products are safe enough for our children to use. That is what we do in the physical world. We do not ban children using toys; we enforce health and safety legislation so that toys cannot be sold to children unless they are safe. Unfortunately, I fear too much of this is banning children and not enough is holding executives and businesses to account to make their products suitable for children.
These companies are monetising the time children spend on what are deliberately designed to be addictive products — that's the simple truth. Real change won't come until we disrupt their business models in a way that hurts them: until individual directors know they may go to jail and companies face vast fines, there will be no tipping point. And I ask the Government to look more carefully at edtech in schools: countries that embraced technology in classrooms are now doing a U-turn because the evidence shows reduced attention spans and reduced vocabulary. Scandinavia is bringing back books. The blandishments of these companies — large, sophisticated and profitable — have all the smoothness of a tobacco salesman, and their terms often monetise the children and schools' data while delivering a substandard educational product.My Lords, I largely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who brings all the rigour that you would expect from an MBA from Harvard Business School to the analysis of this problem. Ultimately, it is a business issue. These companies are making a vast amount of money from, basically, monetising the time that these children are spending on what are designed to be addictive products. That is the simple truth. Until and unless we find a way of disrupting the business models of the companies behind those platforms in such a way that it hurts them—the point at which individual directors and senior executives know they will be held personally accountable and may well go to jail, as well as the companies being fined vast amounts of money—there will really not be a tipping point. This often feels like pushing water uphill. I want to make a point about educational technology. We are focusing very much on smartphones and the terrible effects they are having on so many young people. Simultaneously, the Government have been promoting, quietly but overtly over many years, the increased use of technology in schools, from primary schools onwards, partly as an understandable result of Covid, when your Lordships’ House even managed to embrace technology to a degree that many of us would have thought completely unthinkable. Schools have indeed been embracing technology, and in many cases the effects on the young people in those schools that have done so are not good. Many countries of the world have recognised this and are doing a complete U-turn on their previous eagerness to get children in front of touchscreens and computer programs. They are trying to reverse the effects because they have been doing it for long enough that they have seen the evidence produced of the effect that it has on children: reduced attention spans and reduced vocabulary. In Scandinavia—surprise, surprise—libraries are doing the unthinkable: they are bringing back books, having largely decided to no lo…
I speak as a parent as well as a teacher: parents don't understand statutory footing — they understand a legal ban. If the Government want to reduce unnecessary burdens on head teachers then, from everything we've seen, Clause 36 has to mean an outright ban on smartphones in the Bill.My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D on the phone ban. The Minister talked about strengthening guidance and Ofsted being able to inspect schools’ mobile phone policies, but I speak as a parent as well as a teacher when I say that parents do not understand statutory footing; they understand a legal ban. If the Government want to reduce unnecessary burdens on head teachers then, from what we have seen over and again, that has to mean an outright ban in the Bill.
We are united across this House in wanting to protect children online, but we're being offered three very different legislative strategies. The Government's Motion hands sweeping, enduring Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State. Lord Nash's Motion A2 is no longer a blanket ban and it applies a sunset clause, but it's still built on exclusion — it risks a dangerous cliff-edge the moment a child turns 16. Our Motion A1 places direct statutory duties on tech companies to clean up their platforms: where any user is identified as under 16, the platform must apply proportionate measures to limit addictive design features and prevent access to harmful content. As Munira Wilson MP put it in the Commons: "This needs to be big tech's seatbelt moment." Recent US cases exposed internal documents showing executives deliberately designed platforms to keep children hooked — Motion A1 would dismantle that addictive architecture while preserving parliamentary sovereignty.My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley in his Motion A1. We are united across this House and, indeed, across Parliament in our desire to protect children from the significant harms of the online world, but, as we consider these amendments in lieu, we are presented with three rather different legislative strategies. The Government’s proposal in Motion A asks this House to grant sweeping, enduring Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State, allowing them to amend or repeal primary legislation via secondary regulations. The Government’s amendments remain completely silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government are fighting big tech with one arm tied behind their back, regulating, as we have heard today, the user rather than fixing the product. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his tireless and principled campaigning in this area, and I welcome the fact that his Motion A2 attempts to rein in the Government’s executive overreach by applying a two-year sunset clause to these Henry VIII powers. I recognise that his amendments are no longer a blanket ban, but his core proposal remains a blunt instrument. Although well-intentioned, this approach is built entirely on exclusion. It risks creating a dangerous cliff edge for young people: rather than helping children to safely develop digital resilience, it would potentially suddenly expose them to the unfiltered internet the moment they turned 16. Motion A1, by contrast, offers a far more precise, workable and future-proof alternative. Instead of handing unchecked powers to Ministers or trying to build an impossible wall around the internet, it places direct statutory duties on tech companies to clean up their platforms. As we have heard, that is essential. Under our Amendment 38Q, where any user is identified as being under 16, the platform must apply proportionate measures to limit…
The Minister said it's "not whether but how" — but that commitment to act is not what we have in the Government's amendment. The Government's amendment is not a commitment to act; Lord Nash's is. My noble friend's amendment has three material advantages: first, the commitment to act is on the face of the Bill; second, it gives the Government the consultation to shape the "how" while setting clear principles on addictive behaviour, serious harm, illegal content and loss of privacy; third, it simply sunsets the Henry VIII powers. Over 40 charities have signed the principles document — so I ask why only charities urging caution are ever quoted by Ministers.My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend’s Motion A2 and my Motion D1. My noble friend has once again laid out the arguments in favour of his Motion A2 most eloquently and elegantly and the Minister in her opening remarks talked about it being “not whether but how and what action will be taken” by the Government. Her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today have at different times made a commitment to act. But that is not what we have in the Government’s amendment. Their amendment is not a commitment to act; my noble friend’s amendment is. I hope that the Ministers opposite will forgive me for pointing out that the only charities they ever quote are those which have caution about the approach that my noble friend is advocating. As he said, over 40 charities have signed the principles document that has been developed with them. Of course, that gives those of us on this side of the House reason for real concern as to why no other charities are ever quoted in interviews by the Government. My noble friend’s amendment has several material advantages over the Government’s current approach. First is the simplicity in that the commitment to act is in the Bill. Your Lordships are very familiar with the risks posed by putting everything in secondary legislation, particularly secondary legislation with an enormous Henry VIII-shaped power. Secondly, it puts into effect the Prime Minister’s commitment but also allows the Government to use the consultation to shape the “how”—including on enforcement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly pointed out, and in relation to breadth and scope—but it sets out very clearly at proposed subsection (4)(a)(i) to (iv) the principles that would be followed in relation to addictive behaviour, serious harm and exploitation, illegal content and loss of privacy; your Lordships, I know, will have read the amendment. Thirdly, with great simplicity, it also su…
- The Government's amendment allows regulations to capture a wider range of harmful features and tailor measures to where harms are actually occurring — and we can move in months, not years. On the Henry VIII power: it permits the Secretary of State to apply only existing parts of the Online Safety Act with modification, not to amend existing online safety duties. We've required due regard to effects on children of different ages and provided for meaningful scrutiny through Select Committees before any regulations are laid. On mobile phones, the majority of schools already have prohibition policies, which is why we believe Amendment 106 is unnecessary. I will consider whether the guidance should be stronger on smartphones specifically, and I'll undertake to look at refinements in relation to smartphones distinct from mobile phones generally.
My Lords, on Motions A, A1 and A2, the Government, as I think I made clear in opening this debate, recognise the concerns raised in this House and the strength of feeling among parents about protecting children online. As I and other Ministers have said, we share that commitment. This is a complex issue, with a range of views, expressed once again today during this debate, about how it is best approached. Points were made by noble Lords about enforcement, the development of the online safety regime, and other issues that my noble friend Lady Lloyd and others in DSIT will continue to think carefully about. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, slightly took us back to discussions that we had earlier on the issue of edtech. I am happy to provide him with further information, expanding on the information that I gave in Committee, about the approach that the Government are taking, particularly to develop the evidence around what is and is not appropriate use of technology in the classroom. Given the strength of feeling, we have been clear in government that it is important that we act not only quickly but in the right way. The cases in the US, as commented on by noble Lords, have rightly and understandably raised interest. While we do not comment on foreign court judgments, we welcome international efforts to strengthen online safety and will want to learn from what is happening around the world. However, I note that the UK has the most robust online safety framework in the world, with a regulator empowered to issue fines of the same order of magnitude or larger. That is why the Government have announced that we are going to take further action to protect children’s well-being online through our consultation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others have identified, there is a range of action in different countries; I agree that it is not the same action in different countries. I was fortunate, before I was confined to my bed before recess, to go to New York, to the Com…
- Before you sit down — both Lord Mohammed and I raised smartphones as distinct from mobile phones. You said you'd consider improving the guidance to make clear that "not seen, not heard" wasn't in the spirit of the guidance. Will you also undertake to look at whether there's any refinement possible specifically in relation to smartphones?
Before the Minister sits down, both the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I raised the issue of smartphones as distinct from mobile phones. I understood the Minister to say that she would consider improving the guidance to make it clear that “not seen, not heard” was not in line with the spirit of the guidance. Will she also undertake to look at whether there is any refinement that could be considered in relation to smartphones?
- Yes, I will undertake to do that — and that flexibility is exactly why statutory guidance is more appropriate than a legislative ban on the face of the Bill.
Yes, I will undertake to do that. I think it is interesting that that type of question is exactly the reason why the use of what will become statutory guidance is a more appropriate way of dealing with the nuances of this issue than the type of legislative ban on the face of the Bill that some people are arguing for. Because of that flexibility, I will undertake to do that.
- I welcome the comments on clearer guidance for smartphones. I'm not minded to test the opinion of the House on this occasion.
I thank the Minister for her comments and response to the points raised. I thank all noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out clearly, alongside myself, our position on social media. I welcome the comments on having better clarity on the smartphones issue. I am not minded to test the opinion of the House on this occasion.
- I wish to test the temperature of the House.
My Lords, I wish to test the temperature of the House.
- Motion B1, tabled by Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, would require a review — including consideration of a monetary cap — within 12 months of implementation. The Government share the aim of reducing costs for parents. We will conduct a post-implementation review and have been monitoring the evidence for years; further legislation is unnecessary and risks creating uncertainty for schools just as they implement the numeric limit, which was a manifesto commitment backed by parents and the public. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and enforceable. On Motion C1, the noble Baroness's amendment would create a blanket exemption covering a significant proportion of schools with no allowance for local circumstances — including falling pupil numbers in London, where even good schools face closure. The Government's amendment in lieu ensures the independent adjudicator has regard to school quality and parental preference. I can confirm that, should this House desire it, we will bring forward an amendment in the other place to place on the face of the Bill a requirement for adjudicators to take account of quality and parental preference, and to consult the admissions authority, the local authority and the relevant DfE regional director on alternatives before making a determination.
My Lords, in moving Motion B, I shall speak also to Motions B1, C and C1. In this group, we will debate amendments relating to school uniforms and admissions. Motion B relates to Amendment 41B. Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to review the effectiveness of a numeric limit on branded uniform within 12 months, alongside consideration of a monetary cap. His subsequent Motion would require a review of the effectiveness of measures to control branded item costs within 12 months. I thank the noble Lord again for his championing of this issue. I know from our conversations how dear this issue is to him and how determined he is to make a difference for the children and families in his home town and up and down the country. I admire his commitment to thinking about the various ways in which we can achieve that. I make it clear that we share the aim of bringing down costs for parents, in particular for those who find it most difficult to afford school uniforms. This Government of course want to understand the impact that our manifesto commitment has made and whether it is meeting our shared objectives. As required with legislation, we will conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the policy and consider any modifications that may be recommended. Furthermore, the DfE has engaged with parents and school leaders extensively, over many years, on school uniform policies, including conducting detailed cost surveys. We will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence. For this reason, legislation on this is unnecessary. The priority now is to provide certainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent. We fear that these amendments might risk some uncertainty at a time when schools will be focused on implementing a numeric limit, which was not only a government manifesto commitment but was backed by both parents and the British public. A numeric limit is simple,…
- I don't doubt that the Government want to reduce the cost of school uniforms — their measure limits branded items, mine asked for a price cap. I've now stopped asking for a cap, but I am saying that when they conduct their 12-month review I hope they'll be willing to at least revisit the possibility. More important to me is support for children on free school meals: limiting the number of branded items still leaves a cost. I want the Government to say how they'll support every child on free school meals. On the PAN amendments, the Confederation of School Trusts wrote to me this morning saying the amendments need to go further — specifically that adjudicators should be under a legal duty to consider other ways of achieving effective provision, and should be required in law to consult the relevant DfE regional director. Can the Minister give us the confidence the CST wants?
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the time she gave last week. It enabled me to better understand where she and the Government are coming from and gave me the opportunity to highlight why I think school uniforms and their cost are important, hence my amendment. As your Lordships may recall, I benefited from a policy that David Blunkett—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—brought in. When my father lost his job in the steel industry in Sheffield, I was on free school meals. We were able to go to the local education authority and get some clothing for school. That lived experience is driving me to try to do the best for young people in Sheffield and across the country. I absolutely do not doubt that the Government want to reduce the cost of school uniforms. Their measure is to reduce the number of items required, while mine asked for a cap on the cost. As noble Lords may have seen from the amendments we have now tabled, I have stopped asking for that, but I am saying to the Government that, at some point, 12 months from implementation, when they have that review, I hope they will be willing to at least re-look at the possibilities of a cap. More important for me, going back to that lived experience, I want to keep pushing the Government to say how they will provide help and support. They are going to limit the cost of school uniforms by potentially limiting the numbers, but there is still a cost involved. I want the Government, as and when they can—once the economy picks up, I hope—to support every child who is on free school meals. I hope the Minister can comment on that when she gets up to respond. On the amendments on the PAN, I will read out information I got this morning from the Confederation of School Trusts. It said: “We are grateful to the Government for the work they have done to bring forward this amendment, which goes some way towards addressing our concerns about the potential impact of this policy on the quality of educational provision in the area. We think…
- I acknowledge Lord Mohammed's work on school uniform. On Motion C1: I recognise the Government have moved on prioritising quality and parental preference, but the amendment as drafted still doesn't resolve the core issue. Local authorities face a fundamental conflict of interest — the easiest thing for them is to cut the published admission numbers of large, popular schools, especially academies, to manage falling rolls. My amendment covers both academies and maintained schools, and its starting point is that the adjudicator must consider effective and efficient provision in an area before reducing a PAN — that's not a blanket exemption.
My Lords, I acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, in relation to school uniform and the focus that he has brought to this in the later stages of the Bill. I will speak to my Motion C1. I recognise that the Government have moved on prioritising quality and parental preference—and it sounds as though they are going to move a bit further, if I followed what the Minister just said. However, we do not believe that the amendment as drafted resolves the issue at the heart of this. On this side of the House, we of course recognise the pressure on schools and local authorities from falling rolls in certain parts of the country. Our concern is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for local authorities. The easiest thing for them to do is cut the published admission numbers of the larger and more popular schools, particularly if those schools are academies, as a way of addressing that problem. The Minister described my amendment as a blanket exemption. There are an awful lot of blankets in the Chamber this afternoon, and I do not see how one could interpret it as such. My amendment covers both academies and maintained schools, and its starting point is that consideration must be given to effective and efficient provision in an area. I am not entirely clear why that is a blanket exemption. It would require the school adjudicator to consider the shape of local provision and to explicitly consider mergers and closures.
Schools with falling rolls already receive lagged funding — payment for pupils they no longer have, for at least a year. For those of us improving previously failing schools, estimated funding under the current Government is zero. Adding an adjudicator who can reduce our PAN at local authority convenience — as nearly happened to us before this legislation — creates serious budgetary uncertainty. Baroness Barran's Motion brings some common sense to this.My Lords, I support Motion C1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I emphasise to the Minister that schools with falling rolls receive enormous support at the moment through lagged funding. They receive payment for pupils whom they no longer have, for at least a year. On the other side of the coin, for those of us who are trying to improve previously failing schools, the opposite applies. We are part of something called estimated funding. Under the current Government—I respect the difficult financial position—estimated funding is zero funding. To add to that, they are proposing a new system, with an adjudicator who can make the decision to go to an improving school—as happened to us before this legislation was proposed—to reduce the size of the PAN. It was administratively convenient for the local authority to do that, because it would have suffered no financial harm itself. The noble Baroness’s Motion strengthens the protection. We are still left with uncertainty in how the adjudicator process would work and how long it would take, and whether we should budget for increasing roles or not, pending some decision which will take I have no idea how long. I urge your Lordships to support the noble Baroness’s Motion to bring some common sense to this.
A government cap on the number of labelled uniform items is a preposterous piece of micromanagement driven by the worst sort of virtue signalling — designed to convey the Government are on the side of the poor, even as the PAN measure restricts poor students' access to the very best schools. Head teachers, including the country's best, have explained the ethos and discipline benefits of a strong uniform policy — but the Government insist they know better. On PANs: the purpose of two decades of school reform was greater autonomy at the front line and helping good schools expand. This legislation allows the Government to cap the growth of good schools to keep less-good schools open, for bureaucratic and local government convenience. It is not too late for the Minister to tell the current Prime Minister and Education Secretary to learn from those who went before, rather than repeating the mistakes of a socialist and interventionist past.My Lords, I support the points made by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. We are approaching the end of our consideration of this legislation, which comes as we all reflect on the huge gains that have been made by English schools in the last two decades. Improvements in schools in England have not been matched by schools in Scotland or Wales. This is not because students in Scotland and Wales are less intelligent or teachers less motivated but because the reforms that were introduced under Tony Blair and sustained during the coalition years and thereafter had two principles at their heart: greater autonomy for the front line and support for good schools to expand, so that their practice could be adopted by schools that were performing less well and so more students could benefit. Of the two final elements that we are considering here, a government cap on the number of labelled items of school uniform that a school can require of its students is a preposterous piece of micromanagement, driven by the worst sort of virtue signalling. It is designed to convey that the Government are on the side of the poor, even as the measures on planned pupil admission numbers restrict the access of poor students to the very best schools. When it comes to school uniform, we know from the voices of head teachers on the front line the benefits that an effective school uniform policy can have in contributing to ethos, discipline and a sense of inclusivity when our society is increasingly tribalised and polarised. Rather than listen to the testimony of head teachers—including the country’s very best head teacher, Katharine Birbalsingh, who has pointed out the folly of this policy—the Government insist that the best way of helping the poor is price capping and telling head teachers that they know better. All the evidence of history flies in the face of the course that the Government are setting. The fact that we have an absurd question about whether or not there should be an over…
- I welcome Lord Gove to the Bill — better late than never, and as always he said something interesting even if he's wrong. On school uniform: our numeric limit is simple, will deliver savings more quickly and is overwhelmingly backed by parents; we have been clear about our concerns with a cost cap. On PANs: we are not in a period of growing pupil numbers. Falling rolls will force difficult decisions in some areas and risk good schools closing because falling numbers across a range of schools aren't managed together. The school adjudicator — not the local authority — will be the final and independent decision-maker. Adjudicators have existed throughout several governments, include MAT CEOs, head teachers, education lawyers and local authority directors, and already consider PAN objections. Our amendment ensures they have regard to school quality and parental preference, and regulations will set out what else they must consider. I commit to bringing forward an amendment in the other place that requires adjudicators to consult key parties — including the relevant DfE regional director — on alternatives before reducing a PAN.
My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken in this small debate. I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gove, to the consideration of the Bill. I am not sure that he contributed in the very many sessions we have had up until this point, but better late than never. As always, he had something interesting to say, even if I think he is wrong and disagree with him. Let us focus, as this group does, on Motion B and Motion B1 on Lords Amendment 41D, which 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. As I said in my opening speech, we believe that these amendments are necessary, and I commit to the noble Lord that we will monitor the impact as we implement the limit. That does not need to be in legislation, and the amendment risks creating some uncertainty for schools and parents at a time when schools will be implementing the limit. For noble Lords’ information, the limit was included in the Government’s manifesto, is widely welcomed by parents and others, and is focused on what we believe is the simplest way to deliver this, which is a limit on branded items in school uniforms. We have been clear about our concerns with a cost cap, which is not the proposal here, and do not believe it would be the most effective way to reduce costs for parents. Our proposal for a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, will deliver savings more quickly and is overwhelmingly backed by parents. On the discussion about admissions, several noble Lords have spoken to Motion C, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, which insists on it. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number. This proposition in this legislation is very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in. If we were in a position where the number of children in our schools was growing then all of us—as was the…
- I'm partly reassured by the Minister's commitment on school uniform costs, and I'll be snapping at her heels over the next 12 months to make sure those commitments are fulfilled. I'm not minded to test the opinion of the House.
I thank the Minister for her response to the issue of the cost of school uniforms in particular. I am partly reassured by her commitment. I wish her and her Government well in trying to help with dealing with the cost of school uniforms. She can rest assured that it is not a topic that I will let go of in the next 12 months. I will be constantly snapping at her heels to make sure that the commitments she has given from the Dispatch Box are fulfilled. With that, I am not minded to test the opinion of the House.
- They should have known better. What we've heard this afternoon is that, at the 11th hour, the Government are scrambling to get an amendment on published admission numbers right — and we haven't seen it work yet. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
They should have known better. What we have heard this afternoon is that, at the 11th hour, the Government are focusing on trying to get an amendment right on published admission numbers. We have not seen that work yet and it is the 11th hour. As a result, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
- I would like to test the opinion of the House.
I would like to test the opinion of the House.