Programme motion, Consideration of Lords amendments in the Commons
Commons consideration of 13 Lords amendments to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, covering child protection plans, sibling contact in care, free school meals, school uniform costs, allergy safety, phone bans, and social media age restrictions.
OBThis Bill creates the conditions for every child to achieve and thrive — safer childhoods, tackling child poverty, rising school standards. We're also introducing a new duty on local housing authorities to notify schools and health services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation, and strengthening family group decision-making so children's voices sit at the heart of decisions about their futures.Children’s voices are heard rarely in this place and are too often ignored in our society, so I say at the outset that it is truly a special privilege to play my part in the passage of this landmark legislation. This Bill is about creating the conditions in which every child can achieve and thrive, to ensure safer and more secure childhoods, to tackle the scrouge of child poverty and to deliver high and rising school standards. Today I ask the House to renew its commitment to that ambition for our children and our country. I extend my thanks to my colleague and friend, Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, for her skilful stewardship of the Bill. I ask hon. Members to back the Government amendments made in the other place that increase the ambition of the legislation. In part 1 of the Bill, we have introduced a new duty on local housing authorities to, with consent, notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. We have also strengthened the Government’s work to put the voices of children at the heart of decisions about their futures, with amendments on family group decision making and the kinship local offer.
In Northern Ireland, Minister Paul Givan has run a pilot taking smartphones out of classrooms. That's a positive step — has the Minister considered adopting the same strategy here?There is much positivity in what the Government are bringing forward. Back in Northern Ireland, Minister Paul Givan has brought forward a pilot scheme to take smartphones out of the classroom while children are in school. Has the Minister considered that positive strategy? If it is a positive in Northern Ireland, I think it would be a positive here as well.
- On Lords amendment 44: extending the consent requirement risks discouraging families from seeking help at all, and wrongly implies that circumstances can never change. The Government cannot support it on principle.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention; I will turn to that matter in due course. The Government cannot support Lords amendment 44 on principle. Extending the consent requirement would risk discouraging families from seeking or continuing to receive help or support. The amendment suggests that a child’s or a family’s circumstances can never change.
- On Lords amendment 16 and the adoption and special guardianship support fund: we've committed £55 million for 2026–27, confirmed the fund continues in 2027–28, and launched a 12-week consultation on adoption support — undertaking a separate review would undermine that. On Lords amendments 17 and 19: sibling contact and health partners in regional arrangements are vital, but existing legal duties already cover both, and our wider social care reforms — 10,000 new fostering places, a reset on kinship care — will deliver the change that's needed far more effectively.
I am sorry but I am going to make some progress. I will now turn to the amendments relating to looked-after children and deprivation of liberty. Lords amendment 16 concerns a proposed review of the level of funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We all know the importance of effective support for the success of adoptive families. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), announced £55 million for the fund in 2026-27 and confirmed that the fund will continue in 2027-28. He also announced a 12-week consultation on adoption support, including the ASGSF. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that we do not undermine the integrity of the consultation by undertaking a separate review. Lords amendment 17 intends to strengthen relationships between looked-after children and their siblings. In practice, it would require local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between looked-after children and any sibling they are not living with. I am proud that this Government have set out the biggest reforms to the children’s social care system in a generation. In particular, we are implementing changes to expand fostering, creating 10,000 additional places for children, and resetting the system to back kinship care, so that more children can grow up safely with people who already know and love them. These changes will allow many more children who grow up in care to spend time with their brothers or sisters.
Making kinship care central is the right call. Children in care face constant disruption — multiple home moves, school changes — and relationships with brothers and sisters are central to a child's sense of identity and security. Please look again at how regulations and guidance could better protect those sibling bonds.I congratulate the Government on making kinship care central to their policies. Many children in care experience significant disruption in their lives, through multiple home moves and school changes, and relationships with their brothers and sisters are so central to a child’s sense of identity, belonging and emotional security. Will the Minister look again at how regulations and guidance could better ensure that those relationships are protected?
- Sibling relationships matter deeply — I agree — but Lords amendment 17 would do little to advance that cause in practice. Our broader children's social care reforms will.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of sibling relationships. Lords amendment 17 would do little to advance that cause, but the reforms that we are driving forward on children’s social care will. Lords amendment 19 seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that is important to include health partners in regional arrangements to improve looked-after children’s outcomes, but there are already legal requirements on local authorities to do this. These duties will continue to apply to local authorities that form regional care co-operatives, and the amendment is therefore unnecessary. Lords amendment 21 concerns joint funding arrangements for children deprived of their liberty. Mechanisms for pooled funding already exist and work well in some areas, and legislating now would be premature ahead of pilots that will test effective models. Lords amendments 41 and 42 seek a monetary cap rather than a numeric limit on branded school uniform. I welcome their lordships’ support of the Government’s aim to tackle the cost of uniform for parents. Our manifesto was clear that we will limit of branded items of uniform required, so uniforms make children look smarter but do not make families poorer. However, these amendments would undermine our shared aims. A cost cap would risk creating perverse incentives for schools by creating a financial target; many schools could require more branded items, reducing savings for parents. A cost cap would require Government to regulate for wider, unworkable factors, including how many spares parents might buy, cost variations for clothing sizes and even promotional pricing. It would also impose new bureaucracy on schools to carry out regular retail price monitoring, often across multiple suppliers. We recognise concerns about high-cost individual items, which is why we will strengthen existing cost guidance to be clear that high-cost compulsory branded uniform items should be av…
I agree parents should choose their child's school. But one of my first cases as an MP was a child automatically off-rolled after 20 days of absence — communicated to the school, extended because of a bereavement — with no process, no review, nine months out of school. Will the Minister review this punitive policy so there's a formal review before a child is removed from their preferred school?I completely agree with the Minister’s position; parents should have the choice to send their child to whichever school they believe is best for them. In relation to admissions, one of my first cases after becoming an MP was an automatic off-rolling of a child after she had been absent for 20 days, despite the absence having been communicated to the school and extended due to a bereavement. She was off-rolled with no process and no review, and she was out of school for nine months. Will the Minister consider reviewing this punitive policy to ensure that there is a formal review before a child is removed from their preferred school?
- Write to me about that case and I'll look into it — off-rolling absolutely should not be happening. On Lords amendment 105 and allergy safety: we will put Benedict's law on the statute book with our own amendment requiring schools to have and publish an allergy safety policy, have regard to statutory guidance, and giving the Secretary of State powers on allergy safety regulations. Helen Blythe is in the Gallery today — her bravery and campaigning have been instrumental.
If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about that case, I am happy to look into it for him. Off-rolling absolutely should not be happening. Let me turn to the crucial issue of allergies. Lords amendment 105 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members across the House who have been campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools, including my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). Last week, we published draft statutory guidance, which will be in force in September. It sets out clearly that schools should have a dedicated allergy safety policy and stock spare adrenalin devices, as well as whole-staff allergy awareness training. At the launch, I had the privilege of joining Helen and Peter Blythe, and their wonderful daughter Etta. Their campaigning in memory of their son, Benedict, has been both brave and instrumental. We recognise their argument about allergy safety requiring the strongest protections. That is why I am pleased to confirm—with Helen in the Gallery today—that we will put Benedict’s law on the statute book, with our own amendment to require schools to have and publish an allergy safety policy, to have regard to statutory guidance and to give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to allergy safety. This will protect children with allergies in schools and ensure that our guidance can evolve as clinical advice changes. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking Helen once again for her bravery and brilliant campaigning.
Can you assure us that the Benedict Blythe Foundation, Helen, and the MPs who've campaigned for this will see the amendment at the earliest possible opportunity before it goes to the Lords, so we can make sure Benedict's law is delivered in full?I thank the Minister for recognising that we need to legislate to protect children with allergies in schools. Can she reassure us that the Benedict Blythe Foundation, Helen and the MPs who have campaigned for this will see the amendment at the very earliest opportunity before it goes to the Lords, so we can ensure that Benedict’s law is delivered in full?
- Absolutely — that assurance is given. On Lords amendments 37, 38 and 106 on social media, VPNs and phones: we know parents worry about what platforms are doing to their children's sleep, concentration and mental health. That's why we've launched a consultation seeking views to shape our next steps, open until 26 May with a response in the summer. Our amendment in lieu gives the Secretary of State regulation-making powers to restrict or ban children from accessing social media and chatbots, limit addictive features, age-restrict VPN use, and raise the digital age of consent — with any regulations requiring a vote in both Houses. And on phones: new guidance makes clear that schools should be mobile phone free from bell to bell, with Ofsted inspecting enforcement from April. No action from this Government means doing nothing — it's a question of *how* we act, not *if*.
Absolutely—I can give that assurance. I am afraid that I cannot take any further interventions, because I must get through the last section of my speech. Let me turn to Lords amendments 37, 38 and 106, on social media, VPNs and phones in schools. I acknowledge the strength of feeling on these issues in both this House and the other place. The Online Safety Act 2023 brought in strong protections, but this Government have always been clear that we will build on its foundations. We know that parents across the country worry about what social media is doing to their children’s sleep, concentration and mental health. Many feel that they are fighting a losing battle against platforms designed to keep children scrolling. Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s. Others, including children’s charities, have warned that a blanket ban could drive children towards less regulated corners of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared when they do come online. That is why last week the Government launched a consultation to seek views to help to shape our next steps and ensure that children can grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world. The consultation will be open until 26 May, and we will respond in the summer. The consultation already addresses the areas covered by the Lords amendments. Crucially, the consultation goes beyond the Lords amendments and seeks a view on a range of other issues, including children’s use of AI chatbot services, mandatory overnight curfews, whether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features, and whether the digital age of consent in the UK general data protection regulation should be raised from 13. We are also ensuring that we can act swiftly and decisively on the outcomes of the consultation. That is why we are proposing an amendment in lieu to allow us to act via regulation-making powers. These powers will allow the Secretary of Sta…
The volume of Lords amendments tells you everything about the deficiencies in this Bill. The Government seem determined to oppose anything they didn't invent — not on merit, but out of tribal instinct. Take phones: the Education Secretary called a statutory ban a "gimmick", the Prime Minister called it "unnecessary", then she admitted guidance isn't enough, and now she's consulting on the very thing she dismissed while refusing to back Lords amendment 106, which would actually deliver it. On academies: the Government still can't justify stripping away the freedoms that drove school improvement — the same White Paper that praises academies as the engine of improvement is accompanied by a Bill that destroys them in all but name.I am delighted to address the 13 amendments sent back to us by the other place this evening. The volume of Lords amendments reflects the strong feelings in both Houses about the deficiencies in the Bill, but there is a chance tonight to make change for the better. At the moment, the Government seem to do their utmost to oppose anything that they did not come up with—not on merit, but because they have retreated into a tribal bunker in which only ideas emanating from Labour special advisers or union bosses are deemed acceptable. May I suggest that this is not serving the Government very well? Let us take the phone ban. The Education Secretary has turned into a contortionist. First, she told me that a statutory ban on phones in the classroom was a “gimmick”. Then, the Prime Minister slammed it as “unnecessary”. The Education Secretary later admitted that there is a problem, but she said that more guidance can fix it. Finally, she is now consulting on whether to do a statutory ban but refusing to back our amendment, in Lords amendment 106, which would actually deliver one. I am flattered by the energy that the Education Secretary is putting into avoiding agreeing with me, but this is getting ridiculous. If the Government cannot properly argue the merits of their case, we get bad legislation. We had that problem with the Bill when it first came in. The Government still cannot justify the rationale for taking away academy freedoms—the very same freedoms that have delivered improved school standards in this country. Indeed, we now have the absurdity of the schools White Paper rightly saying that academies are the driving force behind school improvement, while in this Bill the Government are destroying academies in all but name. This is palpable nonsense. Do not try to make any sense of it—it is not possible.
We do not need more discussion, more consultation or more research — the research already shows the harm social media and phones are doing to children. Every day we delay and prevaricate, we are robbing children of a healthy life. Just do what so obviously needs to be done.I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making the case for banning mobile phones in schools and for restricting access to social media. We do not need more discussion or consultation, and we do not need more research, because research already shows the harm that those things are doing. By delaying and prevaricating, we are robbing children of the chance of a healthy life, so let us just move on and do what so obviously needs to be done.
- On Lords amendment 102 and pupil admission numbers: good and outstanding schools are oversubscribed and the Government want to make them smaller — that is exactly what they're asking backbenchers to vote for. Parental choice has driven school improvement; cutting good school places is bad for parents, bad for schools, and above all bad for children.
As ever, my right hon. Friend is the voice of reason in this Chamber. Turning to our amendment that deals with pupil admission numbers, Lords amendment 102, I hope the Government will try to explain why they think good and outstanding schools should be made smaller when they are oversubscribed. To be clear, that is exactly what the Government are asking Back Benchers to vote for this evening. Parental choice has been the great driver of school improvement in this country—it empowers parents to vote with their feet and encourages excellent schools—yet the Government want to turn that principle on its head. They want to cut good school places, which is bad for parents, bad for schools and, above all, bad for children. School standards are on the Order Paper this evening, and the Government want to vote against them.
The system as it stands lets local authorities control admissions to good maintained schools but gives them far less control over academies. When pupil numbers are falling, the only lever councils can pull is reducing admissions to good maintained schools. Shouldn't the Government be able to make place-planning decisions in the interests of children, regardless of school type?The right hon. Lady knows that the challenge at the moment is that, because of the way that the system works, local authorities can control the number of admissions to good and outstanding maintained schools, but have much less control when it comes to academies. When there are falling pupil numbers—as she knows there are across the country—and work needs to be done to ensure we have the right number of places in the right areas, the only lever that our local authorities have to pull is reducing admissions to good and outstanding maintained schools. Does the right hon. Lady not agree that it is right that this Government act to make sure we can make choices in the interests of children and parents, regardless of the type of school?
- I profoundly disagree. When school places are shrinking, it is the good ones that should survive — and parents, not bureaucrats, should make that choice. On Lords amendments 41 and 42 and the uniform cost cap: a monetary cap is palpably better than a cap on the number of items. The guidance literally says that loaned or gifted branded items count towards the limit if required to be worn — making a school's free football kit illegal is insanity.
I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. At a time of shrinking school places, it is important that it is the good school places that survive, and parents should make that choice, not bureaucrats. The Government’s inability simply to admit that they got it wrong in the Bill, and that there is a better way of achieving the outcome they want, is ever present. Lords amendment 41, which would impose a cost cap on school uniform, is palpably better than having a cap on the number of items. It is the height of insanity to insist that it should be illegal for a school to use the football kit it received for free because that would be outside of the item limit. If anyone is thinking that this cannot actually be Government policy, I suggest that they read the guidance that sits alongside the legislation. It literally says that “All loaned or gifted branded items will be captured within the limit if they are required to be worn”, meaning that they come under the cap. That makes absolutely no sense.
- To be clear: the guidance says an item can be loaned as long as it is not compulsory — that is a perfectly reasonable position and it allows sports teams to loan kit.
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that specific point, but it is clear in the guidance that an item can be loaned as long as it is not compulsory. That is a perfectly reasonable situation that enables school sports teams to loan uniform items.
- The whole point of uniform is that it's compulsory — and I was reading directly from the guidance. A child wearing something they were given for free does not increase costs for parents. If 'not invented here' syndrome weren't rampant at the DfE, Lords amendment 41 would already have been adopted. The same is true of Lords amendment 44: the Sara Sharif serious case review states the unamended Bill would not have helped her, yet the Government are opposing the amendment that would fix that.
The whole point is whether it is compulsory or not—that is the whole point of uniform, and I was reading directly from the guidance. It makes absolutely no sense; how is a child wearing something that they have been given for free going to increase costs for parents? If the “not invented here” syndrome were not running so rampant in the Department for Education, the change made by Lords amendment 41 would already have been made. The same is true of Lords amendment 44. We all know the horrific case of Sara Sharif, which was used as a rationale for bringing forward many of the positive child protection measures in the Bill. The serious case review published at the end of last year set out multiple failings that led to Sara falling out of the system. That review states that, while well intentioned, this legislation would not have helped Sara, so we have brought forward amendment 44 to fix that. It ensures that consent would need to be sought from the local authority to homeschool any child who has ever had a child protection plan. That would mean that the Bill would have helped Sara, which is the Government’s stated aim, but guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Government are now opposing that amendment. We are diligently doing the work an Opposition should do to improve the legislation, but it is being shrugged off by the Government—not on its merits, but because they do not want to accept anything from this side of the House. It is not good enough.
The Sara Sharif safeguarding review — a case from my constituency — highlighted failings in Surrey county council and in the law, and recommended three specific things not covered by Lords amendment 44. Wouldn't it be better to put Surrey under special measures and implement the safeguarding review in full?I thank the shadow Minister for raising the case of Sara Sharif from my constituency. The safeguarding review that she has referred to highlighted failings in Surrey county council and failings in the law. That review recommended three quite detailed things, which are not included in the Lords amendment—the amendment is separate. Would it not be better for Surrey to be put under special measures and for the Government to implement the safeguarding review in full, immediately?
- Those measures are outside the Bill's scope. What we know is that Lords amendment 44 would have helped Sara in a way the unamended Bill would not. On phones: polling published today shows 40% of children are shown explicit content during the school day. This is an emergency — no more guidance, no more consultations, legislate now and ban phones in schools tonight.
The hon. Gentleman is arguing for things that are outside the scope of the Bill. What we know is that the change made by Lords amendment 44 would have helped Sara in a way that the unamended Bill would not have done. I am not going to push Lords amendments 2 and 21 to a vote this evening, but I reserve the right to come back to them if the Government do not engage constructively in the other place. I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Barran for her brilliant work on those amendments and on the wider Bill. Turning to phones, I really want Members to understand how bad things have got with phones in schools, and why a statutory ban is necessary. I know that the Government have issued revised guidance and have asked Ofsted to enforce it, but Ofsted’s guidance on this topic still allows phones to be present in schools. I cannot overstate to Members how damaging and dangerous that is. I was thinking about how to communicate this most effectively, and given that the Government are not listening to me, to parents or to teachers, I thought that first-hand testimony from a young person might get through. I warn you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the following account from a former pupil involves some graphic content that I sincerely wish I did not have to talk about. However, I refuse to shy away from it, because if we are exposing 13-year-olds to such content in schools, we need to be able to talk about it in this Chamber. This is testimony from a girl who was at an outstanding girls’ school that had a “not seen, not heard” phone policy. Such policies are common in many schools across the country and count as a phone ban under the Government’s definition. The Minister says that children’s voices are rarely heard—well, I hope she listens to this testimony today. “When I was around 13 or 14 years old, one of my classmates would pull out her laptop at lunch times. She would connect her laptop through her phone’s hotspot, because the school wi-fi would block any social media,…
My constituency survey shows the vast majority of parents support a simple age limit on social media, because of the harmful algorithms. Is the responsible thing not for every Member to support keeping children safe by backing an age limit?To enhance my right hon. Friend’s point, I have been running a survey in my constituency and the vast majority of respondents and parents have said that they support the concept of a simple age limit on social media, because of these particularly harmful algorithms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsible thing for all of us in this House to do is to support our party’s policy of keeping our children safe by putting an age limit on social media?
- We need that age limit and we need the phone ban. A quarter of children in primary school have seen porn — the vast majority via social media algorithms that deliberately serve it to them. Criminals use Snapchat and Facebook to groom children. In one month in 2022, Snap received 10,000 sextortion reports. Social media is implicated in dozens of children's deaths — Ellen Roome's son Jools died taking part in a TikTok blackout challenge in April 2022, two years after it was supposedly removed from the platform. The Government's consultation says children like using TikTok to post dance videos. That is a misguided view that has got us into this position.
My hon. Friend is completely right. We need that age limit, and we need the phone ban in schools. Polling out today shows that 40% of children are shown explicit content during the school day. That is happening right now. This is an emergency. No more guidance; no more consultations—the Government should legislate, do something about it, and vote to ban phones in schools tonight. The Lords amendments on social media received overwhelming cross-party backing in the other place. They were put forward by the noble Lords Nash, Berger, Cass and Benjamin. The amendments have been extensively debated and are backed by a number of expert groups and bereaved parents. In the place of those amendments, we have the farcical situation where the Government are asking the House to support their own amendment, which does not tell us what the Government will do or even when they will do it. No action is required by the provision being put forward this evening.
The shadow Secretary of State talks about parental choice on schools, yet on this amendment she believes she and the House of Lords know better than parents how to raise their children. Many parents recognise positive experiences on social media — isn't a proper consultation, hearing from experts and children, more sensible than legislating in haste?The shadow Secretary of State has been speaking a bit tonight about parental choice. That is, until this amendment, where she does not believe parents are able to decide what their children should do. In fact, she believes that she is far better placed, as are many Members in the House of Lords who do not know how to take a photo on their phone, to tell people how to parent their children. Does she acknowledge that many parents recognise that their children have positive experiences on social media? Is it not sensible to have a consultation, as the Government have already announced, to hear from experts, from children and from all the people who have opinions on this issue, rather than legislating at great haste and making a huge difference to many young people’s lives?
- This is a safeguarding issue, and we have always taken protective steps on safeguarding. The Government's amendment in lieu does not even tell us whether ministers think social media should be banned — they can choose to do nothing under it. That is extraordinary.
This is a safeguarding issue, and we have always taken steps when it comes to safeguarding young people. Let me be clear to Labour Members: the Government can choose to do nothing based on this amendment. Ministers do not have a view on whether social media should be banned, and they have put forward an amendment that does not tell us what they will do. It is extraordinary.
- Social media platforms are weaponised by algorithms — and by hostile states — to make children addicted. It is impossible for parents to protect children who don't yet have the critical thinking skills to protect themselves. The No. 2 cause of stroke in women under 40 is being strangled during sex — because the internet has normalised that. We have to protect our children.
This is not about the ability of parents; it is about recognising that social media platforms are being weaponised by algorithms—let alone by hostile states—to make children addicted to them. It is impossible for parents to protect their children who do not have the critical thinking skills before 16. Having worked in counter-terrorism, I know that it is critical thinking that stops people from getting on planes to blow themselves up in foreign countries. The No. 2 cause of stroke in women under 40 is being strangled during sex. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is because they have been told on the internet that they can be safely strangled? They cannot. We have to protect our children, because it is impossible for them to police things or have the critical thinking skills to protect themselves when they are on the internet.
The Education Committee welcomes putting the free school meals expansion in the Bill — combined with free breakfast clubs, it will substantially reduce hunger that harms children's health and holds back their learning. I urge the Minister to implement auto-enrolment using universal credit data the Government already hold, so no child misses out. I also welcome the duty to notify schools and health services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation — I've seen at first hand the destabilising impact: damp, overcrowded housing far from school, no space to do homework, and the constant insecurity of having no permanent home.I rise to speak to the Lords amendments to the Bill that are of most interest to the Education Committee, following our scrutiny work on the Bill and in relation to a number of other subsequent and ongoing inquiries. I welcome the decision to place the expansion of the entitlement to free school meals in the Bill. The Education Committee welcomes that expansion, which will increase the number of children who can benefit from a nutritious hot meal in the middle of the day. Combined with the roll-out of free breakfast clubs, it will substantially reduce the scourge of hunger, which harms children’s health and holds back their learning. My Committee has recommended that the Government introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals. The use of universal credit data, which the Government already hold, would make auto-enrolment much easier to achieve. I urge the Minister to ensure, by implementing auto-enrolment, that no child misses out on the meal to which they are entitled. I welcome the introduction of a requirement to notify health and education services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. I have seen at first hand many times in my constituency the destabilising impact of temporary accommodation on children’s lives. It is usually the worst quality accommodation and is the most likely to be overcrowded, damp and mouldy. It is often far away from school and friends, with no space to do homework, and brings the constant underlying insecurity of not having a permanent home. It can have profound consequences for children’s health and education, and the new duty to notify is an important first step in ensuring that children can be supported.
Teachers need to know when pupils are in temporary accommodation — without that context, they can see a drop in engagement or performance but have no idea why. It's hugely important.I declare an interest, as a member of the Education Committee and a former teacher. I thank the Chair of the Committee for her passionate speech. Does she agree that it is hugely important that teachers are aware when young people in their care are in temporary accommodation, because of the huge impact it can have on their education, as she has suggested?
- I agree entirely. On sibling contact and Lords amendment 17: the Education Committee heard directly from care-experienced young people about the profound impact of sibling separation. Yet the Department for Education gathers *no data* on sibling separation — that has to be a first step. The Government must find a way to incorporate stronger requirements for sibling contact before the Bill reaches the statute book. On uniform: a £100 compulsory blazer required before a child from a low-income background can attend school is egregious — guidance for schools must be strengthened on high-cost individual items. And on social media: I support raising the digital age of consent, a ban on some apps for under-16s, and a statutory phone ban in schools, but there are genuine differences among stakeholders on how best to regulate — a consultation is right, and I welcome the regulation-making powers. Please give us a timescale for legislation following the consultation.
I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. So often we hear from teachers that they recognise a drop in a student’s engagement or performance, but without understanding why. I welcome the introduction of the new requirements on allergy safety in schools. As the parent of a child who had unexplained allergies in early childhood, I understand some of the fear and anxiety that parents experience when entrusting a child with allergies to a formal setting. There is anxiety about whether allergens will be properly managed, and anxiety about what will happen if their child experiences an allergic reaction. The new requirements will ensure that there is more consistency, improve knowledge and introduce better protocols for managing allergies in schools, so that parents and schools can have more confidence. I turn to Lords amendment 17 on siblings and foster care. In the Education Committee’s inquiry into children’s social care last year, we heard directly from young people with recent experience of the care system. They told us about the profound impacts of sibling separation. Sibling relationships are very important for looked-after children, who often have experienced trauma and broken relationships with their parents and other family members. Yet far too often, siblings are separated by a care system that struggles, due to funding and lack of capacity, to deliver child-centred care. My Committee was shocked to discover that the Department for Education gathers no data on sibling separation. That is a first and necessary step in seeking to reduce it. I appreciate that the Government are not yet content with the wording of the amendment on sibling contact, but I urge them to find a way to incorporate stronger requirements for sibling contact to be prioritised and maintained before the Bill reaches the statute book. It is a small change concerning something that should happen anyway, and has the potential to make a big difference to vulnerable children in the care system. In the…
Fifteen months after this Bill began, I'm deeply disappointed that the Government are throwing out so many Lords amendments and giving us so little time to debate them. On uniform: a monetary price cap — as Lords amendments 41 and 42 propose — would use market incentives to drive prices *down* for parents while giving schools flexibility on their own uniform policy. There's nothing shameful about changing your mind when the evidence demands it. On Lords amendment 16 and the adoption and special guardianship support fund: last year's cuts mean families can barely afford needs assessments, let alone the complex therapy children require — adoption breakdown is a real threat for many families. The DfE's advertising budget hit nearly £50 million last year; halving it could restore therapeutic support to thousands of children. On Lords amendment 17 and sibling contact: the current system is not working, and saying the duty already exists is not a sufficient answer. On social media: simply granting yourselves power to act at some point is no protection for children until you actually act. These sweeping powers, delivered through secondary legislation, hand a loaded gun to any future administration to decide which websites are harmful — that is a serious democratic concern. We will oppose the removal of Lords amendment 38 because the safety of children is a non-negotiable right.It is a pleasure to welcome the Bill back to the House of Commons, some 15 months after it started its passage at the beginning of last year. I am, however, extremely disappointed that the Government have provided such a small amount of time for us to discuss the numerous Lords amendments, and that they are throwing so many of them out. I am grateful to our colleagues in the other place for their diligence and their efforts to strengthen and improve the Bill. Lords amendment 41 and 42, tabled by my noble Friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to introduce a price cap on the amount of branded uniform that a school can require parents to buy. We know that the price of uniform causes real hardship for families, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis. As we have just heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), it often causes genuine anxiety. Children are sometimes sent home for wearing the wrong item of uniform, which disrupts their learning. While we strongly support the Government’s intention to introduce a branded uniform items cap, I implore the Minister to look again at the detail. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a uniform price cap, which would keep the prices down for parents while giving schools the flexibility to choose their own uniform policy and decide how many branded items they wish to include. The Minister talked about perverse incentives and driving up prices for parents. In fact, a monetary cap would do precisely the opposite, because it would be using the market and incentivising suppliers to drive down their prices. Obviously, they would want to be able to sell more items of branded clothing within that cap. I appreciate that the Government point to their manifesto commitment, but there is nothing shameful about changing one’s mind—or, dare I say, U-turning—when the evidence demands it. That is something that the Government should feel pretty comfortable with by now. Let…
Since 2016 I have used every parliamentary lever available on sibling contact for children in care. The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents — but no such requirement exists for siblings. If siblings cannot be placed together, they deserve the same right to contact enshrined in primary legislation as they have with their parents. For children from neglectful or abusive backgrounds, their sibling relationship is often their only constant, positive, reassuring bond — a shared experience only they truly know.I will speak briefly to Lords amendment 17. Since 2016, I have used every single parliamentary lever possible to improve sibling contact for children in care, by trying to create parity in the legislation. Although the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents, there is no such requirement for a looked-after child’s contact with their siblings or half-siblings. If siblings cannot be placed together, they should have the same rights to contact defined in primary legislation as they do with their parents. Many siblings who come from neglectful or abusive backgrounds often state that their only constant, positive and reassuring relationship is with their siblings. After all, they have a shared experience. No matter how horrific it is, it is something that only they truly know about.
- Lords amendment 105 — Benedict's law — honours Benedict Blythe, who was five years old when he suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction at school. No child should feel unsafe at school, and no parent should fear at drop-off that they may not see their child again. Benedict's law would require every school to have a mandatory allergy policy, stock spare adrenalin on site, and ensure every member of staff is trained. One in three schools currently has none of those things. Today's announcement that the Government will table their own amendment is welcome — it finishes the job. I drafted this amendment last September; the Government whipped their peers to vote it down in the Lords; we pushed it to a vote anyway, and I'm glad we did. I want to see the wording as soon as possible. The Government must also provide funding to schools for the medications — by altering the distribution method as the Benedict Blythe Foundation recommends, Benedict's law could save the Treasury £1 million a year, plus an estimated £1.5 million from reduced A&E admissions. I close by paying tribute to Helen Blythe: Benedict's life mattered, and his death must matter too.
Lords amendment 105 is named Benedict’s law for Benedict Blythe, who was just five years old when he suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction at school after being exposed to allergens. No child should go to school in the morning feeling anxious that they will not be safe, and no parent should fear at drop-off that they may never pick up their child again, but that was the unfortunate reality for Helen and Peter Blythe. Since that day, they have fought to make sure that every child is safer in school. Benedict’s law would ensure that every school has a mandatory allergy policy and holds spare adrenalin medications on site, and that every member of staff is trained and knows how to protect children. One in three schools in our country currently has none of those things, but we would not have known that if it was not for Helen’s campaigning for the Benedict Blythe Foundation. That is why this law is needed. I offer my thanks to the Government. The statutory guidance to which they have committed is a real step forward, and today’s announcement that the Government will accept our amendment by tabling it in the Government’s name is welcome. It finishes the job, and means that full protections will finally be in place. Every measure that protects a child with allergies is a good thing, and I am so relieved that we have reached this point. I drafted the Benedick Blythe amendment last September, and I pay tribute to Harry Warren and my team, with whom I have campaigned throughout this time. When the amendment was put to the Lords, the Government whipped their peers to vote against it. I thank every noble Lord who voted for it, because they brought us here today. The Government had told me that legislation was not needed. When the guidance was announced, we welcomed it, but we said that it did not go far enough. That is why we pushed our amendment to a vote. We are glad the Government now recognise that the guidance does not go far enough, largely because we were determined to…
As a father of two young boys, I've approached Lords amendment 38 not only as a legislator but as a parent. I've received 1,309 emails from North Somerset residents calling for the social media age to be raised to 16 — one of the largest campaigns since my election. Social media was sold as a tool for connection but has been driven by engagement algorithms optimised purely for profit. A 2024 report found that 78% of young people had experienced online harm — body shaming, harassment, non-consensual sharing of sexual images. As a pharmacist: if a drug caused measurable harm for 78% of young people, it would be withdrawn or placed behind the counter. The same logic must apply here. I also urge the Government to consider a windfall tax on social media companies, so those who have profited from the exploitation of children begin to pay for the damage — to fund youth centres, mental health services and education support that a harmed generation desperately needs. I understand the urgent call for action, but we must get this right: enforceable, durable, genuinely protective.As a father of two young boys, I want to be clear that I have approached these Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment 38, not only as a legislator, but as a parent. I have seen at first hand the pressures that social media places on children, and I have considered this matter with the utmost care. To date, I have received 1,309 emails from residents across North Somerset calling for immediate action to raise the age of social media access to 16. That makes this campaign one of the largest I have seen since my election. The consensus is clear: parents, teachers and almost everyone who works with young people want to see meaningful change, including the Gladiator Steel—I am sure no one wants to mess with him. Social media was sold to us as a tool for connection—a way to stay close to friends and family, to find community and to share in each other’s lives—but that promise has been broken.
The Government already had an opportunity to raise the digital age of consent from 13 to 16 via Liberal Democrat amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill — and they rejected it. Why are they dithering again while children could have been protected already?The Government already had an opportunity to raise the age of digital consent from 13 to 16 with the amendments put forward to the Data (Use and Access) Bill by the Liberal Democrats, but they are dithering yet again while children could have been benefiting from that change. Why does the hon. Member think the Government are continuing to dither on this issue?
- Social media platforms are designed to keep children hooked — not for connection, but for profit. As a pharmacist, I know that if a drug caused measurable harm for 78% of young people it would be withdrawn. The same logic applies here. We need to learn from Australia's model, ensure any measure is enforceable and durable, and hold big tech to account. A well-intentioned measure that can't be properly implemented helps no one — but we must act, and act right, for this generation.
I will talk about that in a second, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s patience. Social media was sold to us in that way, but these platforms have been driven not by connection, but by engagement algorithms optimised purely for profit—something altogether more troubling. Parents such as me are locked in a daily battle, which they simply cannot win alone, of fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked. This is not just my experience. A 2024 report found that 78% of young people have experienced at least one form of online harm—body shaming, harassment, non-consensual sharing of sexualised images—or been publicly outed. As a pharmacist, I know that if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78% of young people, it would be withdrawn, reformulated or placed behind the counter with strict controls on who could access it. We would act because that is what the evidence demanded, and the same logic must apply here. We have an identifiable source, we have overwhelming evidence of harm and we have the power to act. Big tech companies are billion-dollar corporations that have built their business models on capturing the attention of young people for as long as possible. If we are serious about holding these companies to account, we should go further. I urge the Government to consider a windfall tax on social media companies, so that those who have profited from the exploitation of children begin to pay for the damage they have caused. Like the tobacco industry before them, these companies knew their product was harmful and took steps to make it more harmful and more addictive, but then denied responsibility for the consequences. We do not accept that argument from tobacco companies, and we should not accept it from big tech either. The revenue raised could make a real difference. Youth centres have closed, and the pubs and community spaces that once gave young people somewhere to go and something to belong to have disappeared. Mental h…
The evidence is overwhelming: addictive algorithms and harmful content are deeply damaging to children's wellbeing. We support Lords amendment 38 to ban social media for under-16s, though our preference is film-style age-rating of user-to-user services. Researchers at the University of Bath found a quarter of vapes confiscated in secondary schools contained Spice; the Government's own data shows an eightfold increase in young people entering treatment for Spice in 2024–25. Nearly 10,000 accounts were identified supplying Spice via TikTok. Ofcom acknowledged this is priority illegal content — and declined to use its powers under the Online Safety Act 2023. The Government must act. Accept Lords amendment 38 and give children an escape route from the dark corners of social media.There is now overwhelming evidence that addictive algorithms and harmful content are deeply damaging to our children’s wellbeing. We Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment 38, which would ban social media for under-16s, although our preference is for online regulation with film-style age rating of user-to-user services. While the Government dither and delay, children across the country are being exposed to deeply harmful content every single day. I have spoken many times about the saturation of pro-eating disorder content that children view on social media, but the harms do not stop there. Social media is increasingly acting as a marketplace for the illicit drug trade. Researchers at the University of Bath have found that up to a quarter of vapes confiscated in secondary schools contained the deadly drug Spice. The Government’s own data reveals an eightfold increase in young people entering treatment for Spice in 2024-25. How are young people getting their hands on these dangerous drugs? Through social media. Researchers have identified nearly 10,000 accounts involved in the supply and distribution of Spice, using TikTok as a means of communicating and advertising to children. Ofcom agreed that the content is “priority illegal content”. However, it declined to use its powers under the Online Safety Act 2023. We are facing a shocking reality. Children, right now, can buy the most dangerous prison drugs on mainstream social media: Snapchat, TikTok, Telegram. If Ofcom will not step up and the Government will not make it, what choice do we have but to prevent children accessing these platforms altogether? The Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 38 and 39 completely miss the point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) outlined. The Government must act now to stop children being exposed to illegal and harmful content online. We cannot allow endless inquiries, consultations and delays to stand in the way.
The argument for stronger online protections has been won. But I'll be voting *down* tonight's amendments, because we must age-gate functionalities rather than age-gate social media as a concept — that phrase is already outdated in schools. The Online Safety Act 2023 is not evergreen: so many technologies aren't covered by it. We're age-analysing and risk-assessing retrospectively, which is backwards. I'm determined to create legislation that is future-proofed for the issue of our time — protecting children from exploitative online harms. The Online Safety Act 2023 is not evergreen; so many technologies aren't covered. We're age-analysing risks retrospectively, which is backwards.I would like to talk to the social media element of the Lords amendments. The argument for stronger protections for children online has been won, not least because of the appalling harms that have come to so many children because of the lack of proper, functioning legislation. I will use my time, which is limited, on this subject to make clear what I would like the Government to do and why I will be voting down the amendments in front of us tonight. I want to focus on my steadfast belief that we must age-gate functionalities instead of age-gating social media, because I think that phrase will immediately become outdated—it is already outdated in schools. One of the big problems with the Online Safety Act and how long it took to come in is that so many technologies are now not covered by that legislation—it is not evergreen. I am determined to ensure that my time in this place is used to create evergreen legislation for the issue of our time, which is protecting children from the horrendous and exploitative harms that they are coming to.
Would the hon. Lady agree that the Liberal Democrats' film-style age rating system addresses exactly what she's describing — a social media app with access to strangers or an addictive algorithm rated differently from a safe, gated game suitable for younger children?Would the hon. Lady agree that the film-style age rating system that the Liberal Democrats have come up with speaks to exactly what she is saying? An app that allows children access to strangers or is built with an addictive algorithm, for example, would have a different age rating than something that is absolutely safe and gated, like a game, which could be rated safe for younger children.
- I'm interested in licensing *functionalities* before they reach children — not retrospectively assessing them years after the harm has been done. A licensing scheme for content designed for children would need proper consultation on publishing rights and who does the licensing. And I'm clear: self-published, unregulated, unsupervised content should not be fed to children. One young person at my online safety forum sent me an anonymous note: "Don't ban it, but if you do, make sure it works." Young people are far savvier than we give them credit for. Ofcom has yet to use its strongest powers; the Online Safety Act 2023 doesn't cover AI. Whatever we decide must be effective, implemented properly, and future-proofed — because the generation currently online has been badly let down.
I am interested in the idea of licensing functionalities and new developments before they come into children’s lives, which is not happening at the moment—at the moment it is happening after they have been used for a long time. We are age-analysing and risk-assessing them retrospectively, which seems very backwards to me. I agree that we should have a licensing scheme for content that is designed for children, like CoComelon and some of the other content that we know is addictive for very young children. Such a scheme would obviously have to be fleshed out, with a proper consultation on publishing rights and with information on who is going to do the licensing. I feel very strongly that self-published is inappropriate for under-16s. I do not think that content that is not regulated, that has not gone through any supervision and that has no legislative or regulatory framework surrounding it should be allowed to be fed to our children in any way. I will sum up by saying that one of the young people in my latest online safety forum said to me via an anonymous note—I told them all that they could send me an anonymous note if there was anything they did not want to say in front of their peers— “Don’t ban it, but if you do, make sure it works.” I thought that was brilliant. Young people are much savvier than we give them credit for. I want to make it very clear that at the moment, Ofcom is yet to use its strongest powers. The Online Safety Act does not include AI. I am determined that whatever this Government decide to do, they must do it with the idea of effective implementation of the legislation. We owe it to the next generation and the generation currently using the digital world to get it right and to future-proof their right to a childhood. Because so many of them have been badly let down, we must make evergreen—
Only one clause in this Bill applied to Scotland before the Lords' amendments, but Lords amendment 38's reserved powers would apply across the whole UK. The dangers to children online extend well beyond social media and user-to-user services — some addictive games with no user-to-user element wouldn't be caught by the Conservative or Lib Dem proposals. We need to be clear about what we're trying to achieve: protecting children from grooming and exploitation, or from addictive algorithms, or both? A blanket social media ban that still allows access to Roblox and YouTube via PlayStation is not a coherent policy. Whatever we do must work. I'm supportive of the Government's consultation — but companies must not be absolved of responsibility. Please, everyone: respond to the consultation.Only one clause in this legislation applied to Scotland in advance of it returning from the Lords. Lords amendment 38 contains a reserved power that would apply across the whole UK the changes that are being suggested to the Online Safety Act. I want to focus specifically on those changes. Comments have been made about social media, but it is not exclusively social media where there are dangers to children online. It is not exclusively user-to-user services where there are dangers to children online. There are some games that can be downloaded that do not have user-to-user services but are highly addictive, and those would not be covered by the Conservative or Liberal Dem proposals because they are games without user-to-user services. There are massive risks online for young people, but I do not want us to absolve companies of the responsibility of dealing with that. There is this sudden feeling that dealing with this issue is dramatically urgent, but people have been sending unsolicited nude pics online for more than 30 years. It has been happening for a significant length of time. It is urgent that action is taken, but it does not have to be taken today; it has to be taken correctly and in a way that works, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) just said. We need to ensure that, whatever we do, we have a clear aim in mind. What is the intention? Are we trying to protect children online, or are we trying to ban children from social media? Are we trying to ensure that young people are not exposed to people who are looking to groom them, to access them, or to convince them of something? Are we trying to protect them from that, or from obsessively looking at algorithms and videos on TikTok? Maybe we are trying to do both, but we need to be clear about what the aims are. There is no point in banning social media if we do not know why we are banning it, and if we still allow access to Roblox and many other places where there is harm. If we ban YouTube, what ha…
As chair of the APPG on allergy, a lifelong allergy sufferer, a former teacher and the parent of a lifelong allergy sufferer, I am painfully aware of the inconsistencies in allergy care and the anxiety they cause. Benedict's law will ensure all schools stock allergy devices, have a dedicated policy and train every member of staff — so lifesaving treatments are no longer hidden in Tupperware boxes in dusty cupboards. Children are more likely to have a reaction in school than anywhere else: 80% of food allergy reactions happen in schools, including a quarter for the first time. I ask the Minister to confirm that nasal spray adrenalin devices — recently approved by the MHRA, stable, long-lasting and less traumatic — will be available in schools under the new statutory guidance.I rise to speak to Lords amendment 105. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on allergy, a lifelong allergy sufferer, a former teacher and the parent of a lifelong allergy sufferer, I am painfully aware of the inconsistencies of allergy care, and the anxiety and harm that it causes. Baroness Morgan of Cotes’ amendment aimed to introduce new requirements based on learning, following the tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and others. While I believe that there is much more that can be done to improve the lives of allergy sufferers, I am pleased that the creation of new statutory advice and the implementation of Benedict’s law will vastly improve the situation for children with allergies. All schools will now be required to stock allergy devices, have a dedicated allergy policy and ensure that teachers are trained, meaning that lifesaving treatments for allergies will no longer be hidden in tupperware boxes at the back of dusty cupboards. It means that no parents will ever receive a phone call like I did, when I was asked whether my child, in the school’s care, needed to use their auto-injector, knowing full well that if the answer was yes, it could have already been too late. I am proud that the Government are putting allergies at the heart of proactive, preventive school planning. Recent approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency means that more adrenalin devices are available, including stable, long-lasting and less-traumatic adrenalin nasal sprays. I would appreciate it if the Minister can confirm that nasal sprays and other adrenalin devices will be available in schools following the new statutory advice. Children are more likely to have a reaction in school than anywhere else: 80% of food allergy reactions happen in schools, including a quarter for the first time. That is why it is essential that schools have devices available, even before diagnosis occurs. I want to celebrate the campaigning of Baroness Morgan of Cotes and t…
I support Lords amendment 38 raising the digital age of consent to 16. For years parents like me have worried about the harms of social media, and we've been told responsibility sits entirely with us — yet no one says that about alcohol, cigarettes or fireworks. Social media and excessive screentime are just as harmful. Children's brains are being hardwired to respond to likes and shares rather than human connection. Social media is doing exactly what it was designed to do: reeling children in and feeding them addictive, harmful content. We do not need more consultation to confirm what we already know.I am incredibly pleased to speak in support of Lords amendment 38, which seeks to raise the digital age of consent to 16. I only wish we had much more time for this debate, as it deserves. For years, parents like me have worried about the harms of social media on our children, and the detrimental impact of excessive screentime. We have tried to manage it as best we can on our own. We have felt the sting when we have been told by others that responsibility fully sits with parents, and that good parents do not need the state to help them get this right, yet no one says that about alcohol, smoking or buying fireworks. In all those cases, it is acceptable for parents to be helped by sensible laws put in place to protect children from preventable harm, yet social media and excessive screentime are just as harmful as cigarettes, alcopops and messing around with fireworks in the street, so why would the state not step in on that too? I have three children, and it is fair to say that they love screentime. If I try to talk to them when they are glued to a YouTube video of someone else playing a computer game, they ignore me, completely engrossed. They do not want to go out in the garden, play with their friends in the street or play with toys. Instead, if given a choice, they would always choose to stare zombie-like at their tablet. Thankfully, I have kept them away from social media, but there is only so long I can get away with that. Staring at a screen for endless hours is not healthy. It prevents children from developing the social and cognitive skills they need in adulthood and is terrible for their mental health. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a mental health crisis, which started at the same time as the mass adoption of smartphones and access to social media. It really should be a wake-up call. What does the future look like if our children’s most important relationship is with their phone? Their brains are literally becoming hardwired to respond to likes and…
- Tonight the House can vote to give free school meals to half a million more children, take swift action to protect children online, and put in place the most significant safeguarding measures in a generation. This is a landmark Bill — and a Labour Bill — because it is ambitious for every single child in this country. Back it.
I thank Members from across the House for their varied and valuable contributions. We have heard a number of powerful speeches that made really important points. I am very sorry that I do not have enough time to respond in detail, but I will endeavour to write to Members who asked specific questions. This is a Bill with opportunity at its heart—opportunity for every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into. It will make children safer online and offline, with our ambitious, swift action on social media and phones; it will help to tackle the cost of living crisis with our action on free school meals and the cost of uniforms; and it will drive up standards in our schools and improve outcomes for children in care. Tonight, the House has the opportunity to support free school meals for half a million more children, swift action to protect our children online, and the most significant safeguarding measures in a generation. This is a landmark Bill, but it is also a Labour Bill—because it is ambitious for every single child in this country. I urge the House to support Labour’s vision for our children and for our country’s future. Lords amendment 3 disagreed to. Lords amendment 5 disagreed to.
- #436passedMotion to reject Lords Amendment 16 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 16. The motion was agreed 309–181, so the Commons rejected the Lords' change.Ayes 309Noes 181
- #437passedMotion to reject Lords Amendment 17 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 17. The motion was agreed 306–182, so the Commons rejected the Lords' change.Ayes 306Noes 182
- #438passedMotion to reject Lords Amendment 37 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37. The motion was agreed 321–106, so the Commons rejected the Lords' change.Ayes 321Noes 106
- #439passedMotion to reject Lords Amendment 38 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38. The motion was agreed 307–173, so the Commons rejected the Lords' change.Ayes 307Noes 173
- #440passedMotion to reject Lords Amendment 41 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41. The motion was agreed 316–171, so the Commons rejected the Lords' change.Ayes 316Noes 171
- #441passedMotion to reject Lords Amendment 44 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 44. The motion was agreed 315–109, so the Commons rejected the Lords' change.Ayes 315Noes 109
- #442passedMotion to reject Lords Amendment 102 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 102. The motion was agreed 315–163, so the Commons rejected the Lords' change.Ayes 315Noes 163
- #443passedMotion to reject Lords Amendment 106 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 106. The motion was agreed 304–177, so the Commons rejected the Lords' change.Ayes 304Noes 177