Programme motion, Report stage in the Commons
Report stage debate on Part 1 of the Bill, covering Government new clauses on corporate parenting, kinship care, the proposed school smartphone ban, care leavers' housing, temporary accommodation notification, abolition of the reasonable punishment defence, and information-sharing duties.
SMThis Bill will protect children from abuse, stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks, and deliver high standards across education and children's social care. New clauses 18 to 22 extend corporate parenting duties across Government departments and public bodies — because what a wise parent would wish for their children, the state must wish for all its children. Twenty-six per cent of the homeless population are care-experienced; around a quarter of the adult prison population were in care as children; care leavers aged 19 to 21 are over three times more likely not to be in education, employment or training than their peers. New Clause 18 introduces those responsibilities; New Clause 20 requires collaborative working; New Clause 21 requires authorities to have regard to guidance; and New Clause 22 requires the Secretary of State to report every three years.I start by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable contributions during the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular, members of the Public Bill Committee for providing substantial debate and scrutiny. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a landmark Bill and a key piece of legislation that will enable us to deliver the Government’s opportunity mission and our determination to break the link between people’s background and their future success. It will protect children from abuse, it will stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks in services and it will deliver a core guarantee of high standards with space for innovation in every child’s education. It will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout education and throughout children’s social care so that every child can achieve and thrive. Reforming children’s social care is critical to giving hundreds of thousands of children and young people the start in life that they deserve. Our approach to reform will break down barriers by shifting the focus of the children’s social care system to early support to keep families together. We will ensure that children can remain with their families where appropriate, support more children to live with kinship carers or in fostering families and fix the broken care market to tackle profiteering and put children’s needs first. The previous Government bequeathed to us a bitter inheritance of not only child poverty across great swathes of our country, which affected one in three, or even one in two, of our young people, not just record numbers of children out of school or not turning up to school, not merely a children’s social care system at breaking point, but—bitterest of all—a fiscal blackhole. That blackhole must be tackled to get this country’s finances and future back on track, but it limits the speed at which we can deliver the ambition that all Labour Members have for a brighter future for Brita…
Will the corporate parenting duties also help children with dyslexia, autism and challenging educational behaviours — the group Jamie Oliver was speaking to at last week's event?I welcome what the Minister says. Last week, some of us had the opportunity to attend an event where Jamie Oliver was present. He is dyslexic, and he made a point that I think we need to recognise: those with dyslexia, autism and challenging educational behaviours also need to be helped. Will a section of the population that need help like this one also receive it?
- SEND is at a crisis point and we are working at pace to reform it — I will say more about that support later. On Clause 4, children are too often failed by inadequate information sharing, and the Government amendments will ensure we get that right from the outset.
The hon. Member is a tireless champion for children and young people, and he regularly writes to me even though education is a devolved matter. I will say a bit more later about the support available for children with special educational needs and disabilities. He will know that SEND is at a crisis point, and this Government are absolutely committed to reforming the system and are working at pace to do so. New clause 20 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively with each other when it is in the best interests of children in care and care leavers when undertaking these duties. That is to avoid siloed working or duplication of efforts, addressing the challenges that children in care and care leavers face holistically in the same way that parents do when supporting their children. New clause 21 introduces a duty for relevant authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The guidance will set out how the duty relates to different corporate parents and how that will continue to contribute to outcomes we seek for children in care and care leavers. We will develop that guidance in partnership with the sector and with the relevant authorities listed in new schedule 1. New clause 22 introduces a duty on the Secretary of State to report on their corporate parenting activity every three years, bringing accountability to the new duty and allowing us to monitor progress and the impact of implementation. New schedule 1 provides a power for the Secretary of State to amend the list of corporate parents by affirmative regulations. The purpose is clear: where children in care and care leavers can be further supported by the addition of new public duties as corporate parents, or where we need to make changes to existing ones, they need not wait for fresh primary legislation. We shall have the power to act swiftly and powerfully in their interests. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members across the…
Parts of the Bill will support young carers better — will the Minister touch on that?Although not explicitly mentioned in the document, young carers are obviously a group of young people who may be vulnerable and, having spoken to the Department for Education, parts of the Bill will support young carers better. Will the Minister touch on that?
- Supporting young carers is a key priority for this Government, and I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend to ensure their views are heard in this place.
Supporting young carers is a key priority for this Government. My hon. Friend is a real champion on these issues, and I am very happy to work with him to ensure that the views of young carers are heard in this place. The Government have tabled amendments to the information sharing and consistent identifier duties in clause 4. The wider picture is that children are too often failed by inadequate or patchy information sharing, which is not good enough. The Bill enables us to make the change that children need, and the amendments will ensure that we get that right from the outset.
New Clause 36 would write a phone ban into law — and this does not need to be a party political issue. Over the last decade there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people across the world, over the exact same period that smartphones and social media have become dominant in children's lives. One in five UK three and four-year-olds now has their own smartphone; by the end of primary school, four in five children do. Apps are designed to be addictive, dripping dopamine. Eight in ten children are exposed to violent porn before 18; the average age of first exposure is now 13. One in five children aged 10 to 15 say they have been bullied online, and 72% of that happens during school time. When one headteacher moved to a full start-to-end-of-day ban with phones handed in, the number of detentions fell by 40%. This is the smoking of our generation — we need decisive Government action, not guidance that is not working.I want to concentrate today on our new clause 36, which would ban phones from our schools. The new clause would also write into law some of the content of the very good private Member’s Bill drafted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), because this does not need to be a party political issue. When I was on the Science and Technology Committee back in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Back then, the evidence was already very concerning, but by now every alarm bell should be ringing. Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world, over the exact same period that smartphones and social media have become dominant in children’s lives. The growth in mental health problems is focused almost entirely on young people, not older people. Children now get smartphones at a very early age. As the Education Committee pointed out in a good report last year, one in five of the UK’s three and four-year-olds now has their own smartphone. By the end of primary school, four out of five kids have a smartphone. There are many different ways in which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. They displace time in the real world with friends. US data, for example, shows that prior to 2012 children spent over two hours a day with friends, but that had halved by 2019. The proportion of children feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world. But smartphones are not just a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Children are tired in school, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip feed users dopamine. At a recent school meeting that I organised in my constituency, I heard from local doctors about how excessive screen time is damaging eyesight and giving young kids…
- Will the shadow Minister also consider young carers, who clearly need to stay in contact with family and those they care for?
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he should take this as a constructive intervention. As a former teacher, I know some of the challenges of mobile phones—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), will remember when hers went off during my speech in a debate on financial education. Will the shadow Minister also consider those groups who may require a mobile phone—I have perhaps given him a hint as to what I was going to mention—in particular young carers, who obviously need contact with family and those cared for?
- The amendment is carefully drafted to allow carve-outs for those who need them — for example, phones used as health devices. As for the tech industry's lobbying: the problems hitting children all over the world are not coincidence. Sapien Labs found starkly that the earlier someone gets a phone, the worse their mental health, particularly for girls. A growing number of parents do know the risks, but face a collective action problem — we worry our kids will miss out if they are the only ones without a phone, and that is exactly what Government needs to solve.
The hon. Member has brilliantly anticipated a point I was going to make, and if he looks at the text of the amendment he will see it is carefully drafted exactly to allow carve-outs for those who need them, for example as health devices, so I hope he is reassured on that point. Attempts by the tech industry to lobby, to muddy the water, to run interference and to sow confusion are unconvincing. The problems hitting our children all over the world are not just a coincidence; there is more and more evidence for a causal link. For example, Sapien Labs asked questions about adults’ mental health and combined them into a mental health quotient score. They asked the same people when they first got a smartphone and the results were stark: the earlier someone gets a phone, the worse their mental health, particularly for girls. As with smoking, a powerful social gradient is also developing with smartphones and social media. That is going to widen gaps in school achievement unless something decisive is done. Sadly, many people still do not know about the risks from smartphones but a growing number of parents do know and are worried about the problems with smartphones and social media, but we face a collective action problem: we worry that our kids will miss out if they are the only ones without them, and that is the problem that needs solving and Government need to be part of that. Across this country there has been an explosion of parent-powered campaign groups aiming to fight back including Smartphone Free Childhood, Safe Screens, Delay Smartphones and the new “Rage Against the Screen” campaign. Over the last year they have gained hundreds of thousands of members and together with the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition we met some of them this morning and I pay tribute to them for their work.
Many schools in my constituency have already introduced bans, sometimes with a small degree of pushback from parents. If the Government take up this amendment, will that not make it much clearer and easier for schools to enforce?When I visit schools across my constituency, I find that many have instituted policies banning mobile phones, or indeed are consulting on doing so. Sometimes there is a small degree of pushback from pupils, and sometimes indeed from parents, but does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government take up this amendment, it will make it clearer and easier for schools to ban these phones and produce a safe and nurturing environment for our pupils in school, and it would be easier to take this forward?
- The Children's Commissioner is right that we will look back in 20 years horrified at what we allowed children to be exposed to. The DfE's own national behaviour survey found 35% of secondary school teachers reporting phones used in lessons without permission — 46% for years 10 and 11. The guidance has not done the trick. We need a proper ban so that schools become the beachhead for re-creating the smartphone-free childhood that most of us got to enjoy — seven hours in which we de-normalise being on the phone all the time.
My hon. Friend is completely correct, and I was going to come on to that very point. The Children’s Commissioner has said, “I honestly think that we will look back in 20 years’ time and be absolutely horrified by what we allowed our children to be exposed to”, and she is right. the very first thing Government could do is implement a proper ban on phones in our schools. Parentkind recently said to me, “Effectively, we are allowing our kids to be fed digital drugs and we are even allowing the dealers into the schools.” That has to change. The last Government issued guidance; it was a good start, but it is not enough and is not working. While 90% of schools say they have some sort of policy or some sort of ban, a survey by Policy Exchange last year found that only one in 10 secondary schools has a full start-to-finish ban, the policy that works best. Lots of schools are still trying policies where kids have their phones on them but are not supposed to have them out. The effect is that the kids are distracted, the teachers have to stop lessons to tell them to put them away, and we get all of the issues about bullying and social media during break times and more. As the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), a Labour Member, pointed out the other day, guidance introduced by the previous Government is not working. We still have students using phones during break time and during lessons and this causes significant problems. I have had many teachers say to me, “This takes up so much time. It’s a huge distraction. It interferes with learning.” That is right and we are now in the strange situation where Labour MPs and the Conservative party agree that the guidance has turned out not to be enough, but the Labour Front Bench is insisting that it is; we are through the looking glass. Why do we need a full ban, not just guidance? Our general approach is of course to give autonomy to schools but, first, the guidance is not working. The Department for Educ…
The Education Committee welcomes the scale of the Government's ambition — on multi-agency child protection teams, the unique identifier in Clause 4, and fixing the broken care market. But we also have recommendations on how to go further. New Clause 3 would require a national care offer for care leavers within 18 months — a floor, not a ceiling — to end the postcode lottery: 39% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment or training; 14% go to university compared with almost half of their peers; a third become homeless within two years. One witness told us: "the postcode lottery is profound". New Clause 4 would require mental health practitioners to be part of every health assessment for children in care. In 2021, 45% of children in care had a mental health disorder — rising to 72% in residential care. One care-experienced witness told us: "I think if my mental health was taken more seriously from a young age…I would probably be so much better." The Government must also publish an assessment of the impact of their welfare reforms on children — children do not get to choose the families into which they are born.I rise to speak in support of new clauses 3 and 4, which both stand in my name. The Education Committee was afforded little time to undertake scrutiny of this important Bill, but we worked hard to do so, refocusing our ongoing inquiry on children’s social care to focus on part 1 of the Bill and holding an additional evidence session to look at part 2. I am grateful to all the witnesses who came to give us their evidence. We have published a report for the Secretary of State setting out recommendations based on the evidence we received. Broadly, the Committee welcomes the scale of the Government’s ambition as expressed in the Bill, which is a key plank of the Government’s opportunity mission to break the link between young people’s background and their future success. We join the Government in wanting to see high and rising standards in our education and care systems to protect vulnerable children and ensure educational opportunity for every child. We welcome the measures in the Bill to strengthen child protection, particularly the provisions to establish multi-agency child protection teams, including education in safeguarding arrangements and a single unique identifier for children, which has the potential to be genuinely transformative for the delivery of many of the services that support children and young people. We support the measures to improve the children’s social care market through regional commissioning and a financial oversight scheme. Action to remove profiteering in the children’s social care sector is long overdue. The Committee welcomes the measures in the Bill that will enable more children to remain within their kinship network or, where a residential placement in kinship care is not possible, in contact with family and friends. The Committee also made some recommendations on ways in which the Bill could be strengthened, based on the evidence we received. The amendments tabled in my name relate directly to our recommendations, and I will now turn t…
The Government have failed to accept any amendments not their own, despite the Minister's warm words. On kinship care: New Clause 25 would give kinship carers paid employment leave; New Clause 26 would give them an allowance on a par with foster carers; New Clause 27 would extend the pupil premium to all kinship children; and New Clause 28 would prioritise them for school admissions. Forty-five per cent of kinship carers give up work; a similar proportion reduce their hours permanently — these carers are disproportionately women. The Government's kinship financial allowance pilot ran in only a tiny number of local authorities and covered a very small subset of carers: that is not ambitious enough. On independent special schools: they are draining public finances — some firms make upwards of 20% profit — and the Government must include them in the profit cap. New Clause 29 would establish a national wellbeing measurement programme; one in four children in the UK reports low wellbeing. We need to treat children's social media and phone addiction as a public health issue — putting the guidance into law will give schools the backing they need when they are challenged on their policies.It is a pleasure and a privilege to rise to speak on part 1 of the Bill, and in particular on the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name. When the Bill had its Second Reading, I said that there was much in it that Liberal Democrat Members welcomed, alongside areas that we would seek to amend, probe and strengthen. Its progress in recent weeks has seen plenty of debate, discussion and opportunities to constructively strengthen the legislation, although the Government have failed to accept any amendments that were not their own, despite the Minister’s comments in his opening speech. I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who served on the Committee, in which we had some excellent debates. However, I was disappointed last week to see the sheer number of amendments tabled by the Government ahead of Report. I really hope that the Government do not make a habit of depriving Committees of their chance to properly scrutinise Bills, even if most of those measures are welcome and uncontroversial. Turning to the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name, as the Minister knows, care—particularly kinship care—is a subject that is close to my heart and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. In Committee, we discussed a number of encouraging provisions that are included in the Bill, including those dealing with the definition of kinship care, setting out in law the support that kinship carers are eligible for, and providing additional educational support for children in kinship care. However, what we agreed in Committee falls far short of the ambition that I heard the Secretary of State herself set out at a reception for kinship carers just a few months ago. At that reception, the Secretary of State—unusually for somebody in her position—called on campaigners and policymakers to keep pushing her. I believe that new clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28, which stand in my name, do just that. New clause 25 would ensure that kinship carers are entitled to paid emplo…
In Surrey alone, spending on private special educational needs schools has risen from £48 million in 2018–19 to £74 million in 2021–22. These schools are often backed by private equity and charge local authorities double the cost of a state special school place. Councils have no choice but to use them because state provision is so inadequate. Extending the profit cap to independent special schools is essential to protect public finances and ensure fairer funding for children with SEND.In Surrey alone, spending on private special educational needs schools has risen from £48 million in 2018-19 to £74 million in 2021-22. These schools are often backed by private equity firms, and they are charging local authorities extortionate fees—on average double those in the state sector. They are draining public funds, but councils have no choice but to place children in these schools due to a lack of state provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that extending the profit cap to independent schools is essential to protect public finances and ensure fairer funding for children with special educational needs?
- In 2021–22, councils spent £1.3 billion on independent and non-maintained special schools — twice what they spent six years previously, at an average of £56,710 per place. Many of the private equity companies running these schools are the same ones running the children's homes that Clause 17 is designed to deal with. On the school phone ban: putting the guidance into law means schools have the support they need when challenged on their policies. A headteacher in my constituency told me it would cost his school £20,000 to buy pouches or install lockers — that cost needs to be met.
I had not shared my speech with my hon. Friend, but she has anticipated the next couple of points that I was about to make. I agree with her strongly. I preface my comments by saying that there are many independent special schools run by private or voluntary sector providers that do an excellent job and are certainly not profiteering in the way that I am about to set out. Clearly, however, that is not the case across the board, with some firms making upwards of 20% in profit on what they charge. We must challenge whether that is justified. The crisis in state special educational needs and disability provision and the lack of specialist places have led to a growth in private provision that is crippling local authority finances, as my hon. Friend just said. In 2021-22, councils spent £1.3 billion on independent and non-maintained special schools—twice what they spent just six years previously. The average cost of one of those places was £56,710, which, as my hon. Friend said, was twice the average cost of a state-run special school place. Many of the companies running these schools are the very same private equity companies running the children’s homes and fostering agencies that clause 15 is designed to deal with, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have not included independent special schools in the clause. I urge them to think again and accept our amendment. My new clause 29 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme for children and young people throughout England. I pay tribute to #BeeWell, Pro Bono Economics and the wider Our Wellbeing Our Voice coalition for their hard work in this area. As I have said several times during this Bill’s progress, I am more than a little surprised to find so little about children’s wellbeing in a Bill with this title. One in four children in the UK reports low wellbeing, and according to the programme for international student assessment data, our country is…
- Northern Ireland's Education Minister has run a pilot where all pupils' phones are placed in pouches — never on show — with a carve-out for carers. Northern Ireland has shown what can be done, and the House could usefully follow our lead.
Is the hon. Lady aware of the pilot scheme introduced in Northern Ireland by the Education Minister, Paul Givan? In some schools, all the children’s mobile phones are placed in pouches, so that they are never on show. This could make the Conservatives’ proposal acceptable to all, and there is still provision for carers to keep their phones with them. Northern Ireland has shown what can be done with a pilot scheme, and it is great that the House is following our lead.
- The Republic of Ireland has spent about €9 million issuing pouches across the country — we don't even need to wait for that pilot to conclude. School leaders and parents are pressing us to go further now. I welcome New Clause 8 on abolishing the reasonable punishment defence — the Liberal Democrats have been calling for this for over 20 years.
It is always an honour to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and it is great to hear about the pilot scheme in Northern Ireland. I have read that the Government in the Republic of Ireland have spent about €9 million on issuing those pouches to schools across the country. It would be useful and instructive for the UK Government to look at how that pilot goes, but I am not sure that we even need to wait for that. School leaders and parents are pressing us to go further now, and we must listen. Putting the guidance into law will ensure that schools have the necessary support when they are challenged on their policies, and the resources to implement a mobile-free environment. A headteacher in my constituency told me that it would cost his school budget £20,000 to install lockers or issue the pouches described by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Children must be able to learn in an environment that is free from the distraction of phones and the threat of bullying. We have also seen a significant reduction in truancy in schools where restrictions have been robust.
The data promoted by specialists like Jonathan Haidt shows that problems with literacy, numeracy and focus among children have accelerated since the early 2010s — which coincides exactly with children's access to phones. When it comes to what Government should do, it is an open-and-shut case.I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments on the new clause, and also the cross-party support that demonstrates that this is a cross-party issue and is not about party allegiance. Does she agree that the data and the evidence promoted by specialists such as Jonathan Haidt show that problems with literacy, numeracy and focus among children have accelerated since the early 2010s, which coincides with their access to phones? When it comes to what this Government should be doing, it is an open-and-shut case.
- I attended a Smartphone Free Childhood meeting last week as a parent and MP and came away feeling less liberal than before — mainly because allowing our children to grow up free from a toxic environment is the right, liberal thing to do. But being at school is only a small part of a child's life, and we need much broader measures. It is disappointing that during the Data (Use and Access) Bill, neither Labour nor Conservative Members supported Liberal Democrat proposals to make the internet less addictive for children. The Government should think again as that Bill progresses.
The data in the book to which the right hon. and learned Lady has referred is alarming. Last week in Hampton, in my constituency, the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign organised a public meeting with local parents. It was pretty full, and the data shared there was also extremely alarming. I attended as both a parent and the local Member of Parliament, and I am afraid I came away feeling even less of a liberal than before I went in, and slightly more authoritarian. However, that was mainly because allowing our children to grow up with the freedom of being away from such a toxic environment is the right, liberal thing to do. Let me say gently to the right hon. and learned Lady, and to those on both the Conservative and the Labour Benches, that being at school is only a small part of a child’s life—it is only a small fraction of that child’s time—and we need to look at much broader measures than restricting phone use in schools. It is disappointing that during the Committee stage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, neither Labour nor Conservative Members supported Liberal Democrat proposals to make the internet less addictive for children. After the Government decided to gut the “safer phones” Bill—the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which had a great deal of cross-party support—a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill offered Members an opportunity to protect young people from the doom-scrolling algorithms that are making such powerful changes to the way in which they live and interact. It is disappointing that Ministers did not seize that opportunity with both hands, and I hope they will think again as that Bill progresses through the House. I welcome new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), which would abolish the common law defence of reasonable punishment. We need to ensure that all children are properly pr…
As a former children's lead for a local authority — corporate parent to hundreds of children — I am delighted to see the corporate parenting amendments. Acting in isolation can never be good enough; without clear legislation, we cannot involve all the partners who can have a transformative impact. I am also glad to see the amendments strengthening information sharing: tragic incident after tragic incident in serious case reviews comes down to failures in information sharing and agencies that failed to work together. On Clauses 8 and 9 and care leavers: no parent would think their obligation ends at 18, and the state should be no different. On the phone ban: I completely recognise it is a real issue for parents and schools in my constituency, but the idea that having had 14 years to act, the Conservatives have had a damascene conversion and it cannot wait a moment longer — at a time when there is no clear consensus among educational professionals — feels disingenuous at best.It is a pleasure to speak about some very important amendments and new clauses, but also about a body of work that moves forward the country’s protections and support for some of the most vulnerable people in society, which has not been done for a long time. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I had the privilege of being the children’s lead for the local authority on which I served. Many Members here may be the grandparent or parent of a handful of kids, but as any local authority lead will know, we are a corporate parent to many hundreds. In that role, it is impossible not to be moved by the testimonies of the young people with whom we are working. They have often undergone real moments of trauma and difficulty that would knock any of us for six. In the face of that, their resilience and their determination to better themselves should inspire us all. As guardians of the country’s collective obligation to young people in care, we owe it to them to fulfil our side of that corporate parenting role. I am therefore extremely happy to see Government amendments 18 to 22, which widen the role of corporate parenting to other local stakeholders. As a local authority lead working with the care-experienced campaigner Terry Galloway, I was happy to take on some of that work locally. I worked with fantastic local stakeholders to broaden our obligations as corporate parents, and to bring other local government bodies into the sphere of those who were trying to do best by the young people in our care. However, it is clear that acting in isolation cannot be good enough, and that without clear legislation requiring more local stakeholders to take on that important role, we can never involve all the partners who can have such a transformative impact on young people in care at that crucial early stage. No parent would think of caring for a child as just a narrow subset of his or her role, and the state, and our obligation as a corporate parent, should be no different. I am very g…
What the Government committed to was some research — not a statement on online health.I think the hon. Gentleman will find that what the Government committed to do was some research.
- The Minister committed to bring forward a statement on important aspects of online health on which the Government had not formally commented before — not merely some research. If the Opposition are so certain this cannot wait, where were they during 14 years in government?
I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Minister did not just commit to do some research; he committed to bring forward a statement on some really important aspects of online health on which the Government had not formally commented before. I gently suggest that if the Opposition are so clear—
Of the six Education Secretaries between 2019 and last year's election, did any of them actually propose banning mobile phones in schools?Of the six Education Secretaries we had between 2019 and last year’s election, did any of them propose banning mobile phones in schools—or is this the latest bandwagon from the Opposition?
- I share the concerns about phones and social media — it matters deeply to parents and schools in my constituency. But I will not indulge this attempt to turn the issue into an opportunity for the Conservative party to posture, having had so long and done so little.
I thank my hon. Friend, who could not have put my next point better. I completely recognise that this is a really important topic—it is important for parents and schools right across my constituency, too—but I am afraid the idea that, having had 14 years to bring this forward, the Conservatives have suddenly had a damascene conversion to the idea that this is something that cannot wait and must be delivered now, at a time when there is not a clear consensus among educational professionals or parents about the best way to bring such a ban into effect, feels disingenuous at best. I share lots of their concerns and, over time, I hope to be able work across this House to bring forward good protections to that effect. What I simply will not do is indulge this attempt to turn the issue into an opportunity for the Conservative party to posture, because it had so long and did so little on this work. In conclusion, I am very glad to be supporting a Bill that delivers step changes in protections for young people, steps changes in support for care leavers and a step change in support for kinship carers. For too long, we have not done enough to look after some of the most vulnerable young people in our society, and I am glad that this Bill and some of the Government amendments underline our commitment to ensuring that we do far better on this front than the last Government did.
This Bill is disappointing — there are missed opportunities on both supply and demand in the looked-after children system. On supply: the Bill is silent on how to boost it, pivoting instead to profit clawback. When the Minister comes to claw back the money, he will find it has long since moved. On demand: boosting foster carers barely features; and what the Government are doing about unaccompanied child migrants further exacerbates demand — 2023 Home Office research shows 49% of disputed age cases were found to be adults. On Clause 9 and regional commissioning: it risks concentrating looked-after children in rural communities with cheap housing — communities that already face underfunded policing. The police grant is still based on Cambridgeshire's 2012 population, not its current one. The money does not follow the children.I rise to speak to clause 9 and the important issue of looked-after children, which I think Members from across the House care about greatly. It is for that reason that the Bill is so disappointing, because there are missed opportunities on supply and demand, and particularly on my concern—I represent a rural constituency with cheaper housing—about the concentration of looked-after children in particular communities, which the Bill’s regional commissioning fails to address sufficiently. I will take those issues in order, starting with supply. In Committee there was a lot of discussion about profiteering, and I am sure the Minister will respond to my pointing out that the Bill is silent on addressing the real and probably shared issue of how we boost supply by pivoting to talk of the profit clawback. My concern about the profit clawback is that when the Minister comes to claw back the money, he will find that it has long since moved. It would perhaps be helpful if the Minister could clarify the estimate that has been given to the Treasury for how much the Department expects to recover in clawback, because the Opposition suspect that it will not be particularly effective. Likewise, there are missed opportunities in the Bill for reducing demand, and I very much echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) in Committee about boosting foster carers—an issue that is frequently debated in this House. I accept that is not a panacea for all the issues affecting looked-after children, particularly those needing secure accommodation, but one would have expected the Bill to go further in that regard. It is also the case that what the Government are doing about unaccompanied child migrants is further exacerbating demand. I draw the Minister’s attention to the 2023 Home Office research, which shows a massive increase not only in the number of unaccompanied child migrants, but in the number of disputed cases where people claime…
- I support the corporate parenting new clauses and the measures to tighten up oversight of children's homes — in Medway, I regularly saw waves of criminality associated with unscrutinised, unregistered homes. On kinship care: there are over 141,000 children in kinship care in England and Wales; they should be offered the same redress as those in foster care. On New Clause 36: as a former teacher I know the phone issue has real merit on mental health, social media bullying and screen time, but before I could support a ban I would need clarity on what happens if a child is found with a phone — is that immediate suspension? — and what teachers are expected to do if a phone is concealed. We also need a conversation with social media providers about withdrawing services for under-18s, because much of the harm happens outside school anyway.
I rise to support this Bill and the Government’s amendments. Specifically, I will talk to new clauses 18 to 22, on corporate parenting; new clauses 44 to 46, on kinship; and new clause 36, tabled by the Conservatives. As a former teacher in secondary schools in Kent, I believe these measures are overwhelmingly welcomed by many of my constituents, and also by professionals across social work and social care and in the education sector. Of course, the context of the Bill and the Government amendments is 14 years of cuts to many secondary schools and social care services in councils across the country. Successive cuts have been made to the numbers of schoolteachers and those supporting children on the frontline, with many children left in contextual settings that were inappropriate, with schools constantly having to chase agencies for resolutions. Of course, we had six Conservative Education Secretaries since 2019—a revolving door that would make the average attendance officer blush. To get to the specifics, new clauses 18 to 22, tabled by the Secretary of State, will ensure clearer responsibilities on corporate parenting. I welcome the strengthened provision for care leavers, including the responsibilities placed on local authorities to support the transition of young people into adulthood and independent living. This transition is a period of tumult for many young people, but our most vulnerable do not have the support of parents to help them manage it. I welcome the changes to the Housing Act 1996 to clarify that care leavers should not be considered intentionally homeless and should be supported. I also support new clauses 44 to 46, which provide much greater clarity on registered providers. In my area of Medway, many young people were placed with providers where people had serious contextual safeguarding concerns, and many of these residencies were unregistered. Unsurprisingly, these children ended up being involved with the police, and with local authorities as t…
I am calling my New Clause 33 Sara's law, after Sara Sharif, my murdered constituent. A child's safety should not depend on postcode and resource rather than need. There is an unacceptable inequality in how local authorities interpret thresholds for intervention under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. New Clause 33 calls for a review of that variation and requires the Government to set national standards — including automatic referral triggers when a primary caregiver enters custody or becomes an in-patient in mental health provision, and when a child is arrested. Would clearer national standards have made a difference for Sara? In my view, yes. This is about accountability, consistency and, most importantly, protection.Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on this important Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I wish to focus my attention on two new clauses. First, I am calling my new clause 33 Sara’s law, after Sara Sharif, my murdered constituent. This comes out of the findings of the recent review conducted by the Children’s Commissioner. I thank the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others that have suggested a raft of great changes to the Bill when it comes to improving how we look after children in the UK. The list is never-ending, with so many great contributions from many. Given what happened to Sara Sharif, we know that the system is not protecting vulnerable children as it should. It failed her, so I am hoping to untie that fundamental knot in the children’s social care system. The sad reality is that the level of support a child receives too often depends not on their needs, but on where they live and the thresholds the council has for stepping in and saving a child from abuse and neglect. There is an unacceptable inequality in how local authorities interpret thresholds for an intervention under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. That means children at risk in one council area may receive early help and intervention if a family is in crisis, yet in another they are left without the intervention that could protect them, if not save their life. Every child in this country has in effect been entered into a postcode lottery, and we are gambling with their lives by not attempting to repair that flaw. We need to look at the devastating case of Sara to understand the consequences of having a system that lacks consistency and clear national standards. I do not think we can put a price on a child’s life and decide to step in only on the basis of resources, but that is how the current system works. It is clear that social services over the years have struggled with deep cuts to funding and services, and the Liberal Democrats and…
New Clause 8 would remove the "reasonable punishment" defence from section 58 of the Children Act 2004. Children in Scotland and Wales already have the same protections as adults when it comes to being hit. Physical punishment does not establish a difference between right and wrong in a child's mind; it simply evokes fear. Research from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health finds children who are physically punished are almost three times more likely to experience mental health problems. This is not about criminalising parents — in every country that has introduced a ban, there has been no evidence of increased prosecutions. It is about removing the ambiguity that allows abusers to hide behind an outdated legal defence. In the case of Sara Sharif, her father Urfan sought to rely on exactly that defence. We cannot afford to delay.I rise to speak in support of new clause 8 in my name, which has the support of many colleagues across the House and organisations including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Woking (Mr Forster) for their comments in today’s debate. New clause 8 would amend section 58 of the Children Act 2004 to remove the “reasonable punishment” defence that permits assault and battery on children by parents and carers. Children in Scotland and Wales already have the same protections as adults when it comes to being hit, but we find ourselves in the peculiar situation where a child growing up just over the border in England has fewer rights. Why should they? What is the difference between a child growing up in Berwick-upon-Tweed and a child in Bonnyrigg? Scotland and Wales are not alone: 67 countries around the world have already banned physical punishment—Tajikistan last year became the latest—and 27 others have also committed to a ban. There is a global recognition that children deserve better. Indeed, as part of the UK’s commitment to the 16th Sustainable Development Goal, we have already pledged to end all violence against children, and that includes physical punishment in the home. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated unequivocally that protection from physical punishment is a basic human right of a child. Physical punishment is not punishment; it is abuse. We have a wealth of research to draw on from the last 30 years, and not a single reputable study has found that physical punishment positively impacts children’s development. There is no evidence to show that it improves behaviour in children. The reality is that physical punishment does not establish in a child’s mind a difference between right and wrong; it simply evokes fear—a fear of violence and pain. We know that children who are physically punis…
- There is much in Part 1 on which we all agree — significant parts were in the previous Government's published Bill. I want to raise two things: first, the unique identifier in Clause 4. Everybody agrees on the principle, and the Chair of the Education Committee rightly called it potentially transformational. But it is precisely when there is universal agreement that the greatest dangers of unintended consequences lie. The Government will probably have to return to Parliament multiple times on the implications of creating such a database. Second: what is glaringly absent is a statutory phone ban. The guidance is not working — the DfE's own data shows 35% of secondary school teachers reporting phones used without permission in lessons. The world has kept changing; a causal link between phones and children's mental health is something I do not meet many teachers who seriously doubt.
It is a pleasure to join in this important debate, as it has been to serve on the Bill Committee. I am very pleased that we have two days to debate the Bill on Report, because really it is two Bills, which are very different in character. In part 1, which we are debating today, there is a great deal on which I think all of us in the House agree. In fact, quite large parts of it were in the previous Government’s published Bill. It contains some important provisions covering children in care, special educational needs, child protection and so on.
- Parents of children with SEND are weary of having to tell their story again and again to different parts of the system. Ambitious though the unique identifier project is, it is worth delivering, and it is worth giving parents the confidence that this House will scrutinise and do that job. There are big gains to be had.
The right hon. Gentleman is raising a number of technical considerations about the implementation of a project that is no doubt very ambitious. But does he not hear the cries from parents of children with SEND who are so weary of having to tell their story again and again to different parts of the system that are supposed to help them, and are currently being hampered in those efforts by exactly this want for information about a child being held in a single place? Does he not think that, ambitious though this project is, and important though the technical considerations are, it is worth delivering, and that it is worth giving parents the confidence that we in this House will scrutinise it and do that job? There are big gains to be had from pursuing this course of action.
- That is broadly what I said — when we all agree, there is sometimes a danger of unintended consequences, and I think the Government will have to come back to Parliament multiple times. On phones: I did not say what the hon. Member suggested. We issued non-statutory guidance that was the right thing to do, but the time has come to make it statutory, because the guidance has not been sufficiently effective. Labour Members say "leave it to individual headteachers" — but have they read the rest of this Bill? It prescribes what schools must do in extraordinary detail, down to the exact length of breakfast and the number of branded uniform items. Phones should be the exception.
I think the hon. Lady was here for the first two or three minutes of my speech—that is broadly what I said. In fact, I quoted her talking about the transformational potential of this measure and its importance. I do not want to go through it all again, but I said that when we all agree on something, there is sometimes a danger of unintended consequences. I then said that we may not talk about all this today—we do not have to do so today—but I think the Government will probably have to come back multiple times for Parliament to be able to consider all the much wider potential implications of creating such a database. I think, not for the first time in our in our lives, we are not a million miles away from one another. The other thing that I want to talk about, in a less consensual tone, is what is glaring in its absence from the Bill: new clause 36 on mobile phones and social media, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). There are four parts to it: the first two state that the chief medical officer should be commissioned to issue a report, and the Government will conduct research on the effects of social media on children and young people. That was in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which we discussed a couple of Fridays ago. The third thing was in the wider package, as colleagues will remember, but the Government did not agree to it: a phone ban during the school day. That is point of contention, although I know that many hon. Members across the House, including in the Labour party, agree on it. There are limits to the approach. An argument that is always made when asking, “Why not ban mobile phones at school?” is, “What about out of school?” That is a good question, but it is not a reason not to do the first part. I readily admit that most online harm happens outside school. We know from research, including the recent study from the University of Birmingham, that a school ban do…
- Did the right hon. Gentleman say it was a "rite of passage" for children as young as Year 6 and 7 to have a mobile phone? And did he not say last year that we should wait until the guidance was fully reviewed before going for an outright ban?
Did the right hon. Gentleman say that it was a “rite of passage” for young people as young as year 6 and 7 to have a mobile phone, and that it was in the gift of their parents to decide? Last year, did he not suggest that we should wait until the guidance given by Government is fully reviewed and understood before we go for an outright ban? Why has he changed his mind?
- That is not what I said. I said it has become something of a rite of passage that between Years 6 and 7 the great majority of children are given a mobile phone — which is simply a statement of fact, not an endorsement.
I do not know if the hon. Member has been reading misquotes.com again, but I did not say what he just suggested. I think he is probably referring to an interview from years ago in which I said that it has become something of a rite of passage that, between years 6 and 7, the great majority of children are given a mobile phone. That is true, and it is not at all what he just said that I said.
On 19 February 2024, when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State for Schools, a press release from his Department said "Mobile phones are set to be prohibited in schools across England". His own website described the move as a ban. Is it not the case that the Conservatives were posturing then, just as they are posturing now?On a point of fact—[Interruption.] I am reading from a mobile phone but, talking about quoting, they are important for research. On 19 February 2024, when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister of State for Schools, a press release issued his Department said: “Mobile phones are set to be prohibited in schools across England”. On the right hon. Member’s website on 29 February, there was an article that said, “This latest article”— by the right hon. Gentleman— “for the Herald and Post follows the decision to ban mobile phones in schools”. I raise that point because, previously, Conservative Members made the argument that they were already banning mobile phones in schools. Is it not the case that they were posturing then, just as they are posturing now?
- The hon. Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford have made slightly contradictory points. We issued non-statutory guidance — that was the right thing to do at the time — and we maintained the option to make it statutory. That time has come, because the guidance has not been sufficiently effective.
The hon. Member clearly did not consult the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), because he has made a slightly contradictory point. I was coming on to say that we did issue non-statutory guidance that mobile phones should be prohibited during school. That was the right thing to do. I do not know if this is further down whatever webpage the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) was looking at, but I said that we maintained the option of making that guidance statutory. That time has come to do that, because the guidance has not been sufficiently effective in its current form, but issuing the guidance was the right thing to do.
- It was the right hon. Member's own website, and it described the move as an outright ban — no ifs, no buts. It was posturing then, and it is posturing now.
It was not just any website; it was the right hon. Member’s website, and it was a direct quote. My point—it was not necessarily to do with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne)—was that when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State for Schools, he described the move on his website as an outright ban. No if, no buts. It was described by the previous Government as an outright ban. It was posturing then, and it is posturing now.
- There are different levels: non-statutory guidance, statutory guidance, and primary legislation. In 2019, I decided not to issue a ban — headteachers at the time argued against it. In 2024 we introduced non-statutory guidance. It is time to write that guidance into legislation. Phones are about in breaks and lunchtimes — that is part of the school day, not just lesson time — and a national policy that schools can rely on, with sensible exceptions for carers and medical needs, is what we now need.
With respect, there are different levels. There is non-statutory guidance, statutory guidance and primary legislation. I first had to deal with this question in 2019. On that occasion, we decided not to issue a ban. We had a big discussion about it in a legislative Committee. I am not totally sure that it was the right approach to take at the time, but it seemed to be the view of headteachers in particular that there should be no ban. The hon. Member is right that when I was back in the Department for Education, we introduced non-statutory guidance, and I believe that the time has come to write that guidance into legislation. If he will give me a chance, I will say why. Even if something should be banned, it is perfectly legitimate to ask: why not just let schools decide? Schools know their pupils better. I have made that argument myself many times over the years on many different things. Both the Labour party and the Conservatives find ourselves in the exceptionalism territory. Labour Members of Parliament say, “Don’t tell schools what to do. Leave it up to individual headteachers.” Have they read the rest of the Bill? It prescribes what schools must do in the most extraordinary detail. It takes away academy freedoms, specifies the exact length of breakfast, and says, “You may not have more than four items of branded school uniform. For secondary schools, that includes a tie. Primary schools may not have a tie.” It includes all manner of detailed specifications, except on this one issue. To give the mirror image, it is true that we believe, in general, that we should leave things entirely up to schools, who know their children best, but this should be an exception. As that hon. Gentleman was just saying—[Interruption.] I was not being rude; I meant the hon. Member for Basingstoke, as opposed to this one, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford. In 2019, we decided not to issue that guidance, but in 2024 we did. It was clear at the time that there was an option to…
- Is my right hon. Friend, like me, enjoying the slight irony of Labour Members arguing for consistency on this issue, when on inheritance tax for farmers, the WASPI campaign, winter fuel, national insurance and so many other issues, consistency does not seem to be a priority?
My right hon. Friend, who has detailed experience in the Department, is speaking as eloquently as ever on this topic. Before we move on from the Government Members’ interventions, is he, like me, enjoying the slight irony of hearing them argue for consistency, when, on inheritance tax for farmers, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, winter fuel, national insurance and so many other issues, consistency does not seem to be a priority?
On Friday I visited Kent College in my constituency, which has recently introduced a ban — phones are collected in the morning and returned at end of day. The school has seen benefits even in lost property management. Is the right hon. Member aware of any case where a school that introduced a ban saw negative outcomes?On Friday, I visited Kent college in my constituency, which has recently instituted a ban. Phones are collected in the morning and put into pouches, and at the end of the school day, the children can get them back. The school has found benefits for the collection of lost property, which is attached to the cages that have the phones in them. Is the right hon. Member aware of any cases where a school has instituted a ban, and it has been seen to have negative, rather than positive, outcomes?
- There will always be arguments for exceptions, but school heads are good at knowing when exceptions are needed — and exceptions for young carers and children with medical needs would not preclude a national policy. A couple of years ago, people argued against a ban on principle. Now the only real argument is the cost of pouches or lockers. If that is what we are arguing about, that is material progress. It is time to stop talking about whether, and to start talking about how.
The hon. Member makes a powerful point very effectively. There will always be arguments about needing exceptions for this case and that, but we can have exceptions, and school headteachers are pretty good at knowing when they need to make an exception to a rule. It would be helpful to have a national policy in this area. That would not preclude exceptions for children with a special educational need or young carers. Crucially, it would also not preclude children from having a phone as they go to and from school, where the school and the parents want that. Parents often think about that, for safety reasons. There are various ways of dealing with this, such as the pouches that the hon. Member mentioned, or lockers. I have noticed a shift. A couple of years ago, some people argued against a ban on principle. Now, the only real argument that I hear—I do not say that this is a trivial point—is about the big cost of buying pouches or lockers. If that is what we are arguing about, that is material progress. It is time for us to stop talking about whether, and to start talking about how.
There are 164,040 children in temporary accommodation right now — on average 54 placed there every day. In London, one in 21 children is in temporary accommodation; in some central London schools, 50 to 60% of pupils are. New Clause 14 is not brain surgery: when a local authority places a homeless family in temporary accommodation, it must notify the child's school and GP. As it stands, the council only has to notify the receiving borough and MHCLG — not the school, not the GP, not the health visitor. Families often do not want their GP to know they have moved, fearing removal from waiting lists. A health visitor I know drives round blocks, relies on other families as her "spies" to find newborns she should be visiting. These children cannot learn to walk in a room so small; they are cut off from grandparents, churches and community. New Clause 14 is an essential first step.Madam Deputy Speaker, may I, through you, wish all Members of the House a very happy St Patrick’s day? I rise to speak on new clause 14. What it proposes is not brain surgery, and it is not new or exciting, but it is an essential part of how we approach the enormous problem of children living in temporary accommodation miles away from their home, their home borough, their school and their doctor. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who spoke for the Opposition, said that he thought we would look back at the issue of mobile phones in schools and think, “What were we thinking to allow that to happen?”. We should already be thinking, “How did we come to have tens of thousands of children in temporary accommodation, which is almost exclusively in a terrible state of repair, miles away from anybody who is watching them?”. Many of the families we are talking about are not just homeless, but are the most vulnerable in our community. They include children with special needs, and children and families who experience great difficulty in their day-to-day lives. There are those who have disrupted families, those who move frequently, and those who just find things difficult. As of right now, there are 164,040 children living in temporary accommodation. On average, 54 children from homeless families are placed in temporary accommodation every day. In London, the area that I understand best, one in every 21 children is living in temporary accommodation—that is at least one in every school class. In schools in central London, 50% or 60% of children could be living in temporary accommodation. That was certainly the case for Harris Peckham. Last year, an article in The Sunday Times identified it as having 60% of its children in temporary accommodation. That school, like all schools in the Harris Federation, tries to do its best for those large numbers. It has set up a drop-in centre in the school, to allow parents to take their children to school, spend…
Amendment 172 would ensure that family group decision-making consistently requires local authorities to seek the child's views and properly support them to engage, where in their best interests — going further than the Bill's current requirement to seek views only where the local authority thinks "appropriate", which the NSPCC points out is weaker than existing Children Act 1989 requirements. Even where a child cannot attend, their views should be sought and independently represented, for example through an advocate. I also support New Clause 8 on equal protection from physical punishment: following Scotland and Wales is long overdue for England.I rise to speak in support of amendment 172, tabled by my party, and then I will say a few words to lend cross-party support to new clauses 8 and 3. I truly welcome the important steps taken in the Bill to strengthen the systems intended to keep children safe, yet the Bill fails to embed meaningful consideration of children’s views. This means that critical decisions may be made at local and regional levels without consideration of the views and experiences of the children they affect. It is concerning that the proposed requirement in the Bill is to seek the views of the child only where the local authority thinks that is appropriate. The NSPCC points out that this is weaker than the existing Children Act 1989 requirements to ascertain and give due weight to the wishes and feelings of the child, in line with their age and maturity. In short, while there are so many good things in the Bill, it inexplicably falls short of that gold standard. Our amendment 172 seeks to address that. Amendment 172 would ensure that local authorities offering and facilitating family group decision making must consistently seek to ascertain the child’s views and to properly support them to engage, where this is in their best interests. Importantly, the amendment also seeks to ensure that, where attendance at a family group decision making meeting may not be in the child’s interests—which must of course include giving due weight to their wishes and feelings and identifying safeguarding concerns—that is not the end of the story, because even if the child is not in attendance, the amendment requires the local authority to ensure that the child’s views are sought and, where relevant, independently represented. This could be, for example, through an independent advocate, recognising the incredible work they do to support even the youngest children to be heard and to participate where possible. So I hope the Minister will look seriously at that amendment. New clause 8 was tabled by the hon. Mem…
The corporate parenting new clauses add real value. As a former cabinet member for children's services in Southampton, I know what rests on these services — they make or break opportunities for young people. "Corporate parenting" is cold language for something that should feel like family: a warm, safe place to live, getting them to a doctor precisely when they need it, and not saying "you're someone else's issue" when they turn 18. I also welcome New Clause 3's ambition for a national care offer — the support a care leaver receives should not depend on which local authority they happen to land in.I rise to comment on Government new clauses 18 to 22 and new clause 3. I very much welcome the new corporate parenting duties and the value they add to the Bill and to the activities of authorities up and down the country. The new clauses add value because this Bill is about boosting standards in schools and creating opportunities. It is about children getting the best start in life and ensuring that there are clear protections for young people. Crucially, it is about stopping children and young people from falling through the cracks in the system. In addition to the unique identifier that this debate has considered to join up services to help children and young people; the overhaul of children’s social care, which is long overdue, starting by capping excess profits, ensuring collaboration and ensuring that every pound counts towards getting the best for children; and the measures to support kinship carers and care leavers elsewhere in the Bill, all of which are crucial, it is also crucial to strengthen what children in care can expect authorities to do to secure good outcomes for them. I previously led children’s services as a cabinet member in Southampton. That was during a time when we needed to make huge strides forward to improve how we supported children and young people. I know from that experience what rests on the services provided: they make or break opportunities for the young people looking to us for care. It is welcome that the Bill now includes accommodation in the local offer, which makes good on a commitment to guarantee care leavers a place to live. New clause 18 sets out the wider responsibilities for authorities. The reality is that the barriers faced by care-experienced young people are greater than those faced by most of their peers, and good outcomes will likely be far harder for them to secure. It is right that authorities do more in good, sensible collaboration, but what does that look like? It is couched in unfortunate language, in a sense:…
My welcome for the Bill's provisions on Clauses 7, 8 and 9 — extending support to age 25 — is genuine, but the Bill is already creating another cliff edge. Plymouth City Council now pays for care leavers' prescriptions and charges the cost back to the integrated care board; we should be building on innovations like that. A care leavers covenant — like the veterans covenant — could provide the national recognition and consistency that corporate parenting needs. I am also disappointed that Amendment 184, which would have required local authorities to record the wishes of young people receiving staying-close support, does not have Government support: we are keen to give children a unique identifier that follows them through school, but apparently not so keen to ensure their wishes are followed through as care-experienced adults.On Second Reading, I spoke about the role of supported lodgings, but I also spoke about the impact on well-meaning and responsible parents who, for a variety of reasons, choose to home-educate their children and who will be disproportionately impacted by the legislation. I realise that this issue is in part 2 of the Bill and will be debated tomorrow, but I am on a Public Bill Committee tomorrow, so I want to get on the record my support for amendments 193 to 198, tabled by the Conservative Education team, which all seek to tackle the hammer blow that the Bill applies to home-educating families. However, today I must stick to part 1—I appreciate that I was speaking slightly off topic. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 seek to further support those who have been in the care system by providing a statutory basis for their support to the age of 25. Like the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), as a former member of a corporate parenting panel as a councillor, over the years I have met many young people who are looking for support and security as they start their transition to adulthood. I should at this point declare an interest as a member of Plymouth city council. I want to share a recent innovation by the council. We have a great history of cross-party working as a corporate parenting panel, but the council has just instituted paying for prescriptions and providing additional housing support for over 18s. The particularly clever point is that it charges the cost of the prescriptions back to the integrated care board, so that is a good illustration of what is going on out there and is the sort of thing we could build on. Indeed, when I was a member of a corporate parenting panel, I felt strongly that a good way to get national recognition and national provision, as the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said, would be to pursue something like a care leavers covenant—a bit like the veterans covenant. This is not over the top. We have touched the edges of the expectatio…
One of the reasons for disorganised records is the churn of social workers — and one cause of that churn is the care system's extensive reliance on excessive profiteering by external companies. This Bill provides for retention of care workers by ruling out that profiteering. Does the hon. Member welcome that?The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about the importance of accessing coherent and organised records. However, does she agree that one of the reasons for those records being disorganised is the churn of social workers, and one of the causes of that churn is our care system’s extensive reliance on the excessive profiteering of external companies? This Bill provides for retention of care workers by ruling out excessive profiteering. Does she welcome that?
- I reserve my judgment: if providers simply leave the sector when profiteering is stripped out, we will not have social workers anyway. On phones — there is an inconsistency in the Bill: Clause 35 limits branded school uniforms to reduce peer pressure, yet the same Government argues against banning smartphones, which create far greater peer pressure and cost disparities. We need to move away from party politics and consider what is best for young people.
I will reserve my judgment, because I am not convinced that stripping out excessive profiteering will actually help the system. Ultimately, what we need is the provision of service. If people just leave the sector altogether, we will not have social workers anyway. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but I understand the link to what I was saying. I welcome how far we have come in recent years on extending support in areas such as housing and provision up to the age of 25, but I believe the Bill is creating another cliff edge. What more can be done to enable those affected in adulthood by the emotional and mental impact of their life in care to access trained support? That might be something we need to consider further. Slightly changing tack, and talking of missed opportunities and perhaps a lack of ambition, I fail to see why the Government cannot support safeguarding young people in schools by banning mobile phones in the classroom. I feel there is another inconsistency here, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned. Clause 24 limits the use of branded school uniforms to reduce peer pressure and costs. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), who is no longer in his place, made that argument while, at the same time, arguing for ensuring that young people can take their smartphone and their tablet into school. Talk about something that creates peer pressure and highlights the disparities between those who can afford it and those who cannot. I simply believe the Government do not want to support the amendment because it was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. We need to move away from party politics and seriously consider what is best for young people. We should at least be consistent. Let us make sure that the legislation we are creating does not do one thing on the one hand and something completely different on the other. New clause 36 is not about banning young people from using phone…
New Clause 43 is yet another attempt to put my Healthy Start Bill into law: 200,000 eligible pregnant women, babies and infants are missing out on Healthy Start vouchers — approximately £58 million going unclaimed from a scheme that is already budgeted for. Auto-enrolment would fix this. New Clause 44 would give children in care the same statutory right to contact with siblings as they have with parents — the Children Act 1989 gives no such right to siblings. The Government's own research acknowledges that maintaining sibling contact is one of children's highest priorities; the Family Rights Group has found that half of all sibling groups in local authority care are split up. I raised this in 2016; every Minister since promised to amend the regulations; to date they have not. New Clause 45 would extend staying-put arrangements to children in residential care — currently only foster children can remain with their carers beyond 18. We should not have a two-tier system. New Clauses 46 and 47 would ban unregulated accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds in care; children have been placed in tents on campsites, with no requirement to provide them with any care whatsoever.I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I rise to speak to new clauses 43 to 47, standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 43 is yet another attempt to put my Healthy Start Bill into law. When I first introduced that Bill, 200,000 eligible pregnant women, babies and infants were missing out on Healthy Start vouchers. That is approximately £58 million going unclaimed from a scheme that is already budgeted for. These vouchers provide financial assistance in the form of a prepaid card to all under-18s who are pregnant, families with babies and children under the age of five, and pregnant women claiming certain benefits. This is to help with the ever-increasing cost of fruit and vegetables, milk formula and vitamins. Just last year, the child of the north all-party parliamentary group, which I chair, heard evidence that children in the north are more likely to die before reaching their first birthday than those anywhere else in the country. It has been widely reported for some time that, in desperation, parents have resorted to the theft of baby milk and formula or to having to water it down, which is not surprising considering that formula prices are at historically high levels. As it stands, there is a lack of awareness about the scheme, and the application routes are overly complex and varied. The reason so many are missing out on vouchers is that the system operates on an opt-in, not an opt-out model. Auto-enrolment for all those eligible would ensure maximum take-up of this essential nutritional safety net. The Healthy Start scheme was introduced by a Labour Government. The current problems with it are the fault of the last Government’s management of the scheme. It is in this Government’s gift to solve those problems. New clause 44 relates to improving sibling contact for children in care. The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents, but…
New Clause 13 requests a review of adoption support services — adoption agencies and local authorities need the comfort that what they provide is adequate, and that confidence will increase take-up. New Clause 14 deserves support: 74 children have died in temporary accommodation, with homelessness listed as a contributory factor. Notification to schools and GPs is a simple, practical measure that would help detect learning and health problems arising from temporary accommodation. As the Chair of the Housing Committee has noted in this place, that accommodation is no longer, sadly, that temporary.As the son of a lady from Limerick, may I offer my mum, my wider family and everybody in the House a happy St Patrick’s Day? I rise to speak in support of two new clauses. New clause 13 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) requests a review of adoption support services offered by local authorities and requires the Government within 12 months of passing the Act to conduct a review of the adequacy and effectiveness of those services. This will give those providing adoption services and those receiving them the comfort to know that they are indeed adequate and hopefully increase the confidence in adoption services and increase the take-up of those offering their homes to children in need. On the second amendment I wish to speak to, I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on households in temporary accommodation. New clause 14 tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) has the support of 35 colleagues from both the Labour and Liberal Democrats Benches. It requires local authorities to notify the child’s school and registered GP practice of a household’s homelessness status. In this debate, we heard from the hon. Member about the impact of living in temporary accommodation, but this new clause will help in detecting any learning or health outcome issues as a result of living in temporary accommodation—accommodation that the Chair of our Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has mentioned in this place before as being no longer, sadly, that temporary. It is to be hoped, too, that it will help in learning the lessons of the 74 children who have died in temporary accommodation and that being classed as a contributory factor to their deaths. I commend both these new clauses to the House.
The corporate parenting new clauses shift welfare responsibility from a single agency to a collective duty on local authorities, social services, healthcare providers and educational agencies — exactly what is needed. We have seen the tragic consequences when systems fail to collaborate: Victoria Climbié was known to multiple agencies; Baby P was known to authorities. No more empty words about lessons to be learned — this Bill delivers real action.As a former teacher, I know at first hand the importance of safeguarding and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their background or circumstances. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome and want to talk about new clauses 18 to 22, focusing on corporate parenting. They represent a vital step in protecting vulnerable children and enhancing their overall wellbeing. These amendments shift the responsibility for the welfare of children, particularly those in care or at risk, from being solely a single-agency duty to a much-needed collective duty on local authorities, social services, healthcare providers and educational agencies. My hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), eloquently spoke about that, giving examples from roles that they held before coming to this place. The idea of corporate parenting is that services and agencies must come together to act in the best interests of children, much as a parent would. They are tasked with ensuring that children receive the care, protection and opportunities that they need to grow, thrive and reach their full potential. As a teacher, I saw at first hand how crucial it is for agencies to work together. A child’s welfare needs are not confined to those that arise in the classroom; we need to provide them with a holistic support system that addresses their physical, emotional and psychological needs. These new clauses will strengthen the Bill and create an integrated approach in which services collaborate and share vital information to support children. That will reduce duplication of work, minimise silo working, and ensure that children are not ignored. When it comes to accessing mental health services, education, housing and medical care, no child should fall through the cracks. Every child deserves to have their needs met, and this Bill will ensure that all agencies involved are jointly responsible for making that happen. This lan…
Last Friday at a homeless shelter in my constituency I met a care leaver who had spent eight months in a tent after his supported accommodation shut down the day he turned 18. My New Clause 35 would extend priority need status under homelessness legislation to all care leavers up to 25, regardless of assessed vulnerability — the Bill only extends it to 18 to 20-year-olds. We should not be making people who have already been through so much prove their vulnerability again at a crisis point. On kinship care: I grew up in kinship care myself, cared for by my grandparents when things at home broke down as a teenager. Those pre-made bonds of trust and authority — you cannot replicate them in any other form of care. My Amendment 174 would ensure kinship families are actively engaged in shaping the local authority policies set out in the Bill.I rise to speak in favour of new clause 35 and amendment 174, both in my name, as well as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The Corporate Parenting Forum was one of the more enjoyable committees I was on when I was a local councillor. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that the forum has quite a cold name, given all the warm work that it does. It shows the dedication of social workers, the compassion of foster carers and adoptive parents, and the resilience and character of the children. However, anyone involved in that forum would also have seen that the hard work of those involved was often undermined by a system that held people back from caring to the best of their ability. I am pleased that the Bill will make significant progress in that regard. However, there are areas where it could go further, and I intend to speak about a couple of them. One area of particular interest to me is the so-called care cliff edge. Those leaving the care system at 18 are forced to grow up so much faster than their peers. I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House before—in particular the age differential for universal credit. That impacts young care leavers far more than any other group. The Bill seeks to lessen the care cliff edge. The “staying close” support requirements are of particular of interest to me, as is strengthening the support provided up to the age of 25. However, there is an anomaly on housing. I understand that the Government may accept that care leavers should not be regarded as becoming homeless intentionally, but my new clause 35 would go a step further and extend priority need status under the homelessness legislation to all care leavers up to the age of 25, regardless of all assessed vulnerabilities. The Bill provides that status to young care leavers aged 18 to 20, but that is out of line with the rest of the support available to young care leavers. Given all we know abo…
- The driver of ballooning welfare claims — which the Government are genuinely worried about — is young people and their mental health. If we want to be serious about prevention, a good place to start is the phone ban amendment we will vote on in a few moments. Various Labour Members said they would not vote for it today, but I could sense chinks of light — perhaps they are starting to come round. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden proposed sensible measures on information flow that we support. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made an excellent speech on kinship care — his grandparents would be very proud to see him in this House.
We have heard some superb speeches this afternoon. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), gave a brilliant and thoughtful speech, which ended with her talking about the welfare reforms that the Government will propose tomorrow. Our proposal for a ban on smartphones in schools is part of a general drive to undo the damage that a smartphone childhood is doing to young people’s mental health. We see that the driver of ballooning welfare claims, which the Government are really worried about, is young people and their mental health claims. If we want to be serious about prevention, a good place to start is with the amendment that we will vote on in a few moments. I am a glass-half-full kind of person. Although various Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), said that they would not be voting for the smartphone ban today, I could sense chinks of light in what they were saying; perhaps they were starting to come round to the idea. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) gave a great speech, in which he mentioned the challenge posed by the large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the system, who now represent a third of all looked-after children in some local authorities. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a fantastically powerful speech about safeguarding, in which he spoke about the tragic case of Sara Sharif. Although we will have to disagree about the policy, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) gave a good speech arguing for a smacking ban. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raised important questions about unique identifiers, on which we all agree in principle, but getting it right will be crucial. One of the most important speeches was the excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). She talked good sense and gave the Government…
- On Amendment 172 and family group decision-making: the voice of the child is integral, but statutory guidance will ensure that skilled professionals engage children appropriately. On kinship care and New Clauses 25 to 28: we value kinship carers enormously — in October 2024 the Government announced £400 million for the kinship financial allowance pilot, the single biggest investment in kinship care to date. Kinship carers can already access unpaid parental leave, which we are making a day one right through the Employment Rights Bill. On New Clause 3 and care leavers: Clause 8 already requires each local authority to publish its arrangements for supporting care leavers' transition to adulthood, including accommodation. On New Clause 8 and reasonable punishment: we are looking closely at the changes in Wales and Scotland, but we have no plans to legislate at this stage — Wales is reviewing the impact of its law change and will publish findings by end of 2025. On the phones new clause: phones have no place in schools — the Education Secretary said that last week. Teachers and heads have our full backing, and we will strengthen monitoring of guidance implementation. But just a year ago the Conservatives claimed their action meant phones were prohibited in schools. The Education Secretary has already announced studies by the University of Cambridge on this, and the Health Secretary has confirmed that the Chief Medical Officer will consider the impact of phones and advice for parents.
I reiterate my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions on a range of amendments, of which I aim to cover as many as possible in the time available. A key pillar of this Government’s reform of children’s social care is to shift the focus towards early support to help families together and to keep them together where possible. I will therefore begin with the amendments concerning family group decision making, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). On amendment 172, we agree that the voice of the child and their views are integral. In some cases, it may not be appropriate for the child to attend meetings. However, during family group decision making, the local authority must seek the views of the child where appropriate. Statutory guidance will also set out that local authorities should ensure that the facilitator has the right skills and training, and I am confident that skilled professionals will engage the child in an appropriate way. On amendment 176, there is robust evidence that children can be diverted from care when family group decision making is offered at the pre-proceeding stage. We also encourage local authorities to offer this process as early as possible in the child’s engagement with children’s services, to support a “family first” culture. Turning to amendment 179, if a looked-after child goes to live with a family member, the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 already require a care plan to be in place, which must include arrangements to meet the child’s needs and must be reviewed at least every six months. It would be inappropriate to assume that every child going to live with a family member needs a child protection plan. It is right that we protect all children at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life where children are safe, loved and well supported.…
- The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire had every opportunity to speak in this debate and chose to turn up only at the end. We take children's wellbeing seriously — it is in the name of this Bill. Mental health goes hand in hand with wellbeing, and we will have more time to discuss these issues further. Schools are already encouraged to measure pupil wellbeing; we recognise the importance of understanding trends in children's mental health.
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) had the opportunity to speak in the debate, but he has chosen to turn up at the very end to make an intervention. It just shows what his interest is in these issues. We take these matters seriously, because we take children’s wellbeing seriously. The clue is in the name—Labour’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The measures in the Bill to protect children from harm, improve their schools and save their education from causing financial distress to their parents all relate to their wellbeing, and we know that mental health goes hand in hand with wellbeing. I was at this very Dispatch Box just last week to discuss the support we are offering in schools, and we will of course have more time to talk about those issues further. I understand that new clause 29 seeks to be supportive on this matter. The Government recognise the importance of understanding trends in the wellbeing of children and young people; indeed, schools are already encouraged to measure pupil wellbeing.
- #124rejectedNew clause on phones and social media in schools — rejected A proposed new clause would have required action to promote children's wellbeing in relation to mobile phones and social media. MPs rejected it at the Commons report stage, 159–317.Ayes 159Noes 317
- #125rejectedAmendment on inspection requirements — rejected Amendment 188 sought to rewrite the bill's provisions on the requirement for inspection (Clause 12). It was rejected at the Commons report stage, 160–319.Ayes 160Noes 319
- #126rejectedAmendment on SEND/caring independent schools — rejected Amendment 171 would have added independent schools with caring responsibilities and offering SEND provision to Clause 15. MPs rejected it at the Commons report stage, 65–317.Ayes 65Noes 317