Committee stage in the Lords
Lords Committee debated independent guardians for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, a proposed social media ban for under-16s and smartphone restrictions in schools, an early-years national strategy, court reports by qualified social workers, child maintenance enforcement, and free school meals auto-enrolment.
B(Imagine arriving in this country as a child — frightened, wet and cold, having fled persecution and crossed the channel — and immediately facing age-assessment procedures and incomprehensible bureaucratic systems, with no one in your corner. That is the reality for thousands of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children right now. This amendment would give them an independent guardian — as Scotland already provides — to connect them to support, instruct solicitors on their behalf and represent their best interests throughout. An LSE/University of Bedfordshire study found that children who had guardian-like support described it as "the difference that made the difference"; those without felt very much alone. UNICEF and the Children's Society calculate that a guardianship system saves £1.25 for every £1 spent in three years, rising to £2.39 over the longer term — an overall saving of over £62 million. The case is compelling: I am not asking for a decision today, but I ask my noble friend the Minister to commit to talking to Home Office colleagues and giving this proposal serious consideration.My Lords, I am moving Amendment 166 with the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, to whom I am grateful—she regrets that she cannot be in her place—as I am to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, the RMCC, for its help. The amendment would introduce an entitlement to an independent guardian for separated asylum-seeking or trafficked children, in line with international law and the provisions already made in Scotland, building on and expanding the existing independent child trafficking guardian service run by Barnardo’s. Imagine that you are a child who has fled persecution or conflict, travelling across Europe and then making the perilous journey across the channel, all of which makes for a pretty traumatic experience. You arrive frightened, wet and cold. You are given no time to recover but, instead, almost immediately are faced with questions that you may not understand and age-assessment procedures that can all too easily wrongly determine that you are an adult. I will not go into that today, other than to say that research shows how these age assessments can undermine children’s mental health and well-being. You then face incomprehensible bureaucratic procedures and have to navigate complex systems, such as social care, immigration and criminal justice, as you make the difficult legal journey involved in claiming asylum. How different might it be if you had a legal guardian to support you? The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out that legal guardians are a crucial component of a protection system for children who temporarily or permanently lack a family environment and are unable to have their interests represented by their parents. An independent legal guardian in this context plays a key role in supporting unaccompanied children by connecting them to all the support they need, instructing solicitors on their behalf and, most importantly, representing their best interests throughout. An evaluation of the Scottis…
Ten years ago the Modern Slavery Act introduced child advocates — informally called guardians — and it is a brilliant scheme, but it is still only in a pilot stage, which is one of the real sadnesses of how that Act has been implemented.My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. I declare that I am vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and co-chair of the all-party group against modern slavery. Ten years ago, the Modern Slavery Act introduced child advocates who are informally called guardians. It is a brilliant scheme, but I understand that it is still in a pilot stage, which is one of the sadnesses of the implementation of parts of the Modern Slavery Act.
You cannot imagine how it must be for a child to arrive here alone, with no knowledge of how to progress or what to do. I remember a boy who arrived in Liverpool at seven; Knowsley found foster parents for him, his life was transformed, and he got fantastic maths results at key stage 2. There must be something in place so that children who arrive here through no fault of their own are properly supported.I entirely agree with what has been said. You cannot imagine how it must be for a child or young person to suddenly arrive here on their own and not have any knowledge of how they progress or what to do. Liverpool used to be a centre for children who were just sent to the UK, although I think there were a number of places. I remember vividly a boy who arrived in Liverpool at the age of seven. The local authority, which happened to be Knowsley, immediately found foster parents for him. His life was completely changed; he came to my school not speaking a word of English, but when he did his key stage 2 SATs in maths, he got fantastic results. The sad thing was, of course, that at the age of 18 he had to be sent back home. I do not understand the difference between a local authority dealing with this problem and organising foster parents and providing a guardian. There must be something so that young people who arrive in this country through no fault of their own are supported.
The research the noble Baroness shared paints a picture of real inconsistency in the response unaccompanied asylum-seeking children receive — but there is existing statutory guidance from 2017 that already entitles them to independent advocacy. The case for making the existing law work as intended before amending it deserves serious consideration, as does the significant investment in training and oversight that implementing independent legal guardians would require.My Lords, Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and, as I understand it, would complement the role of the independent child trafficking advocate in these cases with the right to an independent guardian. It would also expand their remit to include children who are separated from those with parental responsibility or the equivalent in their home country. As the noble Baroness knows, probably better than anyone else in the Committee, there is existing statutory guidance for unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery dating from 2017. It is clear that, in common with all looked-after children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are entitled to independent advocacy support. The guidance stresses that this might particularly be the case for this group of children. The Refugee Council has a very helpful flow chart on its website showing the asylum process and clearly highlighting the role of independent advice at two stages in the application process. As we heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the independent child trafficking advocates have only partially been implemented. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about full implementation. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for sharing the recent research from the LSE and the University of Bedfordshire with me. As she described very emotively, this paints a picture of real inconsistency in the response that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children receive. It makes a number of recommendations, including this one. However, as the noble Baroness knows, implementing independent legal guardians would require significant investment in training, establishing oversight and case management systems—although I acknowledge her cost-benefit point. I presume that there would also need to be some form of proper accountability and oversight of these guardians. There is a case for making…
The existing independent child trafficking guardianship service is specialist provision for trafficked and exploited children, now operating in two-thirds of local authorities — and we are moving to a national contract, going to tender in summer 2025. Extending the role to all separated children would significantly strain resources and risk delaying support for the most urgent cases. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are already looked after by local authorities, with a professional social worker and an independent reviewing officer; adding another layer risks complexity and duplication. The conversations will continue — including with the Home Office — and Jess Phillips holds regular round tables on this. I hope my noble friend will feel content to withdraw.My Lords, Amendment 166 was tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and compliment her, as always, on the eloquent and moving way she described the plight of so many children and young people coming into this country. I know that she is a very passionate advocate in her own right and speaks to many people across the piece. Specifically on the amendment, although other issues have been brought into the discussions today, it seeks to provide support, via independent child guardians, to all separated children. That would be in addition to trafficked and exploited children. It would also initiate the support on consideration of a referral, rather than when an initial decision has been made that a child has been potentially exploited. This amendment also sets out limited functions for the independent guardians but, crucially, it removes the ability to amend these functions through regulations or statutory guidance. Currently, the existing independent child trafficking guardianship service is a specialist provision for trafficked and exploited children, operating in two-thirds of local authorities across England and Wales. We are moving forward towards a national contract, planned for tender in the summer of 2025, building on the work from the Modern Slavery Act and from the very first authorities that were brought into scope in 2017. As we have heard, this is currently funded by the Home Office but delivered by Barnardo’s. It is important to note that we will look at best practice all the way through the piece as we move forward. Modern slavery engagement forums are absolutely critical in this, and I will go on to speak about the Minister’s role as well. As my noble friend Lady Lister is aware, the needs of trafficked and exploited children are complex, ever evolving and ever changing. Defining functions directly in the Bill would reduce the flexibility for the Secretary of State to adapt the role throu…
- I entirely understand the Minister's reservations about putting functions directly in primary legislation. It is the spirit of the amendment I care about. Will the modern slavery child advocate be rolled out across the entire country before the end of this year?
I entirely understand and respect the Minister’s reservations, particularly on not putting regulations in primary legislation that might make more difficulty—that I understand. It is the spirit of the amendment that I am particularly concerned with. I just ask, is it intended that the modern slavery advocate will be put out across the entire country before the end of this year?
- The tender goes out in the summer. Implementation will take some time and should be fully up and running by 2027.
The tender is going out in the summer. I believe that implementation will take some time and should be fully up and running by 2027.
- The distinction being drawn between asylum-seeking children and exploited children is not as clear as has been suggested — social workers change constantly, whereas guardians are there throughout. If Scotland can provide independent guardians for all separated children, why can we not? I ask that discussions continue with the Home Office on this important issue.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her support. She put her finger on the key point, which is that it is the spirit and not the details of the amendment that I hoped that the Government would consider. She made some important points, in particular that social workers change all the time, guardians are there all the time, and that there is a real danger that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children could be exploited if they are not properly supported. The distinction that is being made between asylum-seeking and exploited children is not such a clear one as has been suggested. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my noble friend the Minister for their kind words, but I go back to the point that the spirit of the amendment is that we need to think about this. I am glad that my noble friend said that conversations will continue, but will they continue with the Home Office? I originally decided to push this issue when I was confronted by a group of young people who clearly just did not know what was going on, they had not understood anything, they had faced difficulties as young asylum seekers, and it just seemed to me that they needed support throughout. I had read about the Scottish system, so my question is, if Scotland can do it, why can we not? I leave that thought with my noble friend the Minister. I ask that there be discussions with the Home Office, because it is a really important issue, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nothing could enhance the well-being of our 9 million schoolchildren more than banning social media access before the age of 16. The neurological evidence is now overwhelming: social media exploits dopamine pathways to cause addiction, alters brain development, drives eating disorders, fuels cyberbullying, radicalisation and exposure to violent content, and is the primary driver of the mental health crisis among children. Almost half of parents believe mobile phone use has changed their child's personality; 83% back a ban for under-16s. Australia has implemented one; France, New Zealand, Greece, Spain and Denmark are moving in the same direction. The algorithms embedded by companies with billions at their disposal are simply too powerful for the formative teenage brain to resist — these children and their parents are crying out for our help.My Lords, my Amendment 177 seeks to ban access to social media before the age of 16. Other amendments in this group relate to screens in schools, edtech, and the use and possession of smartphones in schools. I refer to my interests in the register, particularly the fact that I am co-founder and chair of a multi-academy trust and an investor in a number of technology companies. We are now seeing an overwhelming body of clinical evidence about the dangers of social media for children and young people, and a rapidly increasing awareness about this among parents, teachers, and children and young people themselves. The title of this Bill is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and, in my view, nothing could enhance the well-being of our 9 million schoolchildren and young people more than to accept this amendment. Nothing could have a wider impact. The dictionary definition of well-being is the state of being comfortable, happy or healthy. Sadly, millions of children are in none of these states. Indeed, it would be better to scrap the whole of the rest of the Bill and enact only this one amendment than to enact the Bill without it—although I am not proposing that. According to Health Professionals for Safer Screens, social media causes developmental issues such as language and communication difficulties, emotional and social difficulties and reduced academic attainment, and has an impact on ADHD. It says it causes physical impacts, such as changes to the brain, poor eyesight, eating disorders, obesity and sleep difficulties. There is evidence that autistic children are particularly vulnerable to the impact of screen time. A recent UCL study corroborated the link between social media and eating disorders, and that young people with eating disorders are more likely to be shown harmful content by social media algorithms. Samaritans’ research has shown that young people frequently see self-harm and suicide content across all social media sites, some of which display part…
Every week we wait before implementing more effective media literacy is a week lost. The Online Safety Act took a very long time to pass, and making its intent have real teeth is a far longer process than we hoped — we may still be two or three years away from knowing whether the key protections for children are working. We do not have the luxury of taking this slowly. A school in Fulham that has had a phone ban for ten years found the biggest problem was not pupils but parents, some of whom regard any restriction as an infringement of civil liberties. The way to actually get this to work is to get children involved and engaged — because the more intelligent ones already know exactly what social media and these addictive applications are doing to them.My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight. He makes a very compelling case for better media literacy. He and other noble Lords will recall that we did push very hard for that during the Online Safety Act’s rather lengthy passage, but without as much success as we would have hoped. Every week that we wait before we implement more effective media literacy is a week lost, and probably part of a generation lost as well. I was very happy to put my name to Amendments 183CA and 183CB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. As noble Lords have heard, this is a very live subject. Countries and societies all over the world are wrestling with the effects of the technology that is all-pervading—to a greater extent than most of us would wish. When the noble Lord was talking about geolocation at Westminster School, I thought for a fleeting moment, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had geolocation in the Palace of Westminster?”. Once one entered here, one could no longer have access to news websites telling us things that are distracting and probably not very helpful for what we are trying to do. I exclude important things such as messages from your club about the lunchtime and the availability of the wine list. The Online Safety Act took a very long time to happen. As we have learned since its enactment, making it flesh and making its intent have teeth is a very lengthy and protracted process—far longer than we had hoped and envisaged. We may still be two or three years away from knowing whether some of the key protections for children are working. We do not have the luxury of being able to take this slowly. We need speed and we need clarity. When the noble Lord was talking about the distractions of the screen for young children, I thought of how often I, like others, pass parents or carers in the street pushing a pram; the child may well be in distress or asking for something, but whoever is pushing the pram is so deeply into their telephone or s…
The overwhelming weight of evidence — including the Education Select Committee's May 2024 report on screen time — shows that harms significantly outweigh benefits for young children. Schools that have introduced restrictions on social media access through smartphones have reported better communication and participation skills in pupils. I would welcome the Minister telling us the view of heads and whether a statutory policy on smartphones by year group would reduce the burden on schools of having to argue individually with parents about their own policies.My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently and persuasively described by my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Penn. I was also extremely struck by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on the need for education. It is about education, which is one of the safeguards on which we can rely. I was also struck by the points made by noble Lord, Lord Russell, which in some ways echoed but added to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. In April this year, the Times published the wide-ranging and comprehensive findings of its crime and justice commission. Its conclusions on the effects of social media on children aged under 16 were damning. They ranged from radicalisation, criminalisation and antisocial attitudes, right through to mental health problems and extremist views. The commission recommended that children under 16 be banned from accessing social media. It added that two-thirds of the population support that view, and that a higher number of the 16 to 24 year-old group do so. That is significant, because that is the group that has experienced the pressures. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, Australia has recently imposed such a ban, and many other countries are preparing to do so. A total ban is self-evidently beyond the scope of the Bill, but a ban on the use of smartphones in schools is within its scope, given its focus on the safeguarding of children. The vast majority of our schools will have policies in place to deal with the use of smartphones. There can be problems in implementing them, not least because the technology is constantly evolving and policies have to adapt to keep up. Some parents have understandable anxieties, feeling the need to be in contact with their children at all times, and they might well oppose a complete ban. There are also anxieties about age limits and other issues. The fact is that the decision is left to the school, and as a result there is a huge range of policies across the school spectrum. Many wil…
I cannot counter the evidence of the devastating impact of social media on young minds — it is simply terrible, and as an adult I feel responsibility that we moved too slowly. But the smartphone is like the atom bomb: you cannot uninvent it. Adults now cannot function in society without one, and AI will make that even more true. If we ban smartphones in schools, how can we expect young people to become competent, confident adult users? It is like saying 'we are not going to teach you to swim, but by the time you are an adult we will let you live by the side of a lake.' I am honestly close to supporting a ban mainly because I am panicking that we are not doing anything else — and if we do nothing else, that is simply not enough. Putting this entirely on schools, as we have done with teenage pregnancy, healthy eating and citizenship, would be poor policymaking.My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, so I declare my interest as chair of and adviser to the Birmingham Education Partnership. It is 25 years ago, when the Minister and I were in the Department for Education, that we were discussing the rollout of technology in early years. It just was not part of school life; it was not an implement that was used. The thing we were most worried about then, which underpinned every speech I made, was that it should be an innovation that became available to all and was not limited by social class, the family you are born into or how much money you had in your pocket. I never thought that, a quarter of a century later, the debate would be about the damage that that area of technology development has brought to schools, but we must remember that that does not take away from the vision, the hope and the aspiration we saw in this technology a quarter of a century ago. However, we are clearly not in a place where we want to be. I cannot say anything to counter the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Nash—indeed, everybody who has spoken—gave about the impact of social media on young minds. It is just terrible. As an adult, I feel responsibility that it has happened and that we moved too slowly to do anything about it. If some of us come to the conclusion that we do not want to ban smartphones in schools, it should not be a political dividing line; we are actually all on the same side. We have at least got to that point, but there is a genuine debate to be had about how we take it forward to protect our children so that they have the advantages that technology can bring while saving them from the risks and the bad things that it can do. I think that there is a difference between smartphones and social media that has not been clear in this debate, and I am not sure about the definition of smartphones at the end of the proposed new clause. It says that a smartphone is something “whose main purpose is not the support of…
Our hopes that edtech would be transformational have changed emphatically, and we now find ourselves somewhere we really did not intend to be. The neurobiological evidence of harm is no longer ambiguous — it is irrefutable, as it is for tobacco. One three-year longitudinal study found adolescents who habitually checked social media showed distinct neurodevelopmental trajectories in the amygdala and prefrontal cortex. In 2024-25, NHS mental health services supported 800,012 under-18s — nearly 300,000 more than when the NHS long-term plan started. As a parent of children aged 18, 15, 13 and 10 across four different schools, I can tell you that none of them is winning this battle — and each year I see the algorithms get more effective, the communal social pressure intensify, and self-harming among friends get worse. This is a genuine public health emergency, and it is going to get worse before AI supercharges these algorithms further.My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I think she spoke for many of us on the challenge of edtech: how our hopes that this would be a transformational technology have now changed emphatically, and how we now find ourselves in a place we really did not intend to be. I would like to say a word about Amendment 183CA, from my noble friend Lady Penn, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Cass. My noble friend Lady Shephard put it well: our children do need respite, and a school is a wonderful place to be spared that kind of respite. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, spoke well about the harsh impact on education. However, it is Amendment 177 that I primarily want to address. For that reason, I see Amendment 183CA as a stepping stone to getting rid of mobile phones from the lives of under-16s altogether at some stage; that is what I will address my comments to. I do this as a former Health Minister and I declare my interest as a trustee of the Royal Society for Public Health. The neurobiological evidence of the harms of social media on children is not ambiguous any more. It is irrefutable, as it is, for instance, for tobacco. We can see the causes and the correlations. One three-year longitudinal study published two years ago found that adolescents who habitually checked social media showed “distinct neurodevelopmental trajectories” in brain regions governing social reward and punishment, such as the amygdala, the ventral striatum, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In other words, social media exploits the dopamine pathways involved in addiction, creating cycles that exploit the neurochemical pathways that determine their actions. I personally struggle with addiction. I find it extremely tough. Our children’s plastic brains are just not in a shape to be able to survive that struggle. This challenge is not a teenage rebellion or some kind of moral panic. It is a systematic neurological mani…
A smartphone is a platform — and as a dyslexic, I access literature via one. It is also the primary means of communication for much of the deaf community, who rely on text. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater: excluding personal devices without thought may cut off groups who use them as accessibility tools and for genuine support of learning.My Lords, there seem to be two issues here. One is social media and the other is the smartphone, and the two of them are accessed via each other. However, we should remember what a smartphone is: it is a platform for using technology. The reason I raise this is that—and this is in my declaration of interests—I am someone who believes in and uses assistive technology, and one of the easiest ways to get that is, increasingly, through your smartphone. As a dyslexic, I access literature, often with complicated local accents in it, via technology. Initially, it was an abridged book on tape. You can use it that way, so there is potential here. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about caveats, but there is the potential to benefit people, including in the education environment. It is one of the oddities that we refer to our phone as something which is a tool. It is a tool for much of the deaf community because they text. Texting is easy when somebody has not been in an environment where they have been taught to write properly, because that is what happens in the deaf community. They become addicted to text speak. Let us be a little more selective about this. I salute the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for starting this debate and starting it so well. But remember, do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Make sure this is something you can use as a platform. There will be other ways, and there may be ways around this, but I just say that everything has a price, and this is one. Please remember it. You might be excluding groups that we will be talking about in this Bill and future ones, who use it as something to support learning. I felt I had to say that to throw it into the argument, because it is an important thing to bear in mind.
The distinction that matters here is between school-controlled devices — which schools can wrap proper safeguards around — and personal devices, which remain in children's control and where the level of supervision needed to make them safe will never be achievable. School computers and tablets can absolutely teach media literacy and provide technology access; that does not require children to carry their personal phones.My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, in the amendments they have proposed. I also agree very much with the comments made by others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, who made some important points, especially about the risk of overloading schools. My noble friend Lady Shephard made some very important points about safeguarding. When, as chief inspector, I reported on sexual harassment and abuse in schools, it was notable how much of that we found to be linked to smartphone use. I would like to clear up a bit of confusion, because I think we are not properly distinguishing between personal and school-controlled devices. I think the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was heading in this direction a moment ago in his remarks. Every school has many school-controlled devices—computers and sometimes tablets—and it is much easier to maintain the framework of safeguards around devices that are owned and controlled by schools than it is around personal devices. These devices are suitable for teaching media literacy and many other things or in teaching children how to use technology. They can also very effectively provide technology. The dividing line here is between devices schools are able to control fairly fully and devices that essentially remain children’s property and in the children’s control, and where there will never be the level of supervision needed to make them safe—at least not in the foreseeable future.
Is the noble Baroness really suggesting that schools should install social media apps on school devices and have teachers create profiles that mimic children — so that the algorithms start feeding them the same harmful content our children actually see — in order to teach media literacy? Would it not be more effective to use children's own personalised feeds for that purpose?I am interested in what the noble Baroness said—that the laptop and tablet learning devices that schools have would be sufficient for teaching media literacy. Does she suggest, therefore, that they should install social media apps on those devices, and teachers would have to create profiles and personas that would start to mimic children so the algorithms would then think of them as children and start to feed them the sort of stuff the noble Lord, Lord Russell, was talking about? Is that really what she is saying? Would it not be easier for the purposes of media literacy for the personal devices that children are looking at, with the personalised feeds those children are seeing, to be used in order to educate them?
- Children can log into a social media account on a school device and schools can wipe all personal details at the end of a session. And we do not teach children about the risks of drugs by putting drugs in their hands — the history of teaching children about risks and safe behaviour does not actually show that hands-on exposure is necessary or effective.
It is perfectly possible for children to log in on different devices. They can log into a social media account and the school can use broader control facilities to ensure that all information is wiped, or all personal details are wiped, at the end of a session. That contains the range of what children are doing in any given session. To give another analogy, we do not teach children about the risks and harms of drugs with drugs and the paraphernalia for using them in their hands or on their desks. More generally, I am afraid that the history of teaching children about risks and sensible and safe behaviour do not have that much to show that they can be successful. One of the saddest reports that we published during my time at Ofsted was on child obesity. It showed, sadly, that the schools that were doing the most to promote and encourage healthy eating did not have measurably different obesity rates from the schools that were doing the least. So I think there is reason to fear that simply an educational approach, as has also been advocated here, might not be all that effective. Finally, I will explain why, although I agree with so much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, I have come to the opposite conclusion. It is important that we think about how to reinforce the authority of head teachers and teachers in this difficult space. With legislation, they would not have to argue the toss with parents to sustain a school policy that will always be disliked by some parents. What we have seen and heard, including expressed so eloquently in this Chamber today, shows that mobile phone use by the young is likely to be at least as harmful to them as smoking, and we have no difficulty with having a ban on smoking in schools. I believe that a ban will reduce arguments and give time back to schools—to heads and teachers—as well as helping children. So I hope that this amendment will be included in the final Bill.
We approached these technologies with innocent optimism, but no organised study with a clear direction is taking place across schools, and there is no communication between schools sharing what works. Let us set up a properly structured study now — with schools sharing findings as the process unfolds — so we can reach a definitive answer quickly rather than acting without the evidence.My Lords, I very much support what my noble friend Lady Jenkin has just said—it seems to be an excellent prescription for the right way forward. We approached these technologies with such innocent optimism when they arrived. I absolutely remember what it was like at the beginning of smartphones. We were worried about how we would get them to everybody and how people could afford them. I remember an early example, with my noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold, when I was briefly her Whip in the Lords and she was in charge of education. We were looking at this wonderful new system which would enable us to replace all maths masters with machines—I am delighted that it has not happened. Even Alpha School in Texas, which is part of the latest round of optimism that AI can do everything, is not looking at replacing maths masters either but merely at having AI to help them. We have to be careful about optimism when it comes to new things. I think we have reached the point with smartphones when we know that they are damaging. We know this from all of the research that has been done and from personal experience—which in my case very much echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, described. Children’s lives at school should be full and social, but the spaces between classes are dominated by phones. All their social interactions are mediated through phones. Even when they are talking to each other, they are talking about what is on social media. The effect on boys, and on their relationships with and ability to relate to girls, is not good. We have reached the point where we ought to start doing something. We cannot allow this level of harm to continue. I suggest that the Government do something along the lines of the West Dunbartonshire experiment. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Knight, remembers the set-up in West Dunbartonshire where they tested various approaches to teaching children reading. It was supposed to be a five-year experiment but it collapsed after a year and…
- Is it not already happening — a large number of schools effectively banning smartphones, some with an intermediate approach, and a few outliers not banning at all — and does that not make a good argument for a proper comparative study of those different regimes before acting rather than legislating now?
Is that not what is happening at the moment? A vast number of schools are, in effect, banning smartphones—as many people would like—some have an intermediate approach, and then there are a few outliers that are not banning them. Is it not the case that the noble Lord is making a good argument not for proceeding with this right now but for going ahead with a proper study on the impact of those various regimes and then acting once we know what we are talking about?
- There is no organised study comparing those different school regimes; schools are not communicating with each other about what works. Let us commission that study now, running in parallel with the variety of approaches already in place, so we arrive at the best answer quickly.
My Lords, there are indeed a number of these things going on, but no organised study with an organised direction is taking place. There is no communication between schools, with them saying to each other, “Yes, we could do it that way”. I am looking at a Government who, I suspect, have not been persuaded of the need to act now. Let us do a study now and get something set up, so that we can definitively get to the best answer. While academies are allowed to be different from other schools, a wide range of policies are being enforced. If we take advantage of that, understand what is going on and allow the schools to share that information as the process goes on, I think we will find ourselves with an answer quite quickly.
- What is already happening is that private schools, grammar schools and schools in wealthy areas are doubling down on success with smartphone bans, while schools in areas of deprivation — where family and community ties are weakest — are being left behind.
My Lords, I fear that what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has suggested is indeed happening: private schools, grammar schools and schools in wealthy areas are doubling down on their success by pursuing smartphone bans. Schools in areas of deprivation, where family and community ties are the weakest, are being left behind.
We have a real inequality problem: parents who are aware of the dangers are protecting their children, while those who deploy smartphones as substitute childcare leave other children exposed. The parenting gap is widening alongside every other gap.My Lords, I had not planned to speak to this group of amendments, having tabled an amendment that we will debate in the following group. But as I have interests in the founding of Parent Gym and in the early years in particular—about which I hope to speak later—it would be remiss of me not to add a few comments, given some of the very esteemed contributions made in this debate. I support all the amendments in the group with the exception of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for the reasons that have been outlined. My noble friend Lord Bethell touched on an important point in his intervention: we have a real issue around the different types of parenting and families, from those who are aware of the dangers to their children to those who deploy smartphones as substitute childcare. I fear that all the evidence—as very eloquently put by my noble friends Lady Jenkin and Lord Nash, who cited at length the reports and data around all this—show us that there are families who do not have the resource or means to engage in this daily battle. I declare another interest: I am on that front line daily with my 14 year-old daughter; I hoped that she might have been here this afternoon, but she has conveniently not made it. It is a daily battle. What children will tell their godparents, when you are not around to hear it, is that they actually agree that you are right and that they wish they did not have their phone. They wish that phones did not exist and that they were not part of their life; they want them because their peers have them. The report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, published last week, has very notable commentary about the safety of some of the girls who were groomed by gangs. She talks with real concern—it is in an early section, for those who have not read the entire thing, as I have—about the fact that online activity means that we no longer know what is going on for children. We literally do not know who is in their bedroom at night. Who are they…
The school day is only seven or eight hours; there are 52 weekends and 15 weeks' holiday — children are going to use these devices whatever we do. But at least schools can provide a safe space, and the argument about needing children to use personal phones to be warned of their dangers does not really hold.My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group—I was a minute or so late, for which I apologise. I wanted to hear the arguments of those who oppose Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I will just address a couple of those. I think the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said that we cannot warn children of the danger of smartphones if they are not using them in schools, but let us be more realistic. The school day is only seven or eight hours, and there are 52 weekends and 15 weeks’ holiday. They are going to use these awful things, whatever we do. But at least schools provide a safe space if they cannot use them—we heard the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, about not being mugged on the way to school. I see it in my own schools where, although we have bans, the kids get around them. If they have hair similar to that of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, how do we know whether they have AirPods in their ears? With the so-called magnetic pouches, you can buy a disabler on the internet to get rid of it. The list goes on and on. I agree with the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that you cannot uninvent them, but they are very toxic. We look back on tobacco and sugar, yet we are allowing these things to go on while people cogitate, when it is so obvious that we should be bringing a much more vigorous ban of these devices into schools as soon as possible. I support the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
- I want to see children talking to each other and playing in schools. During the Online Safety Act debates we heard about Molly Russell, who took her own life after being groomed online, and her brave father sat below the Bar throughout. We cannot let a similar failure continue.
My Lords, we have heard some very powerful speeches this afternoon, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who talked about a world health crisis. I was also taken by my noble friend Lord Addington, who talked about the importance of technology for special needs. I am going to be brave and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton: I want to see children talk to each other, and I want to see them play in schools. I remember being absolutely—I cannot find the adjective to describe it. During our debates on the Online Safety Act, we were remembering the young girl, Molly Russell, who took her own life after being groomed online, and her brave father sat below the Bar for the whole of that debate. I thought what a brave parent he was, to sit through that and listen to what had happened. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw “Question Time” last week—I do not tend to watch it these days—when one of the questions was about smartphones. A young man of 18 or 19, who had ADHD, pleaded with the panel to ban smartphones. He said, “I am addicted to them—I cannot stop myself using a smartphone. Please ban it”. I thought, “Wow! What a brave thing to say on television in front of everybody”. Whatever we do, we have to make sure it works. It is no good us passing laws which do not actually work. I remind noble Lords that children who are under the age of 13 are not allowed to use social media. That ban does not happen. I had children at my school who were seven and eight who accessed social media. Whatever we agree, it has to work. My great fear in this whole debate is that it will not work, and people will find ways around it. So I plead with the Government—indeed, with everybody—to have a realistic streak in what we do.
It is odd that legislating for breakfast clubs is fine, yet legislating on social media and mobile phones in school is considered a step too far in a Bill focused on children's well-being. About 80% of secondary schools allow children to keep phones on them during the school day with a "not seen or heard" rule — and the evidence shows that is not working: 36% of secondary teachers reported phones used without permission in at least some lessons last week, according to the National Behaviour Survey. My amendments focus specifically on advice and guidance for parents and carers of preschool-age children, where there is no clear summary of the evidence and no clear public guidance on appropriate screen use — despite one in five three to five year-olds now having their own mobile phone.My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 183CA and 183CB in this group. Before I do so, I will add my support to Amendment 177, from my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Barran, and Amendment 458. It is odd that, while we are legislating in this Bill for the provision of breakfast clubs, of which I have previously said I am a fan, legislating for the use of social media by teenagers and the use of mobile phones in school seems to be a step too far for a Bill that is focused on children’s well-being. That is despite the wealth of evidence, to which my noble friend just alluded, about how disruptive phones can be to children’s well-being and learning. It is not good enough to say that 90% of secondary schools report having a policy in place to ban the use of phones in the school day—which, by the way, means that one in 10 allows access to phones in the school day. What matters is how effective those policies are, and the evidence shows that, in too many cases, they are not effective enough. Around 80% of secondary schools surveyed by the Children’s Commissioner allow children to keep their phones on them in the school day, with the expectation that it is not seen or heard. However, the evidence shows that that is not working. The National Behaviour Survey in 2022-23 found that 36% of secondary school teachers reported phones being used without permission in at least some of their lessons in the past week, while 59% of pupils reported the same. When the previous Government introduced guidance on mobile phones in schools, they said that they would keep the approach under review and move to introduce statutory guidance if the situation had not improved. A key milestone for assessing that was the publication of this year’s National Behaviour Survey. When I asked the Minister in January when she expected it to be published, she said that it would be in the spring. I may have missed it—I do not think that I have—but could she update the Committee on when we can expect the res…
- I support banning social media by design from schools, but my amendment adds an exemption for genuine educational use — because there are circumstances where a teacher needs students to engage with their actual personalised feeds to teach media literacy effectively. The addictive use of smartphones is the real problem: a recent JAMA study of 4,000 adolescents found that compulsive users were two to three times more likely to experience suicidal thoughts by 14. But a ban alone is not a sophisticated enough response; we also need education about media literacy, taught not by telling children what is dangerous but by listening to them and building their own critical capacity.
My Lords, as this is my first substantive contribution in Committee, I declare my education interests as chair of E-ACT multi-academy trust, of STEM Learning, of Century-Tech and of COBIS. I also own half of Suklaa Ltd, which has a number of education clients. Amendment 458A in my name is an amendment to Amendment 458 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I am seeking to add an exemption for educational purposes to the exemptions from the policy of smartphone bans in schools proposed by her amendment. I have read Jonathan Haidt’s Anxious Generation, Christine Rosen’s Extinction of Experience and Jenny Anderson and Rebecca Winthrop’s excellent Disengaged Teen. I know that our children are losing out on the vital developmental impact of unstructured outdoor play, thanks to the distractions of technology. We are all losing the multisensory benefits of engaging with real-life experiences because we are too busy on our phones, including in this Chamber, and we are losing empathy as a result. The overconsumption of violent online content is increasing the bystander effect that distinguishes us as communities of people. Our children are increasingly disengaged from learning, partly due to boring content at school and partly due to diminishing attention spans, thanks to too much time scrolling short-form videos on TikTok and Instagram. I am only too aware that social media is addictive by design and is the main culprit in this complex set of problems. Multiple systemic reviews and surveys confirm that excessive smartphone use is associated with poor sleep quality, increased depression and anxiety and lower life satisfaction among teens, something that this country has a particular problem with and that cannot be solely blamed on phones and social media. This month, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a large study tracking more than 4,000 adolescents and finding that the smartphone risk to youth mental health is primarily linked to the addict…
I have taught for ten years, and never in a school that allows students outside the sixth form to carry phones to or in school. Students who do not carry phones do not get mugged for phones. In schools without mobile phones, students talk to each other, play with each other and have genuine unstructured time — which is itself valuable for development.My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 458 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my noble friend Lady Kidron. I have spoken on this issue several times in your Lordships’ House, and I will not repeat those speeches here. I am a teacher and have taught for 10 years, but never in a school that allows students outside the sixth form to carry phones to or in school. My noble friend Lady Cass says about mobile phones that the stakeholder view and desire for action in this area is overwhelming. I will talk not about the separate issue of whether smartphones themselves are harmful but rather about whether they should be in school at all for the under-16s. Students who do not carry phones do not get mugged for phones. In schools that do not allow mobile phones, students talk to each other at break and lunchtime, or play games or go to clubs, rather than staring at their phones. So I am about to be rather brave here: for the first time I am going to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley—at the same time. I do not think that an exception for educational purposes would be workable. You cannot teach these students how to use phones; they know far better than we do. What you can teach them are the dangers. Again, I am going to do a first here and say that it might be rather better on a PowerPoint slide than doing it practically. I really worry about 30 students in a room with their mobile phones—what carnage could happen there? But this is back of a fag packet stuff. The excuse quite often is that carers need to communicate with people. Actually, carers do not need phones; they need time away to be children. Quite often, the people they are caring for can be very demanding, and sometimes too demanding. Schools are very good at getting messages to students in emergencies. If it is not an emergency, perhaps the child does not need to know right away. Parents do not need to know exactly where their child…
The devastating impact of social media on children is not speculative — it is an irrefutable fact. Last year, more than 800,000 children under 18 needed NHS mental health support. This is a national crisis, and we cannot delay action.My Lords, I support Amendments 177, 183CA, 183CB and 458. As my noble friends Lord Nash, Lord Bethell, Lady Penn and many others have so eloquently laid out, the devastating impact of social media on children is not speculative anymore. It is an irrefutable fact. Social media, as many have said, is addictive; it impedes brain development and exposes children to sexual predators and harmful content, including body imaging. It is fuelling a crisis in adolescent mental health. Last year, more than 800,000 children under 18 needed NHS mental health support. This is a national crisis.
- At what age does the noble Baroness think children should be taught how to use phones safely?
At what age does the noble Baroness think that children should be taught how to use phones safely?
- Children can use basic phones that do not connect to the internet if they need to reach their parents in an emergency. Under-16s' brains are simply not developed enough to handle the harms and addictive design of the smartphones we are talking about.
Children could use phones that do not connect to the internet—phones that do not access social media—like the old phones, if they need to phone their parents in an emergency. With the mobile phones that we are talking about now, for children under the age of 16, their brains are not developed enough to understand the harms and dangers—and, as we have said, it is all very addictive. Big tech companies know how to get children to look at certain sites. In our generation, we did not have phones and we did not have that exposure to predators, and we did not have so many mental health issues among the youth.
- How on earth do you think parents will be able to prevent their children having smartphones at all? What is being debated here is phones in school — the idea that we should prevent children under 16 from owning smartphones altogether seems utterly unrealistic.
I ask the noble Baroness how on earth she thinks that parents will be able to stand up against their children so they will not have phones? What we are discussing here is phones in school. The idea that we should prevent children under 16 from having smartphones seems to me utterly unrealistic.
- I meant under-16s at school — not a general ban on ownership. Parents do also need better education: when we see parents pushing a pushchair with a child in distress while absorbed in their own phone, that is part of the same problem.
I did not mean under-16s in general, I meant under-16s at school, as in those amendments. However, I agree with some noble Lords that parents also need to be educated. When we see parents pushing a pushchair and children looking at video games and such things, it is probably not very helpful, but this is part of education and we all need to get together to educate parents also. So, I support these amendments and I think that, to help our children’s well-being and future, this is something we should look at.
Every day the mounting evidence underscores a distressing reality. This is not a future concern but a pressing crisis contributing significantly to a growing mental health emergency — and our children's well-being cannot wait.My Lords, I too support Amendments 458 and 177, and I am delighted to support the amendments from my noble friend Lady Penn, Amendments 183CA and 183CB, which recognise the importance of helping children in their earliest years. Every day, the mounting evidence underscores a distressing reality. The issue of excessive screen time and social media usage is not a future concern but a pressing crisis that is contributing significantly to a growing mental health crisis among our children. Health professionals, educators, parents and concerned community members all echo similar warnings. Our children’s well-being is at stake and we cannot afford to delay action. The detrimental effects of this overexposure are multifaceted. Children today are grappling with severe challenges, including disrupted sleep patterns, deteriorating eyesight, hindered speech and language development, stunted emotional and social growth, poor eating habits, as discussed in the amendments on food on Thursday, distorted body image, confusing ideologies taught as fact, diminished educational outcomes and impaired cognitive performance. Recent research highlights the alarming prevalence of addictive behaviours associated with technology use among early adolescents. Only last week, a study revealed that half of these young individuals exhibit a high trajectory of video game addiction, while one in three struggle with compulsive social media use, and one in four face similar issues with mobile phones. The implications are dire. High and escalating patterns of screen addiction correlate strongly with increased suicidal behaviours and ideation and overall mental health decline. Furthermore, research indicates that one in four children and young people are using smartphones in a manner consistent with behavioural addiction. Smart devices, as well as giving access to harmful online content, carry a whole-body impact on the child, including physical and psychological harms, eyesight and musculoskeletal issu…
- Around 80% of secondary schools allow children to keep phones on them with a 'not seen or heard' rule — and that simply is not working. Smartphones are a category apart from other decisions left to school leaders: the harms are invisible, the consequences unmeasurable in the short term, and individual schools cannot hold the companies responsible accountable. The case for mandatory action in schools is that this is a collective action problem that individual schools and individual families cannot solve on their own.
My Lords, we have had the privilege this afternoon of listening to some very powerful and well-informed speeches, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I shall speak to Amendment 458 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and to Amendment 177, which I was very pleased to co-sign with my noble friend Lord Nash. I note the widespread support evidenced by the popularity of my noble friend Lady Penn’s Amendments 183CA and 183CB, which prevented me from adding my name to those as well, which is testament to the cross-party recognition of this important issue. Noble Lords across the House have witnessed first-hand the dedication of teachers, parents and school leaders, who work tirelessly to create environments where our children can thrive. Today, I speak to an issue that threatens to undermine their best efforts. Amendment 458 would require schools to implement comprehensive smartphone bans during the school day, with carefully considered practical flexibilities for children who need smartphones to access their medical devices—for example, for diabetes—for boarding or residential schools and for sixth forms. This is not about a blanket prohibition without thought; it is about creating the conditions that are necessary for our children to succeed academically, socially and emotionally. I note Amendment 458A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and would be delighted to talk to him after this debate in a bit more detail, but I also note the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Spielman about the benefits of using a school-owned device in these cases, and actually did not hear any examples that could not be done on a desktop or a tablet. There is genuine urgency to address the profound impacts of smartphones on the health and well-being of our children. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that the evidence is mixed. I think one needs to look very care…
- I am genuinely unclear — for those supporting this amendment, is the argument simply that children will at least have those school hours free from smartphones, or is there a broader plan for what happens outside school? Because that is where most of the damage happens.
That point has been raised by a number of Members, so perhaps I might ask the Minister, because I am genuinely unclear what the thinking is. I know it is not that no harm happens to children using smartphones outside of school. You do not know who is in the bedroom with them; you do not know who they are talking to. I think that is our starting point. I am not clear from those who are supporting this amendment whether they are saying at least they will have those hours a day when they will not be subject to smartphones or social media. I do not know whether that is sufficient, or whether there are further plans in those Members’ minds as to how to cope with the rest of the week. My view is that that is where most of the damage happens: outside school, not inside school.
- A smartphone amendment on its own is not sufficient — and I will be coming to the broader picture later. But the reason to mandate action in schools, rather than leave it to school leaders' discretion, is accountability: the consequences of allowing phones in school are not measurable or visible in the way exam results or Ofsted grades are, so there is no mechanism to hold leaders to account for that choice.
The noble Baroness is right that a smartphone amendment on its own is not sufficient. As the Minister said a couple of times on previous days in Committee, I will be coming to that later. I will try to address the noble Baroness’s points. If I have not done so by the end of my speech, I ask her to please intervene again. Some have questioned why we favour freedom and discretion for school leaders in areas such as curriculum and staffing yet seek to mandate action on smartphones. The answer lies in a couple of areas. The first is about accountability. When school leaders make decisions about teacher pay, qualifications or curriculum, they are held accountable through Ofsted inspections, public examination results and parental choice. The consequences of their decisions are measurable and visible. Smartphone policies operate in an entirely different landscape. Here, schools face external actors: powerful social media companies with business models that are predicated on capturing and monetising our children’s attention. These companies employ teams of neuroscientists and behavioural psychologists to create algorithms designed specifically to keep our children scrolling, clicking and consuming content that ranges from the merely distracting to the genuinely harmful. We can all think of cases that, tragically, have been fatal. The facts surrounding smartphone usage among children paint a sobering picture. A quarter of the UK’s three and four year-olds now own a smartphone—these are toddlers whose cognitive development is being shaped by screens before they can properly read. This figure rises to four in five children by the end of primary school. We are witnessing the digitisation of childhood itself. The emerging evidence linking smartphones and social media to the explosion in mental health problems among young people cannot be ignored. Research demonstrates that the average 12 year-old spends 21 hours a week on their smartphone, which is equivalent to a part-time job…
- I do not disagree that these are weapons of mass distraction — I have been advocating lockable pouches. But if there are legitimate educational circumstances where a teacher would want those pouches unlocked, would it really be right that doing so would be illegal?
I do not disagree with a word that the noble Baroness has said about these weapons of mass distraction. I am not saying that young people should be able to carry them around—I was advocating the use of lockable pouches. However, is it not possible that there are some circumstances where a teacher, for legitimate educational reasons, would want those pouches to be unlocked and for phones to be used? If that were to happen, is it right that it would be illegal?
- When I spoke to teachers about that scenario, most reacted as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, did — or suggested the same purposes could be served on existing school devices. If there are genuine gaps, I am very happy to listen to the noble Lord's expertise and discuss this further.
I am not a teacher and probably never will be, sadly—although probably happily for children. My answer to the noble Lord is what was behind my offer to sit down and talk to him. When I talked to teachers prior to this debate about the noble Lord’s amendment, they reacted a little as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, did or suggested that much of this could be done on existing school devices. If there are gaps in that, of course I am very happy to listen to the noble Lord’s expertise. I will press on, or I will be growled at by the Front Bench for going over time.
The debate has conflated three distinct issues — social media regulation, the impacts of screen time across children's lives, and mobile phones in schools — and conflating them does not help us develop clear policy. The Online Safety Act, which has barely been mentioned, is the first step in a safer online environment for children: illegal content duties are now in force, and Ofcom's draft child safety codes are expected to take effect next month. The scientific evidence on screen time and mental health is mixed — correlation is being confused with causality — which is why we have commissioned a systematic review from the University of Cambridge. A blanket ban is rarely the solution; we need a multifaceted policy response. On early years screen guidance, I commit to continuing discussions in the department to ensure that information for parents is as clear and accessible as possible.My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate. As we begin, it is probably worth while identifying that the amendments fall into three related but distinct areas: the use of and regulation of social media, the impacts of screen time, and the proposals for the use of mobile phones in schools. I will respond to the specifics of the amendments. There were times during the debate when, while I recognise the linkages between them, those issues were conflated, which will not necessarily help us to develop clear policy. In starting, I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords that parenting is hard. It was before mobile phones, but the point about the ubiquity of screens made by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, makes this even more significant. We are talking about long-standing issues for young people around behaviour, cognitive development, bullying, lack of exercise, mental health, extremism and radicalisation, and crime. I accept some of the arguments about that, but I say in response to my noble friend Lady Morris that, if I remember rightly, these were all issues we were exercised about when we were in the now Department for Education before the era of mobile phones. That is to say not that this is not a serious issue, but that there is rarely one easy solution to these problems. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lord Knight and Lady Morris that straightforward bans are rarely the solution. I emphasise in responding to these amendments that we need a multifaceted policy response, and that is what the Government are pursuing. We will continue to do what is needed to keep children safe online and when using devices with screens. We recently published our response to the Education Select Committee report on screen time, which further sets out the Government’s positions on these issues. It is not in fact true that the Government are not doing anything on this whole range of areas—and that goes for the previous Government as well as this one. Amend…
- Every country that has introduced mobile phone bans in schools has found ways to make it work — it cannot be beyond this Government to do the same. And has the Minister considered the power of the social media companies? Setting boundaries with children were perfectly good 20th-century solutions, but we are now competing with companies that have vast resources and expertise to undermine all of them. Do the figures on schools adopting restrictions actually tally with the Teacher Tapp evidence on the level of disruption in lessons?
I thank the Minister for giving way. Presumably, all the countries that have introduced mobile phone bans in schools have found ways around this. It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to find a way through this. I also wondered whether the Minister was going to comment—perhaps she will come on to this—on the power of the social media companies. In her remarks so far, she has come up with what were, in a former life, perfectly respectable and effective solutions, such as that parents should set boundaries with their children. But we, as parents or grandparents, are now competing with social media companies that have a great deal of power and expertise to disrupt all those good 20th century-type responses. Lastly, I wonder whether she feels that the figures she gave on schools adopting phone restrictions tie in with the evidence from Teacher Tapp about the level of disruption in lessons that my noble friend referred to.
- The Online Safety Act is precisely the legislation this House used to tackle regulation of social media for children — it is literally just on the statute books, and it is right to focus first on making it work properly. On the behaviour survey timing, it will be published later this year. On mobile phones: everything head teachers need to put restrictions in place already exists, but it is the combination of measures — not phones alone — that enables the calm environment schools need.
On the point about regulation, the reason why I started by referring to the Online Safety Act was precisely to identify the need that was manifest in a piece of legislation that came through this House before my time but which presumably some noble Lords around the Chamber were engaged in and which was precisely about how to regulate the use of social media for children and young people. That legislation did not happen in the last century; it is literally only just on the statute books. I was making the case that it is important, and that it is right for the Government to ensure that it is working properly as a first priority. The issue of how we support schools to be able to have within them the type of calm behaviour that they need is, of course, absolutely crucial. In response to the question about when we will publish the survey on behaviour, it will be later this year. To come back to the point I made at the beginning, although I very much doubt that the only factor influencing behaviour within schools is mobile phones, everything that head teachers might need to put in place the restrictions on mobile phones that will, along with the other necessary things, enable them to have strong behaviour policies and practice, is, rightly, available to them in order for them to be able to ensure that that is happening. Lastly, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I have already said that I see the point of the exemption he has proposed. However, my point is that you have two routes here: the legislative route, which has already begun to be unravelled by the inclusion of a whole range of exemptions; or a positive set of guidelines for head teachers to use to design and develop, in consultation with parents, their staff and the young people in their schools, the appropriate policies for safeguarding children, protecting behaviour and delivering what individual schools need. At this point, the Government believe that the latter is the most appropri…
- A headmaster at Fulham Boys School, who has had a phone ban for ten years, told me clearly that the biggest problem in tackling this issue has not been the pupils — it has been some parents, who regard any restriction as an infringement of their children's civil liberties. The real problem is what happens outside school. Until we find a way of influencing that — and perhaps children themselves, who know some of the harm being done, can help get through to their parents — school bans alone will not solve it.
Will the Minister give way? We had a debate a few months ago on this very subject and I visited the Fulham Boys School, which is a large all-male school with about 1,200 students, to speak at some length to the headmaster. That school has had a ban on phones for about 10 years. The issue is not about having a ban in school but, as the headmaster said very clearly, what happens outside the school. It does not matter what policies you have in place; they will not solve what young people are doing outside of school time. He said the biggest problem he has had in trying to tackle this issue has not been with the pupils themselves but the parents, some of whom are very challenging and regard it as an infringement of civil liberties that anybody should tell them what their children should or should not do. The real problem is what happens outside the school. The school can have as many policies as it likes, but until and unless we find a way of influencing what happens outside the school—which, as I said, means getting to the young people, because they know themselves some of the harm being done, and perhaps through them getting to the parents to make them realise how their children feel—we will not start to tackle the psychology behind some of the problems we are confronted with.
- My earlier point was precisely that there has been conflation in this debate. The Online Safety Act is the relevant legislation on social media; guidance on appropriate screen use from the very earliest years is a separate issue; and mobile phones in schools is a third. The Government are taking action on all three — gathering evidence, supporting schools — and on that basis I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I do note that I was coming to the end of my comments at 18 minutes—just so the Whips know I was sticking to the rules. The noble Lord tempts me to say that that was exactly the point I made at the beginning: there has been conflation in this debate of the use of mobile phones in schools, the impact of screen time across children’s lives—I can quite understand people’s concerns about that—and, as I have said, the need for us, at a very early stage in children’s lives, to be clear with them about the appropriate use of screens, which is probably practically none, and clear in the information that we provide to parents. The Government are taking action on all those areas, alongside gathering appropriate evidence. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
- At the end of next month, Ofcom will finally require age-verification on all websites carrying a risk of children seeing pornography. Who in this Chamber now thinks that was a bad decision? Yet it was fought tooth and nail from the Government Bench, with all the same arguments we have just heard — not technically possible, the science is not settled, moral uncertainty. The Minister faces a similar storm brewing on social media use by under-16s. Could she not make a clear commitment that, if the evidence that is now emerging solidifies further, the Government will act?
The Minister is quite right to point out that the Online Safety Act did not get much of a mention: maybe it is some kind of PTSD, because some of us did hard yards during that difficult passage. One of the most difficult things was the debate on age verification for porn, which started with all the same arguments we have just heard: it is not technically possible; maybe children can learn by watching pornography; the moral rules around telling children what to do are not crystal clear; the science of whether porn is good for children is not cast in stone, and does not have the longitudinal studies that we need to make decisions on it. All that was heard. At the end of next month, Ofcom will finally bring in a deadline so that all websites that carry a risk of children seeing porn will have to put in age-verification software. Who in this Chamber now genuinely thinks that was a bad decision? Yet it was fought tooth and nail from that Bench by the previous Government, who had to be dragged to that decision by rebellion in the Commons and a four corners of the Chamber effort here. The Minister faces a similar storm brewing on social media use by under-16s. Could she, with her multidimensional approach to this problem, help us understand the metrics she will use to judge whether it is right to revisit this issue? How many hours a day do children have to spend on social media? How many predators have to get through? How many grooming gangs have to recruit children in order to abuse them? What metrics will she apply to reviewing this decision?
- I did not suggest the harms are not real — I was not here during the debates on pornography age-verification so I will not accept those arguments being attributed to me. The Government are taking action on all those areas without believing there is one single silver bullet of a ban. Whether a complete social media ban for under-16s commands a majority in this House is genuinely uncertain.
Well, the noble Lord added considerably to his speech there. I did not use some of the arguments that he suggested were used in this Chamber about porn. I was not in this House so I do not know what arguments and debates went on. Nor did I suggest that there are not considerable issues around young people’s use of social media and the amount of their screen time. The noble Lord is very clear that he believes there should be a complete ban on social media for young people aged under 16. I do not know whether that carries a majority in this House, to be honest. Given that, it is important to demonstrate, as I attempted to do, the action that the Government are already taking to address all those issues, whether it is screen time, the impact of social media on young people, or mobile phones in schools. The Government are taking action on all of them, without necessarily thinking that there is one single silver bullet of a ban that can solve all those problems.
- On the early years guidance, the Minister said more than just safeguarding and I will look carefully at the record. On the National Behaviour Survey — she previously said spring, now she says later this year. Could she be more specific about the delay and when we will see it? Happy for her to write.
I will be brief. I really appreciate what the Minister said on early years. I think it goes a bit beyond safeguarding, but I will look really carefully at what she said. On the evidence point, she referred to the Children’s Commissioner’s work on the policies, but we need to know the effect of those policies. That is where the national behaviour study comes in. The Minister previously told me it was due in spring, but she said it would be later this year. It would be great to understand why there is a delay, if there is one. Could she be more specific about when we will see that study of what is going on in our schools? I will be happy for her to write.
- I share the frustration about when the behaviour survey will be published. That is genuinely all I can say about it.
First, I said more than safeguarding; I hope she can go back and look at the record to see that. I was pretty sympathetic to the points she made, and I said much more than safeguarding. I share her frustration about when the survey will be published. That is all I can say about it.
- Unless smartphones are physically not permitted in schools, bans will remain ineffective — teachers report children going to the toilets far more frequently, and children have already found ingenious ways to open and close the security pouches using magnets. The Government have entered into a £20 million contract with Made Tech Group to develop digital assessment tools — with the reception baseline assessment explicitly described in that contract as 'the first in a wider suite of digital assessment tools'. This is the thin end of the wedge for screens in primary schools, and I urge the Government to reconsider.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for his contribution. I am just so sorry that we will perhaps not see him around this place for very much longer. On the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran concerning the possession and use of smartphones in schools, as my noble friend Lady Penn said, it may be that 90% of schools have a policy, but, unless smartphones are physically not allowed in schools, bans will be ineffective. Teachers are reporting that children are going to the loo far more often; I see the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who is a teacher, nodding. Some schools use pouches, but the evidence is clear. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, if my smartphone is there, I will concentrate far less than if it is out of the room. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Agnew said, children are very ingenious. I am told there are ingenious methods of opening and closing these pouches by using magnets and various other methods. On what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said about the consequences for any school or person who did not follow a ban if we passed this amendment to ban smartphones in schools, I do not think for a moment that we are talking about a criminal offence. Surely a duty would do. I am highly sceptical about what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about allowing smartphones in schools to teach their safe use. Children know far more about how to use these things than adults. They do not need to see a phone to be told what not to watch. Unless they cannot access social media, pornography or whatever because of age verification, they will watch it. That is what kids do. On my noble friend Lady Penn’s amendment, which I support, I will make this point. Heads of primary schools have recently been alerted—I used that word advisedly, because none of them can tell me they were aware of any specific notification on this—to the fact that the recepti…
- Does the noble Lord accept that the digital assessment being procured — analysis of which started back in 2019 — will be carried out alongside teachers and will not involve children using devices on their own?
Does the noble Lord accept that that assessment—the procurement, analysis and evaluation of which started back in 2019—will be carried out alongside teachers, with the ability for teachers to use other methods with children where necessary? This is not something that children will use on their own, on screen.
- I understand that teachers will manage those assessments — but the contract specifically states that the reception baseline assessment will be 'the first service launched in a wider suite of digital assessment tools', which means this is an explicit gateway to bringing digital devices into primary schools at the earliest ages, without the safeguards my noble friend Lady Penn's amendments would provide.
I understand that entirely. I understand that there will be two devices, on one of which the teacher will have to log the responses. The pupil will sometimes use a hard copy, but they will have to touch a screen for some of the tests. So we will be bringing these devices into primary schools, which will accept their existence for these ages. Goodness knows where this might go in primary schools without the kinds of amendments my noble friend Lady Penn is proposing. The Government have entered into a £20 million contract with Made Tech Group plc to develop the relevant technology for the reception baseline assessment. The contract specifically states that “the RBA will be the first service launched to schools in a wider suite of digital assessment tools”. In other words, this is the thin end of the wedge. I hope the Government will reconsider this. I note what the Minister said about hoping that there is very little of this sort of thing in the early years. I heard the Minister’s response to my Amendment 177. I listened carefully, and I am afraid that clauses and phrases such as “The Government will do what is needed to keep children safe online”, “Online Safety Act”, “scientific evidence mixed”, “correlation and causality”, “build the evidence base”, “publish results in due course”, “recommendations on limiting screen time” and “advice on sleep” do not fill me with any hope. All this sounds to me like statisticians wanting 100 years of evidence before they say the case is proven. The time is now. How much more evidence do we need? How much more damage do we need to see before we act? I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about Ofcom, but social media companies are perfectly capable of implementing highly effective age limits if they want to. I am glad he was listening so carefully to what I said and noted some similarity between what I said today and what I said in the purpose clause debate, but I hope that when he checks Hansard he will see that there was…
My amendments reintroduce, in cut-down form, my Support for Infants and Parents Bill, which secured top ballot place last year but which the Government were unable to support in September 2024 on the grounds that they needed time for their own comprehensive cross-government package. One year on, I look forward to hearing how that package is taking shape — because the early weeks and months of a child's life are where the return on investment is highest, and where failure to act has the longest shadow.My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 179 and 183 in my name. It might be a lighter-weight and shorter debate than the important debate we have just had. I should disclose that, taken together, these amendments are a slightly cut-down version of my Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill, my Private Member’s Bill, which secured top place in our ballot. I am, in effect, reintroducing it here given the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, the Minister for Health and Social Care, was unable to support it when it was debated in September 2024. In those early weeks of the new Government, she said: “We need the time and we need to be able to roll out our own cross-government package of support for infants, children and families, as noble Lords have today asked us to do. This needs to be comprehensive, rather than piecemeal … the Bill … does not align with how this Government intend to deliver the comprehensive change that our children need”.—[Official Report, 6/9/24; col. 1369.] One year on from their election victory, I and many other noble Lords who spoke in that debate or who championed better, more systematic support in the first two years of children’s lives, and beyond that point, are keen to hear more about what the Government’s comprehensive package will look like, so these five amendments are probing amendments intended to encourage the Government to share their plans for both the Start for Life programme and the family hubs programme that is integral to its delivery and wider family support. It is also a second opportunity to reiterate the intention of that Bill then and these amendments now, which is not to specify what a service offer should look like but simply to require local authorities to publish information on that offer. A large body of evidence points to how critical the first 1,001 days of life, from conception to age two, are to children’s future well-being and the opportunities that they can take advantage of. These days are al…
- Excluding the early years from this Bill feels like a lost opportunity. My amendment is a probing one: very long and detailed, but intended to generate the conversation. We know that support in the first two years of life is where investment yields the greatest return — and the absence of a national strategy for the nought to five age group in a children's wellbeing Bill is striking.
My Lords, Amendment 183B is in my name and I support the other amendments in this group. First, I draw to the Minister’s attention that this is a probing amendment. It is very long and detailed but none the less intended to generate a discussion of something I feel is very important in a children’s well-being Bill. To exclude the early years seems a lost opportunity; the intention is to generate that conversation. It is almost 20 years—I have shocked myself by saying how long it is—since I stood as a candidate in Westminster North for the Conservative Party. As an inner-city seat, it was a challenging environment in which to work and to meet people. Deprivation was not uncommon. I remember vividly knocking on a door on the Brunel Estate. As the door opened, the fug of cigarette—and, probably, cannabis—smoke surrounded me. Through the haze, there was what looked to be a very young girl with a baby, probably six months old—now I know better—on her hip. In my shock, in the smoke that emanated from the flat, I said to her, “Is your mum at home?” But she was the mum. By coincidence, I had just come from an excellent Sure Start drop-in centre around the corner set up by the last Labour Government. I had this moment of clarity, of thinking, “That baby is never going to get to that Sure Start centre”, and that it did not matter who was in government and what was offered—unless we had a proper strategy around early years and a way of reaching that mum, that child’s chances were going to be severely impeded. I have declared my interest previously, and I declare an interest now, as this was the inspiration for founding Parent Gym, which has run across the country in all the years since it launched in 2010. The intention of Parent Gym, like so many other programmes now like it, was to reach young mums who probably had not had any parenting themselves. The aim was to provide support that was not otherwise available, when reaching out for that support was usually taboo because it…
School readiness matters especially for neurodiverse children — dyslexia and dyscalculia are congenital, lifelong conditions that without early identification lead to long-term harm to education, career and health outcomes, but with the right support those children can absolutely thrive. All children need to be ready to take advantage of their thirteen precious school years from day one, including children who learn differently.My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 183B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. I am grateful to her for a probing amendment that allows us to think in particular about school readiness. We have already heard about the well-evidenced links between poor school readiness and academic career and lifetime outcomes. Recent research, including from the Centre for Young Lives, has made the link between long-term absenteeism and school disengagement. I want to think about what school readiness means in the case of neurodiverse children, particularly those with a specific congenital biological learning difficulty, such as dyslexia or dyscalculia. I will highlight four important points that we know about these conditions. First, you are born with them and you will live with them throughout life. Secondly, without identification and support, dyscalculics and dyslexics are likely to suffer long-term impacts to their education, career and health outcomes. Thirdly, with identification and the right support, dyscalculic and dyslexic children can absolutely thrive in school and in future careers because neither condition is a sign of low intelligence or low intellectual ability. Finally, I point to the crucial importance of early intervention in improving outcomes. If you take those four points together, they present a compelling case for considering the identification of specific learning difficulties as a key component of school readiness. Children with specific learning difficulties will need specific support and, if they get it from day 1, the outcomes for them will be so much better. It is really hard to see how we can deem a child ready to learn if we have not identified a specific learning difficulty and put in place the adjustments that are necessary to meet those needs. So it is not just about securing the foundations for their future learning and giving all children an equal chance to thrive; it is also about obviating any risk that they will be mistakenly judge…
- There is a good way of discovering you have no dyslexia or dyscalculia — Japan did it: they simply did not recognise the words.
There is a great way of discovering that you have no dyscalculia or dyslexia—Japan did it. They just did not recognise the words.
- All children need to be ready to take advantage of their thirteen precious school years from day one — including those who learn differently and therefore need different support from the very beginning.
The noble Lord returns to a theme he has raised before. To conclude, children have 13 precious years to gain the knowledge and the skills that will set them up for their adult lives. All children need to be ready to take advantage of that from day 1, including children who learn differently and therefore need different support from the very beginning.
A national strategy for early years is not just about school readiness — it is vital for health and well-being too. What is needed is a focus not on a postcode lottery of accessibility but on a genuinely national, coordinated offer, bringing together all the good work already under way.My Lords, I rise in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Cash on a national strategy to promote the health, development and school readiness of all children from birth to the age of five. I agree with everything that has been said in this Committee on this subject. The Minister will know that I will always take an opportunity to rise in support of what we will eventually come to: a national strategy for schools, sport, health and well-being. But, as my noble friend Lord Young highlighted, this should not be just at primary or secondary level. It is vital also to think about this in the context of early years intervention. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, in her place—she is a passionate champion for children and has done an amazing amount of such work in her life. The Centre for Young Lives emphasises the importance of the expertise in this Committee in looking at the early stage of development and focusing not on a postcode lottery of accessibility to services but on a national strategy and trying to bring together all the good work that is under way. In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, would normally also talk about early years activity and the importance of physical activity for young children’s development, promoting play and an active lifestyle, building physical literacy, enhancing learning readiness and encouraging habits that can be sustained throughout life. Getting confidence into young children through physical activity is vital. I commend to the Committee the work done by many organisations specialising in early years physical activity programmes—Early Movers comes to mind. It has highlighted that there has been a decline in physical activity among young children, and its work therefore brings our attention to that decline. The Youth Sport Trust’s Healthy Movers recognises the importance of providing training and resources for early years staff to support physical and emotional well-being in young children. T…
It is important to say what we know worked: Sure Start reduced hospitalisations for mental health among 12 to 14 year-olds by 50% and improved communication, language and problem-solving at school readiness — and it was most effective in the most deprived communities. The decision to decimate Sure Start centres from 2010 onwards has had long-term consequences that every speaker has made clear. We should name what was lost and commit to rebuilding it.The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, was not here at the beginning of this debate, so she has asked me to say that it is really important that there is good liaison between education and health. I really feel that I am in a bit of a parallel universe. We are being told about the importance of integrated early years help, and we had such a programme with the Labour Government, which was enormously successful. Yesterday, I read an Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis that showed that it reduced hospitalisations for mental health among 12 to 14 year-olds by 50%, and that it “improved the dimensions of school readiness—communication & language and problem-solving”. It was most effective in targeting the most deprived communities—so the stories about how the children who needed it most were least likely to get it were not true. The first 700 Sure Start centres were set up in the most deprived areas—and, actually, there was a lot of work that showed that it was the universal element that made it so important. It is like a parallel universe, when we know that, during the period from 2010 to 2024, there was an exponential rise in child poverty, which is at the root of lack of school readiness and childhood illness, as well as family dysfunction. Nine children in every class of 30 on average will be living below the official poverty line, and that exploded under the coalition and previous Governments as a result of austerity. So, absolutely, yes, we need an integrated approach—but I sometimes feel it might be helpful for the Opposition to acknowledge what their role was in destroying that provision, which was there for the most deprived and for all children and young people.
- I want to clarify that, from my own perspective, I fully acknowledged how successful Sure Start was — I understood that to be the cross-Committee consensus. The intention is not to cause dissent on an issue where it is so important to have agreement.
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I want to clarify, certainly from my own perspective and what I said, that there was full acknowledgement of how successful the Sure Start programme was—and I understood that to be the position by consensus across the Committee. So I am very sorry that the noble Baroness feels that she is living in another universe, but it is not the intention of anyone here to cause dissent on an issue on which it is so important to have consensus. I think that everyone who has intervened in this debate has been coming from a very good place.
- That acknowledgement is appreciated — but it remains important to note clearly that Sure Start was available, was defunded, and that its decimation has had serious long-term consequences for the poorest children. That cannot be papered over.
I absolutely acknowledge that, but it is important to note that such a provision was available and was defunded. The number of centres was decimated, which has had long-term consequences that noble Lords have been so clear about: the effect on the poorest children of that poverty of provision. I think that is really important to note.
- I remember a mother and three year-old daughter on the edge of Sure Start in north Kensington: the mother had never learned how to speak to her daughter, who had no speech; three months later they danced down the steps together singing Christmas carols. That centre closed. Early identification — long before school — of children like my granddaughter, who at five was told she was stupid but was in fact dyslexic, would make the most enormous difference.
My Lords, I feel the need to move on. I very much support early years strategy, and I particularly appreciated the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham. I remember a mother and her three year-old daughter. The mother had never learned how to speak to her daughter, who had no speech and had never heard anything from her mother. They were invited to join what was almost certainly Sure Start in north Kensington and, three months later, hand in hand, near Christmas, they danced down the steps of the preschool, singing carols together. That place closed—and this is one of the sadnesses that we have. I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, because I have a granddaughter who at five was said to be stupid. Thank goodness she changed school; she was found to be dyslexic and, I am glad to say, she got a good degree at Edinburgh—but with a great deal of help. To identify children at an early stage, long before they go to school, would make the most enormous difference. It did to my granddaughter, who was extremely unhappy at her first school, because she kept being told she was stupid, and she was not stupid at all. She is one of countless children who are not identified at one stage early enough. Dare I ask the Minister whether it is at all possible that this Government, from the party that produced Sure Start, which was so excellent, could think one day, when there is a little bit more money, they might reintroduce it again?
Within any proposed healthy child programme, vaccination against preventable diseases should be specifically named and promoted. Failure to vaccinate a child in readiness for school is viewed by some doctors as a red flag for possible parental neglect — and many other countries already include vaccination incentives as part of their early years programmes.I, too, want to move on, but I cannot resist repeating my admiration for the admirable Bill last year from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and his work on family hubs. I will concentrate on Amendment 183B from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and concentrate on just one aspect of school readiness and the proposed healthy child programme. I would like to see specifically included in the proposed healthy child programme referred to in the noble Baroness’s amendment the promotion and encouragement before starting school of vaccination against preventable diseases. Many other countries provide for the mandatory vaccination of children, backed by various types of sanctions—including, it has to be said, exclusion from certain benefits and services. I am not suggesting that for this Bill; that is a debate for another day. However, children are not being vaccinated as they ought to be, and surely vaccination is something to refer to expressly as part of any suggested healthy child programme. It is an important and probably essential public health intervention. A failure to vaccinate a child in readiness for school is seen by some doctors as a red flag for possible parental neglect, because vaccination is the most important thing to be done to protect children. I would like to have seen it in the noble Baroness’s amendment.
There is cross-party consensus and the evidence is clear. I hope that in her closing remarks the Minister can say something about the conversations she is having with the Department of Health — because that partnership is obviously particularly important for early years development.I feel the need to add some thoughts of my own to this conversation, which I am very pleased that we are having. I declare my interest as the executive chair of the Centre for Young Lives. I thank noble Lords for their kind comments on that. This is a really crucial area of policy, and I am delighted that we are expecting an early years strategy and that we have consensus across the House on this—indeed, with the evidence as well. In the spirit of moving on, I hope that there is cross-party consensus going forward on the importance of this, not only for individual children and their families but for the country as a whole, in terms of employment, growth, crime reduction and health. I could go on for an awfully long time on this, but I shall not. But I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister might say something in her closing remarks about the conversations that she is having with the Department of Health, because that partnership is obviously particularly important for early years and early years development.
The true dividends of early years investment may not manifest for ten or fifteen years — but that is no reason to shy away. Short-termism is nowhere more damaging than in education, and the perils of governments that focus only on the next election are nowhere more acute than here.My Lords, I support the group of amendments before us, which are well judged. I appreciate that they are essentially probing in nature, but I will make a couple of brief observations. First, the amendments are important because they focus our minds on long-term strategy. It is often the complaint about government—about any Government; I do not want to be partisan in that regard—that Ministers will often look at what is in tomorrow’s papers and what is going to lead the politics shows on Sunday. At most, if they have particular levels of vision, they might look at what will get them through to the next election. We know that there must be a much greater focus within government on long-term strategy. The perils of short-termism are no more acute anywhere than in the issue of education. We know that when we look at interventions, particularly early interventions in education, the true dividends of what we provide and invest in may not manifest themselves until 10 or 15 years down the line, but that is no great reason for us to shy away from them. Indeed, it is something that we need to embrace. Secondly, as other Members have said—I will not repeat the figures—we know that early interventions can create massive dividends for society. Whether that is on the basis of diversion of young people away from future social problems, from justice issues, or of foregrounding, from a societal point of view, in terms of their education, what I think will become an increasing problem, which is the need for early identification of special educational needs—we have seen the explosion in terms of the cost within that. Those are all, if we take it from a very cynical, crude point of view, massive societal gains for a level of investment in early intervention, but on a personal basis, the biggest single intervention is in changing the lives of those individual children. Because I believe that in a society, education can be the great life changer, it can be the great deliverer for young p…
- What is crucial is early identification of problems and early intervention — and Sure Start did that. It was not just for children but for their mums and dads too: financial support, employment, health, outreach provision. A cross-party early years strategy should build on all of that.
My Lords, we very much support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Russell of Liverpool. If we were putting together an early years strategy, we have all the ingredients in this Chamber. Everybody has mentioned the ingredients that will be part of that strategy, from good toilet training on. To my mind, what is really crucial is early identification of problems and then early intervention in those problems. That is the key. We have talked a lot about Sure Start. That was a very good government policy and I pay credit to then Labour Government for introducing it. I know that, in my city, we introduced a number of Sure Start centres in deprived areas. Sadly, they were so successful that the more prosperous parts of the city wanted them as well. The important thing about Sure Start centres was that they were not just for the children, they were also for the mums and dads. They gave support to those mums and dads in all sorts of areas, from financial support to employment ideas and health: a whole menu of things that were important to parents. Also, which nobody has mentioned, there was outreach provision as well, so that staff from the Sure Start centres could go out into the community, visit parents in their homes and give that advice and support. We have to be honest with ourselves and remember that there was a world recession and we were all scrabbling around to try to find out where the money was coming from. Perhaps in the UK, in some areas, we made some of the wrong choices, but it was left to local authorities to decide, and many local authorities decided that although there had been a huge reduction in the funding for local authorities, they would keep their Sure Start centres. Sadly, some of them closed. But let us not go back there now; let us celebrate that time but also remember that we have family hubs. Family hubs are perhaps the son and daughter of Sure Start centres and maybe they can,…
- Research on 2,500 women and 3,600 children living with severe domestic abuse found that half those children were under five and had lived with that abuse from the womb. Giving children the best possible start in life means reaching families at that stage — before the damage has accumulated and compounded.
My Lords, we have had another excellent debate and I too thank everyone who has spoken. It is a pleasure to speak on this group because it is, as we have heard, so important to give children the best possible start in life and to prepare them for school. Other speakers, led by my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lady Cash, have already set out the case very effectively for supporting babies, very young children and their parents. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, talk about her experience of canvassing—when the door opened and a cloud of smoke came out, revealing a young mother and baby—reminded me of being involved 21 years ago in a piece of research on domestic abuse called Safety in Numbers. We looked at the cases of 2,500 women and their 3,600 children, all of whom were living with very severe levels of domestic abuse. Half the children in that sample were under five, and the average length of relationship before those women had got help was five years, so half those children had lived with severe domestic abuse from the womb. That was my equivalent of the door opening and the smoke billowing out.
- The Secretary of State was clear at our Cross-Bench meeting that early years is an absolute priority — so the question is not whether it matters, but what we actually do about it. We need an ambitious, properly resourced Start for Life strategy, with a clear commitment that investment in early years is front-loaded because that is where it produces the greatest return for children and for society.
My Lords, I support the spirit behind all the amendments in this group. Amendment 486 is in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for also putting their names to it. I am assuming that we are, in effect, pushing at an open door in stressing the importance of early years to the Government. The noble Baroness the Secretary of State—sorry, she is not noble yet, though she probably will be when she stops being Secretary of State. I should say the current Secretary of State, together with the Minister, came to a Cross-Bench meeting before the Bill came to our House. A question was asked about early years, and the Secretary of State was very clear that it is an absolute priority. I am therefore taking that as read, and the question is not “Is it important?” but “What do we do about it?” I should declare an interest: I was part of the parliamentary advisory team that worked with Dame Andrea Leadsom on the Start for Life initiative under one of the previous Governments—I cannot quite remember which one—which in many ways was a concerted attempt by a Government to do something about early years. Not least, we were trying to undo the unfortunate effects of what happened to Sure Start, which I think everyone across the House, regardless of party, would agree was one of the great achievements of the Labour Administration of the 2000s. With the benefit of hindsight, it was a tragedy that we allowed it to wither on the vine. Of course, the Labour Party did not allow it to wither on the vine; the people of this country, exercising their democratic ability to vote, which of course we in this House do not have, decided to put in place the Government who decided that there were other priorities, or could say that it was important but not give as much clear support and direction to it as before. Inevitably, what then happens is some parts of the country will continue to think it is incredibly important but others, for reasons that may…
A year 1 teacher I met in Andover, who had been there twenty years and also sat as a magistrate in the youth court, told me she could identify within weeks at the start of term which children were likely to end up in trouble — and she was nearly always right. Research from the IFS, IPPR and New Economics Foundation all confirm: putting things right upstream reduces problems that are later more serious and more costly. The DfE's budget should be front-loaded accordingly.My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 486 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and shall add a brief footnote to what he has just said. At Second Reading, I mentioned that when I was in the other place I went round a primary school in Andover, in one of the less well-off parts of the town. The year 1 teacher, who had been there for 20 years, told me that within a few weeks at the beginning of term she could tell which children were likely to end up in trouble—and, because she was also a magistrate in the youth court, she told me she was nearly always right. There will be many other teachers like her who are able to identify at an early stage which children and families need support. That is why, as other speakers have said, the Department for Education’s budget should be front-loaded, as all the evidence is that this produces the greatest return on investment—not just for the child but for society as a whole. Research by the IFS published only last month, and early research by the IPPR and the New Economics Foundation all confirm that putting things right upstream reduces problems later—problems which are more serious because they have a wider social impact and are more expensive to correct. My noble friend Lady Cash made the point eloquently in her speech. I recall in 2010 canvassing for my noble friend in north Kensington—I am sorry I did not knock on nearly enough doors, as otherwise her parliamentary career might have started a little earlier. In line with the Government’s policy on the NHS, we should put resources into prevention, rather than treatment. As earlier speakers have said, the previous Labour Government recognised this with Sure Start. There was some tension between those who wanted a universal service—a centre attended by children and families from all backgrounds, so that there was good integration—and those who wanted the service to be more targeted. There was some sort of compromise, in that Sure Start was focused on the more depriv…
I support this amendment not because I doubt the Government are doing a great deal on early years, but because I want to be confident that what they are doing adds up to a strategy that is comprehensive, publicly understood, consulted upon and bought into — and right now I am not absolutely sure that is the case.My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham, though not because I believe my Government are not doing a great deal about early years—I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be armed with information about what the department is doing and planning—but because I want to be confident that there is a strategy, as mentioned by other noble Lords, which is comprehensive, publicly understood, consulted upon and bought into. I have to say that, right now, I am not absolutely sure that is the case. I would like to thank organisations for their briefs on this. I want to mention two organisations I talked about in my Second Reading contribution, when I also mentioned the fact that early years were not mentioned in this Bill. The first is Roots of Empathy, which is an international charity based in Canada. I am a trustee of its UK branch. The second is Speech and Language UK, with which I have an association and for which I worked, many years ago, when it was called I CAN. I was delighted when the education team, when in opposition said—I quote our manifesto: “Developing early communication skills is another key foundation for life, with serious knock-on consequences when development is delayed. Labour will fund evidence-based early-language interventions in primary schools, so that every child can find their voice”. I would also like to thank the Parent-Infant Foundation, which has produced excellent work for this debate. Roots of Empathy is a leader in the empathy movement in Canada, which I think has a certain irony, given what the United States leadership has had to say about Canada recently and the fact that that Government seem to find empathy something which is to be disparaged rather than celebrated. It is about developing empathy and emotional literacy in children. The mission is to build caring, peaceful, civil societies through the development of empathy in children and adults.…
- The Government's opportunity mission begins where it matters most: in the early years. Our ambition is for 75% of children to reach a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile by 2028 — 45,000 more children ready to learn when they start school. We are investing an additional £1.6 billion per year by 2028-29 on childcare expansion, creating 6,000 new nursery places in the first wave of school-based nurseries backed by £37 million, and at the spending review we committed to tens of thousands more. We have committed to publishing a best start in life strategy this year — it will set out how delivery will be achieved, monitored and reported, and Parliament will be able to hold us to account on it.
My Lords, we have had a good discussion on this third group of amendments about the important issue of ensuring that children get the very best start in life. This Government’s opportunity mission is a bold and necessary commitment to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. It begins where it matters most: in the early years. We have heard quite a lot of discussion, along with some reminiscing and nostalgia, about the last Labour Government’s Sure Start scheme. Without rehearsing the reasons why we no longer have Sure Start, having once had it has at least demonstrated, through the evaluation that several noble Lords referenced, the considerable success of that model. Also, the process of setting up Sure Start under the last Labour Government at least provides us with some hope of and a road map to getting back its very important contributions—even if we do not, in the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, completely reinstate it. Amendment 183B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, seeks to publish a national strategy. As the noble Baroness said, this is a probing amendment and I hope I am going to be able to be encouraging about the national strategy. This Government firmly believe that children’s early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances. That is why we have set an ambition for a record proportion of children starting school to be ready to learn in the classroom. We will measure progress through 75% of children by 2028 reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile assessment at the end of reception. This is not just a statistic or a target—it is around 45,000 more children who will start school ready to learn, thrive and succeed. This measure has seen little progress in years, so it is ambitious—but as noble Lords across the Committee have said, it is ambitious because it needs to be. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested that nobody so…
- There is robust cross-Chamber support for a transparent early years offer and it will remain. Family hubs are building on Sure Start, but the current need is not only the nought to five — there is a big cohort of teenagers who need help now, and 44% of children are growing up without the secure family relationships that are the strongest predictor of good outcomes.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords—there were many of them—who richly contributed to this debate; it was an important debate. Their contributions have very much made it clear that there is robust support for a transparent early years offer here in this House and that it will remain. We should not neglect the support that families with older children need. I will go into a lay-by here and reveal that I went to the Labour Party conference in 2018 or 2019, on a windswept day in Brighton. We had a family hubs event going on there, where the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, was one of our speakers. As I was going along the Brighton front, all of a sudden I heard a voice behind me saying, “Lord Farmer, what are you doing in enemy territory?” I looked around and saw the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I said to him, “Lord Ponsonby, family hubs are building on Labour’s Sure Start centres”—and that is what I hope that family hubs are doing. However, it is not just the nought to five, it is the nought to 19. I know the importance of early years intervention—it is important to get that in place—but currently there is a big cohort of teenagers who need help. Some 44% of our children are growing up in a single-parent family. So family hubs are needed for nought to 19—nought to 25 for special needs. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. As I said, Amendments 179 and 183 should be taken together—they are probing amendments—and I will not press them to a vote. I also very much appreciate the information that the Minister has been able to share and look forward to this correspondence, or maybe a meeting. Family support and the early years workforce up and down the country are very keen to learn from the full unveiling of this new Government’s comprehensive plans. In the interest of moving on, I say that I am sure that other noble Lords would like her to keep us—and them—closely informed on the developing detail on family hubs and the early years policy. I beg to withdraw my amen…
- Last year's revised Working Together guidance removed the requirement for Section 17 children-in-need assessments to be done by a qualified social worker. My amendment simply seeks to confirm on the record that only qualified social workers will be able to prepare reports ordered by the courts — particularly given that the new merged targeted-help and child-in-need teams could see youth workers or family support workers preparing court reports without the necessary qualifications.
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 183C, which is in my name. Last year, the revised Working Together guidance removed the requirement for Section 17 assessments—or children-in-need assessments—to be done by a qualified social worker. At the time, although the change was welcomed by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and others, some groups, including Ofsted and the British Association of Social Workers, expressed concerns about the change. This was, in part, because they felt that these practitioners—including family support workers, domestic abuse workers and youth workers—already held high caseloads, and, in part, because they do not typically have the necessary qualifications to do this to the required standard needed by the courts, given the gravity of the decisions taken that are based on these reports. My Amendment 183C is very simple: it seeks to probe, and get on record, confirmation from the Government that only qualified social workers will be able to prepare reports ordered by the courts. There is real concern that this should be the case, and the new arrangements, which are being brought in to merge targeted help and child-in-need provision, could lead to a change in approach. A court-ordered report for private law proceedings would not generally meet the threshold for child protection and is therefore likely to be held in the team, which includes non-social work qualified practitioners. As the court will order an assessment, I argue that there should be—and my amendment seeks to probe whether there will be—parity with other private law reports and assessments ordered by Cafcass, which are undertaken by qualified social workers. This work is of course highly contested and complicated, so can the Minister confirm that these concerns are unfounded? I beg to move.
- Most final reports prepared by Cafcass officers and social workers are well-written, well-researched and well-reasoned. Where a substitute or trainee is involved, the report will be checked and countersigned by a team leader. I do not believe there is a widespread problem here — though I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.
My Lords, I do not question the proposition that substantive court reports should be done by qualified practitioners. Such reports are valuable, and often essential, to the court, providing information, analysis, assessments and recommendations—and not just to the court but to the parties who are thereby helped to settle their differences without a full contested hearing. Until I heard the noble Baroness’s introduction, I wondered at the nature or extent of the problem that prompted her amendment. Most final reports nowadays—and I mean final reports—are well written, well researched and well reasoned. Substantive reports are prepared by the allocated Cafcass officer—or social worker, in my experience—and social workers often state their academic and professional qualifications. Sometimes, the worker has to be a substitute or a trainee, but in those circumstances the report will be checked and countersigned by a team leader. So, although I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, I do not believe there is problem.
- For child protection cases, the requirement for a qualified social worker is absolute — let me be unequivocal about that. For Section 7 reports, there is currently no statutory requirement for them to be prepared by a qualified social worker, and there is good reason for that flexibility: courts and local authorities need discretion to ensure reports are prepared by the right person with the right skills and experience, which may in some cases include specialists such as medical experts. Where social work leadership or oversight is needed, it should be built into supervision and sign-off.
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 183C, tabled by the Baroness, Lady Barran. I will begin by giving everyone in the Chamber some reassurance, although I am sure that I do not need to do this. It is absolutely crucial that everyone understands that, for child protection cases, there is a requirement for a social worker. It is imperative that we make that that point absolutely clear. The issue that has perhaps driven the concern is that of quality, and I will go on to give some reassurance about that. At the end of the day, the absolute imperative is that we do right by, and make the best decisions for, children, and that we have the right people available to make sure that that happens. In line with the current framework, reporting to the courts can come from a range of experts, as we have heard. The legislation, as written, surrounding court-ordered reports provides a degree of flexibility, depending on the circumstances of the case and the discretion of the local authority or the court. When specifically considering Section 7 reports, there is currently no requirement for them to be prepared by a qualified social worker. It is important that there is flexibility in who may prepare these reports, to make sure that they are prepared by the right person, with the right skills and the right experience. Courts and local authorities should have discretion in determining this, too. We know that most S7 reports are prepared by Cafcass social workers, with a small number of them completed by local authorities. Where social work leadership or oversight is needed, this should be built into the supervision and sign-off of the reports. Of course, the court has a duty to ensure that the reports are of sufficient quality.
- I welcome the offer of a round table with directors of children's services. To be clear, I was not concerned about reports in child protection cases — I was thinking specifically about the merged targeted-help and child-in-need teams preparing court reports where Cafcass is not involved, and whether a youth worker or someone without traditional expertise might be writing those reports.
I put on record how much I welcome the noble Baroness’s last comments about a round table, and meeting and talking to a range of directors of children’s services. It is reassuring and the right thing to do, and it builds our confidence in the Government’s commitment to get this very important area of policy right. I appreciate that enormously, because I know that ministerial diaries do not have a great deal of slack in them. On this amendment, just to be clear, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s clarification regarding child protection. However, I was not worried there was a risk of someone who was not a qualified social worker writing a report in those cases, and I was not talking about independent social workers, nor about particular experts, such as the example the noble Baroness gave of someone with specific medical expertise. I was thinking more about the situation of merged targeted help and child in need teams writing reports when Cafcass is not writing the Section 7 report. In that situation you might have, for example, a youth worker or someone who does not have the expertise and training preparing court reports—I am not saying they could not have it, but traditionally they have not had that expertise. I will reread Hansard, but I think what I heard was that they will be able to write those reports but under supervision from a social worker. If I have misunderstood and they will not be able to, maybe the noble Baroness could set the record straight now, or maybe she would like to go away, double check and write me a very short letter. I would appreciate that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Child Maintenance Service's enforcement record is genuinely shameful: over a million children covered by maintenance agreements, yet enforcement remains ineffective and too many parents pay nothing at all, or irregularly, or too little. When I ran the domestic abuse charity SafeLives, non-payment was incredibly frequent and was used as a means of coercion and control over mothers and their children. The Lords Public Services Committee has a live inquiry on this. I strongly support commencing the relevant legislation to strengthen enforcement without further delay.I start by saying that it is great to see my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott in the Chamber on the Front Bench. She and I worked together when we were in the Department for Work and Pensions, and I have to say that she was an exceptional Minister for the Child Maintenance Service. What motivated us all was improving the welfare and well-being of children. I start my intervention by flagging that, frankly, I had quite a lot of arguments or disagreements—I do not think you are allowed to argue in the Lords—with the clerks about the scope of this amendment. The clerks consistently reiterated that trying to do something to make it easier for children to get child maintenance was not connected to the well-being of children because nobody could guarantee that the child maintenance payment would go to the child. I pointed out that, for example, Healthy Start does not go directly to the child; the money still goes to the parent, and the parent can buy a certain amount of food, which you hope will go to the child. I am flagging this now because the intention was to bring a particular amendment about commencing certain legislation, and I will talk to that now. One of the important things is a recognition—it has been referred to already in previous groups—of the impact of poverty on children. Something like nearly double the proportion of families with a single parent are in poverty—I think that is relative poverty—compared to two-parent families. From my perspective and the research that we did, and from looking into this with my noble friend, we felt that aspects of the cost of living were simply not being addressed and that we needed to get a lot more parents to start paying for the upkeep of their child. One thing that has been a success overall is that, for just over a decade, 1 million children have been accounted for in arrangements made through the Child Maintenance Service. The split is roughly that 60% of those are in what is called Direct Pay and about 40% are in wh…
I could keep this House here all night with the tricks parents play to avoid paying maintenance — paying up when the Child Maintenance Service is watching, then stopping as soon as they think enforcement is off their back. The outstanding sums owed to children are vast and the enforcement delays unconscionable.My Lords, I support my noble friend in her endeavours with this amendment. We worked on child maintenance together in the department. It became a real campaign. We were turning every stone to ensure that money that was due to children got to them. I could keep your Lordships here all night with the tricks that people played to avoid paying their maintenance, although I will not. It was truly shameful that people whose relationship had broken down were taking it out on the children, making life very difficult for those who were trying to bring them up. Somebody would do Direct Pay and pay up, do their own arrangement and everything would be working well; then, when they thought that the Child Maintenance Service was off their back, what would they do? They would stop paying. The enforcement teams would write saying that they had not paid. They would give a raft of pathetic excuses. The enforcement team would then get involved, it would take for ever and there were these vast outstanding sums that should have gone to children. You would go back to Collect and Pay. There would be sums involved that would need to be taken from the amount of money. I cannot tell your Lordships the lengths to which people will go not to pay their child maintenance. It is shameful and disgraceful. The sooner that these commencement orders are enacted, the quicker we can get money to children and the better their quality of life. I support the amendments in my noble friend’s name. It was quite something to have the two of us on the case of people who did not pay their child maintenance. I would love to be back there doing that now. I hope that the Minister will pull something out of the hat for this.
Of course non-payment of child maintenance affects children's well-being. I know a family where the husband disappeared, leaving four children; those children have survived only because of the mother's determination. If anything can be done to improve enforcement, I am right behind it.My Lords, I too support the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on this. She was asked whether this affects the child’s well-being, since the money does not go to them. Of course it affects their well-being. I can tell your Lordships of a family that I know. I know that hard cases make bad law, but theirs is pretty typical. The husband disappeared. There were four children at home. Those children have survived only because of the determination and hard work of the mother. If she was not the strong character that she is, those children’s well-being would be a lot worse than it is now. There is no question that it affects the children’s well-being. I quite agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that it is a disgrace. If anything can be done to improve the situation, whether it is the noble Baroness’s amendment or something else, I will be right behind it.
- The statistics are stark: over a million children covered by maintenance agreements but enforcement still not effective enough. In cases of domestic abuse, non-payment was used as a means of coercion and control — raising the risk of harm to both mother and child. The Lords Public Services Committee has a live inquiry on exactly this point. I strongly support this amendment.
My Lords, my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have made an incredibly strong case for the importance of this amendment. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, the Lords Public Services Committee has a live inquiry into this very important topic. The statistics are stark, as we heard, with over a million children covered by child maintenance agreements but enforcement still not being effective enough and too many parents making no payments at all, paying irregularly or paying insufficient amounts. When I was running the domestic abuse charity SafeLives, non-payment of child maintenance was incredibly frequent and caused huge problems in the lives of children and their mothers. As other noble Lords have said, at its simplest, non-payment exacerbates either the risk of poverty or the actual poverty that so many single-parent families face. In cases of domestic abuse, non-payment was often used as a means of coercion and control over a mother and her child, raising the risk of harm to them both. The anxiety that this creates, and the pressure that this puts on a mother, directly impact the well-being of her child. We also saw the longer-term impact, in physical and mental health problems for the child. The Institute for Public Policy Research has found that child maintenance currently lifts around 140,000 children out of poverty across the UK. Conversely, when payments are not made, the impact is devastating. Finally, we know that child maintenance is not just a private matter between separated parents but a fundamental determinant of a child’s well-being and future life chances. When maintenance payments fail, society bears the cost through increased demand on public services, educational support and healthcare interventions. As my noble friend so simply and clearly put it, there are two pieces of legislation on the statute books that need to be commenced. I hope very much that the Minister will confirm tha…
- The intention of this amendment is to probe progress on commencing each of the relevant pieces of legislation. The Child Support (Enforcement) Act powers should be in force by the end of this year; I will respond to the noble Baroness on the other matters directly.
I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, managed to persuade those in a position to be persuaded that this amendment should have the opportunity to be discussed this evening. There is something refreshing about the idea of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, rightly pursuing people who owe money for their children and who have that responsibility. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Sherlock and the current Secretary of State will be equally relentless in making sure that families are paying for the children for whom they have responsibility, and that is quite right. I know from what the noble Baroness said that the intention of this amendment is to probe and push on the progress being made with each of the pieces of legislation that she talked about. I hope to provide some reassurance on that. First, the powers within Section 34 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act enable debt owed to parents or the Secretary of State to be transferred to other parties, including debt collection agencies. This power was introduced as an option to deal with the £3.8 billion debt burden that had accrued under the former Child Support Agency. A proportion of that debt was owed directly to the Secretary of State, and I am assured that the issue of Child Support Agency debt has now been resolved. The Child Maintenance Service has strong and effective enforcement powers, including imposing prison sentences for non-payment. On the specific point about debt collection agencies, there is no evidence that using debt collection agencies would actually secure more child maintenance than current enforcement powers. In fact, a previous trial absolutely demonstrated that, so there is no evidence that commencing this power would have a positive impact on children’s well-being. Secondly, the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 introduced powers that, once commenced, would enable an administrative liability order to be made against a parent wit…
- I am pleased in particular to hear that the Child Support (Enforcement) Act commencement should come into effect by the end of the year. I will take the other matters up directly with the responsible Minister.
In consideration of what the Minister has said, of which I am conscious of certain aspects, I am pleased, in particular, to hear that the Child Support (Enforcement) Act should come into effect by the end of the year. I will take up some of the other matters to which she referred directly with the responsible Minister. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- The link between the criminal justice system and special educational needs, neurodivergence and many disabilities is something many of us have known about for a long time. If you have problems with written communication you are going to struggle with the criminal justice system — that is blindingly obvious. This amendment asks for nothing more than confirmation that the Government are thinking about early recognition and assessment of such conditions upon first contact with the justice system.
I have to move it otherwise you cannot speak to it. The linkage between the criminal justice system and those in it and special educational needs, neuro-divergence and many disabilities is something that a lot of us have known about for a long time. This amendment suggests that we get early recognition and assessment of such conditions upon first contact with the justice system. There are lots of schemes that suggest this will help. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police and Merseyside Police have autism awareness badges that provide information so that the police can interact properly with people. It is becoming more and more apparent that, if you have problems with written work or communications, you are going to struggle with the criminal justice system. It is blindingly obvious when you give it a little thought. We also know that, for people from certain economic backgrounds who might struggle with the education system, criminal activity becomes, to put it bluntly, more of an acceptable career path. I want nothing more, nothing less than to see that the Government are thinking about this and the approach to it. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.
- The intentions here are excellent, but 'neurodivergence' has no clinical definition. In a world where stigma around mental health conditions has been reduced, there is a real risk that children, parents or lawyers will seek to self-identify into additional services or special treatment in the criminal justice context — with obvious hazards. Diagnoses must remain with educational psychologists and experienced clinicians.
My Lords, I want to express some concerns about Amendment 183CD. Its intentions are clearly excellent, but there are nevertheless some real concerns to take note of here. Diagnoses of special educational needs are made by educational psychologists and experienced clinicians. To ensure there is consistency in diagnosis and treatment, it is important that that continues to be the case. By contrast, “neurodivergence” is a term with no clinical definition or standard. In a world where stigma about mental health conditions has been reduced, or in some cases even reversed, it is, as we all know, increasingly common for teenagers and adults alike to assert their neurodivergence. Sometimes, that leads, in essence, to a claim, by or on behalf of the individual, that they should be able to self-identify into additional services or special treatment. In the case of the criminal justice system, the hazards of that are obvious, and, if children, parents or their lawyers see an opportunity, they will have a strong incentive to take it, irrespective of whether they have a true diagnosis that warrants that treatment. So, although it is of course sensible for police to obtain information about a child’s diagnosed health or educational conditions that are relevant to their detention and treatment, and so to make proper inquiries, that is one thing, but to set up a parallel diagnostic system leaning on a concept that does not have a clinical definition is another, and is clearly wasteful and risky. Those concerns should affect any consideration that is given to this amendment.
- The amendment does not say assessments should not be done by qualified practitioners — it is important that the type of special need is identified by a qualified person. We already know that 85% of young offenders have special needs.
My Lords, I do not think that the amendment says that it should not be qualified practitioners who carry out the assessments. We already know, in general terms, that 85% of young offenders have special needs. It is important for their future journey that the type of special need is identified by a qualified practitioner.
- The amendment as drafted explicitly proposes that police officers and legal representatives receive accredited training to 'aid recognition of SEND and neurodivergence' — which is precisely the concern: recognition by non-clinicians is not the same as diagnosis by qualified practitioners.
As drafted, the amendment explicitly suggests what my noble friend referred to. Proposed new subsection (2)(b) says that the strategy must set out “the accredited training police officers and legal representatives of the children must complete to support the child’s wellbeing and to aid recognition of SEND and neurodivergence”.
- That clarification is helpful — this could be picked up on Report. The point about consistency across police forces remains hugely important.
I am grateful for that clarification. Maybe this could be picked up on Report, but it is hugely important. As my noble friend Lord Addington said, there is a young offenders centre in Wavertree where qualified staff assess pupils and provide for their needs.
- Police custody is primarily a place of safety and investigation, normally for a very short time, in a highly stressful and unfamiliar environment. That is not an appropriate setting to conduct assessments of special educational needs or neurodivergence. There are no plans to set up a separate assessment system in police custody, and we do not believe this amendment would serve the well-being of the children it seeks to help.
My Lords, Amendment 183CD is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for stepping into the gap so that we could have a brief discussion on it. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is not here because he has a lot of experience of, and a background in, this field. It would have been helpful to have heard from him. I will move to the end of the comments I was going to make to reassure him: there are no plans to set up a separate system. I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. On screening for special educational needs, disabilities and neurodiversity, it is important to bear in mind that police custody is primarily a place of safety and investigation. Normally, a child would be there for a very short time. There is a high likelihood of a very stressful situation and an unfamiliar environment. For those reasons, we do not believe that police custody is likely to be an appropriate setting to assess special educational needs and disabilities, or neurodivergence. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy intended to protect and promote the well-being of children in police custody, with a particular focus on provisions relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities and children who are neurodivergent. The Government’s manifesto was clear that particular care must be taken when the police are investigating children. Children should be detained in custody only when absolutely necessary, and where there are opportunities to divert children away from custody they should always be considered. It is, as we have heard, particularly important where the child has special educational needs and disabilities or is neurodivergent. More broadly, the Government’s young futures programme is about intervening earlier to ensure that children and young people who are facing poorer outcomes and are vulnerable to being drawn into crime are identified and o…
- What I wanted to convey is the real divergence across police forces in how seriously they take various conditions — autism, poor literacy, other neurodevelopmental differences — all of which are massively overrepresented in prisons. Screening tools and proper interview guidance exist; the question is whether they are used consistently. The police have got this horribly wrong in individual cases, wasting time, money and causing serious harm. That inconsistency is the problem I wanted the Minister to acknowledge.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I agree that neurodivergence does not really have a case in law; as it is not my amendment, I can be as rude as I like about the drafting. I wanted to get the idea across of a divergence of approach across the police forces in the United Kingdom, as well as divergence between how seriously you take various conditions. The police will be very aware of how you deal with somebody who has bad literacy, as virtually all the prison population—something like 70% or 80%—has bad literacy. With other conditions, such as autism, there is great concern; people with autism are greatly overrepresented in prisons as well. Perhaps you do not react to social signals, or you do not understand what is going on, or you are easily led. I have heard all these things said about people on the autism spectrum. What I wanted to get over to the Minister, and I think I did, was the picture of a diverse situation. There are screening tools available suggesting how you should conduct an interview; how you go about that is important. The police have got this horribly wrong in cases in the past, which has meant wasting huge amounts of time and money and caused a lot of distress. I thank the Minister for her answer. I will go away and consider whether I think it needs to be brought back; rather, I will consult the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and do that. This is a real problem. That is why I took the Committee’s time to move the amendment but, having heard the Minister’s answer, I beg leave to withdraw.
- Much still needs to be done on free school meals — particularly on quality, enforcement of standards, and ensuring every eligible child actually gets their meal. Up to 250,000 children, or about 11% of those eligible, are currently missing out because it is an opt-in process. My amendment calls for an annual review with results laid before Parliament, assessing how many eligible children are missing out and what the barriers are — including regional, demographic and cultural differences — and what would change if the income threshold were updated from its 2018 level or raised to £20,000 after tax.
My Lords, Amendment 193 in this group is also in my name. I say again how pleased I am that the Labour Government have broadened the eligibility for free school meals. However, much still needs to be done, particularly on the quality of the meals and the enforcement of the standards, which needed reviewing anyway—that was the subject of Amendment 190, debated last week—and to ensure that all eligible children get their meal. In recent years the whole issue of school meals has been left to flounder, despite their importance to children’s health, and I am pleased that the Government are now picking it up again. Amendment 189 calls for an annual review, with the results to be laid before Parliament, of the barriers to all eligible children receiving their free school meal, and clarification of how many eligible children are missing out. The review must assess how many children are eligible, under whatever the current threshold is, and how many would be eligible if the threshold had been uprated since 2018. It must also assess how many would be eligible if the threshold were to be set at £20,000 per year after tax. Because of the inequalities that we know about, the review would have to cover regional and demographic disparities in take-up rates and the financial and educational impact on schools and local authorities, bearing in mind that a child on free school meals currently brings the pupil premium with him or her to the school for education purposes. That set of reviews would give us more information about how the system was working and would form a very useful underpinning for the development of policy in future. Amendment 193 would ensure the auto-enrolment of all children eligible for free school meals and expand eligibility even further than the recent change to households whose income is less than £20,000 per year after tax. That would be yet another step in the right direction. I know that the Secretary of State, in making the recent announcement that all chi…
- Free school meals break down barriers to opportunity and level the playing field so that every child can have the best start in life — children who have them are healthier, happier and do better in school and later in life. The Food Foundation's summary is exactly right. I warmly welcome the extension of eligibility to all children in families on universal credit from next September.
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to various amendments concerning free school meals. Much as I welcome the Bill’s provision for free breakfasts, there remains a strong case for complementing them with free school dinners. I will scrap half of my speech to save time. This case was summarised well by the Food Foundation: “School food has the power to enable not just better health and wellbeing, but improved attendance, better pupil outcomes and wider social benefits including reduced inequalities. Free School Meals can break down barriers to opportunity and level the playing field so that every child can have the best start in life”. In a nutshell, children who have free school meals are healthier and happier and do better in school, as well as later in life. The amendments would thus contribute to both parts of this Bill: children’s well-being and their ability to benefit from their education. I therefore warmly welcome the recent announcement of the extension of free school meals to all children in families on universal credit from next September, with transitional protection associated with the roll out of universal credit lasting until then. I will ask one small question and, if it cannot be answered now, perhaps it can be answered in writing. I understand that, if someone is on universal credit at the start of the school year, they will retain entitlement for the whole of that school year, in recognition of the fluctuating circumstances of many on low incomes. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that that is the case and also say whether someone whose parent comes on to universal credit during the school year will still be entitled? When we debated the Statement, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti made an impassioned plea on human rights grounds that we might one day aspire to universal free school meals—an ambition that my noble friend the Minister noted.
I know from lived experience how free school meals changed my life — eating together with peers, socialising, discovering new foods, gaining social confidence. I want to press the Government specifically on auto-enrolment: every eligible child should get their meal without having to opt in, and the pupil premium link must be strong so that support follows the children who most need it.My Lords, I speak briefly to the two amendments in this group proposed by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which I have signed. In particular, I want to probe and press the Government on free school meals and auto-enrolment. I know from lived experience how they changed my life. Rather than running home from school to have my dinner and then running back, with very little engagement and social time with my peers, we were instead able to eat together, talk, socialise and, in my case, discover some new foods such as lemon meringue and cheese flan—I kid you not: if my secretary and PA support, Lisa, from Sheffield Council were here, she would tell your Lordships that, often, when I went to conferences on behalf of Sheffield Council, I would say, “Ask them if they do school dinners, because that’s what I would like”. We joke, but sometimes young people get a set menu and do not get a chance to taste other foods. I am of south Asian origin, and I must say that onion bhajis did not hit the mark at my school. More seriously, the other issue that I want to challenge the Government on is the one around the pupil premium. We have all seen that, when that extra support goes in early on, particularly when it is for young people who could benefit from free school meals, the extra money empowers teachers and teaching staff in schools to decide what they need for the young person—it could be an additional teaching assistant in schools or it could be one-to-one support or after-school stuff. We are not just talking about school meals here; we are talking about things that would change the lives of young people. I want to press the Government and I want the Minister to respond to the point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about auto-enrolment. They are pushing in the right direction, but they are not quite there—and we would like, at this stage or at the next stage, to push the Government to do the right thing. I welcome the announcement that we heard around what will…
It is absolutely correct that schools and local authorities should have full data so that pupils eligible for free school meals actually take them up. Do the Government know the total number of families who should be claiming — because that figure, if held, would tell us exactly how close we are to achieving full take-up?My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 189 and 191 to 193 en bloc. I thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to this group thus far. On the Thursday just past, we heard some excellent speeches in your Lordships’ House on the various issues relating to the provision of healthy, nutritious food in schools and the possibility of providing eligible children with free school meals and activities during the holidays. It is most opportune that we now have the ability constructively to challenge His Majesty’s Government around the base provision and right of those children eligible to take advantage of free school meals during term time. Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to require the Secretary of State to review free school meal eligibility and pupil premium registration. It is absolutely correct that schools and local authorities should have complete and full data, and that those pupils who are eligible for free school meals actually take them up. They are clearly the pupils most likely to need free school meal provision. If His Majesty’s Government would please listen to the eminently sensible suggestions from other noble Lords last week, including those in this Committee right now, those meals will consist of healthy, nutritious food, with fruit, vegetables and low sugar levels in both food and drink. Healthy nutritious food and free school meals for every pupil eligible will hugely aid the learning and development of children in the UK. Both Amendment 191 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister, and Amendment 193 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seek to change the system of enrolment for free school meals so that there is auto-enrolment for all eligible families. It appears that difficulties can arise during the application process and, for s…
We are trying to get auto-enrolment so that every child who is eligible for free school meals actually gets them — and I would love the Government to simply say they want to do this so we do not have to press it on Report. The previous system showed up to 250,000 eligible children missing out because of the opt-in process. Fix Our Food research suggests the answer is automatic enrolment using existing data.My Lords, Amendments 191 and 192 are in my name and are closely related to that already introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for offering her support to my amendments. Amendment 191 is essentially a different way of getting to the same intention as Amendment 193. We are aiming to get auto-enrolment so that every child who is eligible for free school meals gets them, and surely that is something that the Government want to do. I have no particular opinion on whether Amendment 191 or Amendment 193 is the best way to do it; we can debate that after this point, although I would love to hear the Government say, “We want to do this and we’re going to do it, so you don’t have to worry about this on Report”. The best stats on the previous form of free school meals, before the Government’s recent extension, showed that up to 250,000 children, or about 11% of those eligible for free school meals, missed out because it is an opt-in process. That is a point that my honourable friend Ellie Chowns in the other place has already highlighted, so I will not go through it in great detail. However, I will note that the Fix Our Food research programme showed that it is children from non-majority communities and lone-parent households who are more likely not to be registered for free school meals despite being eligible. Inequalities here multiply themselves time and again. Reasons the charity give for this include parents struggling to fill out the complex forms, language barriers or that there may be a simple lack of awareness. There may also be stigma around free school meals. I hope the Committee will join me in saying there is no reason why there should be, but the practical reality is that we know there is. I also note that the Greater London Authority has put resources into auto-enrolment, showing that it is possible to make a difference, but around the rest of the country that is not available. I come back to my point about sti…
- The Government are clear about the benefits of free and nutritious school meals for attainment, behaviour and outcomes, which is why we have confirmed that all children in households receiving universal credit will be eligible from September 2026 — over 500,000 more children, backed by over £1 billion in funding. We have chosen to focus this on the most disadvantaged households. Linking entitlement to universal credit will make it much easier both for families to apply and for us to monitor take-up levels.
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to free school meals and follow on, of course, from the interesting debate that we had last week on wider issues relating to school food. Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would extend the provision of free school meals to all pupils attending state-funded primary schools. The Government are clear about the benefits that children enjoy when they receive a free and nutritious lunch. They support attainment, because hungry children cannot concentrate and learn. By improving behaviour, nutritious and free meals also lead to better outcomes, meaning that children can get the best possible education and chance to succeed in work and life. It is in recognition of these benefits that this Government have confirmed that all children in households receiving universal credit will be eligible to receive free meals from September 2026. This represents a significant expansion of support to over 500,000 children. The Government have chosen, though, to focus this on the most disadvantaged households, which we are backing with over £1 billion in funding. This is on top of the 3.4 million children who are already provided with free meals by the Government. Moreover, by widening access to free meals, and doing it in the way that this Government have chosen, we will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament, reversing the trend of rising child poverty that we inherited from the previous Government. This is the priority that this Government have decided on. Of course, it goes alongside the rolling out of free breakfast clubs to every primary school pupil, which we had the opportunity to discuss last week, meaning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, that significantly more children will have the benefit of both a free breakfast and a free lunch. Alongside that, as we have talked previously about, we are expanding government-funded childcare and legislating to cap the number of brande…
- The Minister mentioned monitoring take-up twice. Do the Government actually know the current number of families who should be claiming — because without that baseline, how do we know how close we are to full take-up?
The Minister twice mentioned monitoring the take-up. Do the Government know how many families should be claiming free school meals? That would surely help in understanding how close the Government are to reaching the goal that all noble Lords are asking for, which is free school meals for everyone who is eligible. What is that number? I do not need the answer now, but do the Government have that information, because presumably they should do?
- Linking entitlement to universal credit will make it much easier to monitor levels of take-up. I will respond to the specific question about the current baseline figure.
My point was that linking free school meal entitlement to universal credit will make it much easier both for families to apply and for us to monitor the levels. However, I will respond to the noble Lord on his specific point.
- I warmly welcome the expansion of eligibility. When monitoring take-up under the new rules, the detail matters: demographics, regional differences and cultural differences should all be captured — my amendment specifies that — so the Government have the information needed to develop policy even further.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this important group of amendments. I assure the Minister that, as I have said today and last week, I very much welcome the expansion of eligibility for free school meals. On Amendment 189, it is important that when the Government come, as the Minister has promised they will, to monitor the uptake under the new eligibility rules, there is enough detail in there. My amendment mentions demographics, regional differences and cultural differences and so on. All that would give a good and useful set of information to help the Government to develop policy even further. I am not going to go on any further about free school meals—I could go on all night. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, resisted it and so will I. I beg to withdraw the amendment.