Lords Chamber

Monday 23rd June 2025

(began 1 day, 15 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: Working with local authority leaders on energy efficiency and fire safety measures
-

Third oral question, Baroness Griffin.
14:58
14:58
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Impact of business rates reform on Business Improvement Districts
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

of lithium batteries and solar farms I will take back and sent him a written answer on that point. Fourth Oral Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fourth Oral Question. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Method from the comments that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Method from the comments that they have passed at the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, to which they desire the agreement of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your Lordships. My Lords, Terminally Ill Adults

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, bed to move this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill is now red for the first time. The question is that the spill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the spill ready first time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. This may be a suitable moment for noble Lord to suitable moment for noble Lord to leave expeditiously. -- Bill be read

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, we My Lords, we now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we now come My Lords, we now come to instruments previously debated in instruments previously debated in committee. Mr Lisa amendments are committee. Mr Lisa amendments are Regulations 2024 five, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Sedgefield. I beg to move. The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is this emotion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. content". The contents have it. Casinos gaming machines Regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2024 five, Baroness Twycross. I beg to move Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The House to be again in committee on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Smith. I beg to move movement the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After After clause After clause 26, After clause 26, Amendment After clause 26, Amendment 166,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 26, Amendment 166, Baroness Lister.
15:22
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Lister. Arise to move 166, and support the right reverend Prelate the the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, he regrets she cannot be in place. The children's consortium are MCC, I thank them for their help. The amendment would introduce an entitlement to an independent Guardian for separated asylum seeking or traffic children, in line with international law and the provisions already made in Scotland. Building on and expanding the existing independent guarding service run by Barnardo's. Imagine service run by Barnardo's.

Imagine that you are a child who has fled persecution, or conflict. Travelling across Europe and then making the perilous journey across the channel. All of which makes for a pretty traumatic experience. You arrive frightened, wet and cold. You are given no time to recover, but instead almost immediately I faced with questions you may not understand, age assessment procedures that can all too easily wrongly determine that you are an adult. Although I will not go into that today, other than to say that research shows how these age assessments can undermine children's mental health and well-being.

You then face incomprehensible bureaucratic procedures and have to navigate complex systems, such as social care, immigration and criminal justice systems. As you make the difficult legal journey, involved in claiming asylum. How different might it be, if you had a legal guardian to support you. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the legal guardians are a crucial component of a protection system for children, temporarily or permanently lacking family environment and are unable to have their interests represented by the parents.

An independent legal guardian in this context plays a key role in supporting unaccompanied children, by connecting them to all the support they need, instructing solicitors on their behalf and most importantly representing their best interests throughout. An evaluation of the Scottish guardianship service, now called guardianship Scotland, showed that it played an invaluable beneficial role in supporting unaccompanied children. Particularly helping them with navigation, orientation, gathered and provided information for stakeholders, supported interactions with lawyers and provided emotional support.

The are MCC applauds the crucial role played by the service, which it says highlights of the child's formative power of a dedicated advocacy and care. Barnardo's point to the evidence that the positive impact on mental health, during lengthy, often lengthy asylum awaits, with quality of feedback, emphasised with the guardians, by asylum seeking children as their primary source of stability, advocacy and protection. They tell me that seven independent evaluations with the trafficking Guardian service that they run, found that having a Guardian helps reduce children's likelihood of going missing and their vulnerability to harm.

The effects on children have been at both immediate and long-term. They quoted asylum seeking children supported in Northern Ireland, "I trust and rely on your support and my honourable friend does not have an independent Guardian working with him and this is so bad, I would have really struggled without. " The limited reach of the trafficking and Guardian service in Wales, the lack of any such service for asylum seeking children here mean that thousands of vulnerable children having to struggle every day, as they try to build a new life.

Compelling evidence comes from a new study of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and young people, fry the LSC and the University of Bedfordshire, I referred to at our last sitting stop focuses in particular on their well-being. Children and young themselves identified a number of aspects of their lives which were important to their well-being, including not being lonely and having reliable people to talk to stop professional support, and knowing professionals are taking responsibility for you and your needs and having hope for the future.

Rover they need integration key to their well-being. Happily, a significant number of the Children and Young Persons Act were supported by a charity operating an independent Guardian like service. This was often the difference that made the difference. But these are specialist casework interventions mostly happen by chance. After procedural drift and poor mistakes, in and around the asylum and decision-making case, rather than systematically, or at the early stages of children and was asylum applications. Talking of a protection gap, in which it Children and Young Persons Act very much alone.

Their sense of well-being was closely associated with the extent that they felt cared for, by professionals. To have what the authors called a scaffolding of care, built around them, to help them hope and belief in themselves and their future. And hope for the future was crucial to their well- being. The importance of caring support, from a social worker cannot be stressed enough, but not all enjoyed such relationship. Social workers don't necessarily have the requisite understanding of the asylum system.

This led to the recommendation by the children and young themselves, echoed by the academic researchers for, a quite independent Guardian from the start and throughout their journey, to understand the asylum, immigration, modern slavery and social care processes and understand the unique Are accessible. " As this study illustrates, the case for extending the guardianship service lies primarily at the positive impact it will have on the particularly vulnerable group of children, in line with international standards. It is also a very cost-effective UNICEF UK and the children's Society calculated, some years ago, the system of guardianship for all unaccompanied children will save £1.25, for every 1 pound spent, over three years, rising to £2.39, taking account of the benefits, once the children become adults.

Their detailed cost benefit analysis estimates over £62 million could be saved, rising from a reduction in social work time, resources, interpreting time, additional and legal expenses and the time of other professionals. Ultimately what is at stake here is the mental and physical well-being of children. What this bill is all about. One of the young people in the study commented that children are not just a category, you need to be a living, you need to be living your childhood.

A maxim that we might apply to this bill as a whole. There are MCC concluded that in light of the financial savings, improved systemic efficiencies, enhanced well-being of unaccompanied children, implementing a nationwide guardianship service in the UK is both fiscally responsible and morally imperative decision. In oral evidence of the Home Affairs Committee recently, Mr Eagle suggested the Home Office may start to look at how we can provide a voice migrants and advocacy services, help service as she put it. I do not know what she had in mind, but I suggest that guardianship service unaccompanied children will be a good place to start.

I am not looking for such a decision today. But I believe the case is compelling and the perspective children's wellbeing, therefore I would ask my noble friend, the Minister to commit to talking to her home office colleagues and together, with them, give the proposal serious consideration, with a view to possible implementation come in the future. I beg to me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 26, in assert the new clause as 26, in assert the new clause as printed on the marshalled List. The question is that this amendment be agreed to.
15:30
15:32
15:34
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
name of the noble Baroness Lady Lister amend the Modern Slavery Act of 2015, and as I understand it, would complement the role of the independent child trafficking advocate in these cases, with the right to an independent Guardian. And would expand their remit to include children who are separated from those from parental responsibility or the equivalent in their home country. And as of course the noble Lady knows, properly better than anyone else in the House, there is existing statutory guidance for unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery dating from 2017.

And it's clear that in common with all looked after children, unaccompanied asylum seeking children are entitled to independent advocacy support, and indeed, the guidance stresses that this might particularly be the case for this group of children. Indeed, the Refugee Council have very helpful flowchart on their website which shows the asylum process and clearly highlights the role of independent advice at two stages in the application process. As we heard from the noble and learned Lady Lady Butler-Sloss, the independent child trafficking advocate 's have only partially been implemented, and that is a fiftysomething that it will be interesting to hear what the noble Baroness the Minister has to say about full implementation.

I would also like to thank the noble Baroness Lady Lister for sharing the recent research from the LSC and the University of Virginia with me and asked that noble Lady describes, very emotively, this paints a picture of real inconsistency in terms of response that unaccompanied asylum seeking children receive and it makes a number of recommendations including this one. However, as the noble Lady knows, implementing independent legal guardians would require significant investment in training, establishing oversight and case management systems, although I acknowledge the cost benefit point that she made in her remarks.

And I presume there would also need to be some form of proper accountability and oversight of these guardians. I feel that there's a case to be made for making the existing law work as it was intended before amending it and introducing an alternative. I absolutely respect the noble lady's deep and long-standing concern and work in relation to the welfare and rights of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, but I think there are profound questions to be asked about her amendment and I look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister's reply.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 166, tabled by my noble friend Baroness tabled by my noble friend Baroness tabled by my noble friend Baroness Lister. Can I also echo the comments Lister. Can I also echo the comments of Baroness Barran and complement
15:37
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
of Baroness Barran and complement her, as always, on the eloquent way, and the very moving way, that she has described the plight of so many young children and young people coming into this country. And I know she is a very passionate advocate in her own right but also speaks to many people across the piece. Being specific about the amendment, whilst other issues have been brought into the discussions today, the omission 6 to provide support for independent child guardians to all separated children, and that would be in addition to trafficked and exploited children.

It would also initiate the support on consideration of a referral, rather than when an initial decision has been made that the child has been potentially exploited. This amendment also sets out omitted functions for the independent guardians but crucially removes the ability to amend these functions through regulations or statutory guidance. Currently, existing independent child trafficking guardianship service is a specialist provision for trafficked and exploited children, operating in two thirds of local authorities across England and Wales.

And we are moving forward towards a national contract, planned towards a national contract, planned for tender, in 2025, building on the work from the Modern Slavery Act and from the very first authorities that were brought into scope in 2017. And as we know, currently, this is funded by the Home Office, -- but delivered by Barnardo's, as we have heard. It's important to know that we will be looking at best practice, all the way through the piece, as we move forward.

Modern slavery engagement forums are absolutely critical in this, and I will go on to speak about the Minister's role in this as well. As my noble friend Baroness Lister is aware, the needs of course as we have heard of traffic and exploited children are complex and ever evolving and ever changing. By defining functions directly in the bill, this would reduce the flexibility for the Secretary of State to adapt the role through the statutory guidance on through the statutory guidance on regulations, as they need to evolve.

We would not wish to limit the functions of guardians in this way and would instead continue to provide the detail for their role in statutory guidance or regulations, I believe this is the best way that we can move on and acknowledge changes in circumstances as we move forward. I do recognise the intentions of my noble friend and extending the independent and Guardian provision to all separated children and I acknowledge the words of Baroness Butler-Sloss in this space as well.

This would significantly expand the scope. Unfortunately therefore, would strain resources which could delay support for exploited or trafficked children who do need urgent help. Separated children will not necessarily be trafficked and there is a risk that this provision will overlap with the existing support causing some confusion or duplication in some cases. As well as providing unsuitable services for some separated children. The management for unaccompanied asylum seeker children is, as we know, that they are looked after by local authorities in keeping with the arrangements for all children in the United Kingdom.

Unaccompanied asylum seeker children are provided with a professional social worker and will also have an Independent reviewing Officer to oversee their care arrangements and they are also entitled to legal assistance in pursuing the asylum claim. These arrangements ensure that children are provided with independent support and advice, and that the addition, as I've said before, of the guardians this framework could risk adding another level of complexity to existing arrangements. We have instead worked to provide additional support specifically to vulnerable children who may have been trafficked.

We do not consider, therefore, expanding or bringing forward the points at which support is initiated would be in the best interest of meeting the needs of exploited and trafficked children. This is not to say that we don't have nice the work that needs to continue, and I'm pleased to say Jess Phillips Minister for Safeguarding has regular meetings with the EYECTV service and she holds an tables -- ICTG. And to ensure that we continue the essential conversations.

I completely recognise the need for stable relationships, as outlined by Baroness Butler-Sloss and I think we Baroness Butler-Sloss and I think we can only imagine the disruption, the separation, the people, and the impact it has on these very vulnerable young people. The importance of this is that children, the child will have access to an advocate, unlike the social worker, an IRA is not described to have a social work qualification. The primary person purpose represent the views of the child the primary purpose.

As part of this function they can assist the child in obtaining legal advice in the same way as the social worker I Aro and way as the social worker I Aro and I understand the need to continue the conversations. I hope my noble friend will recognise that those conversations will continue and I completely acknowledge there is no complacency, no room for complacency at all in this very important area of work. I hope with these reassurances my noble friend will feel content to withdraw this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Before she sits down, may I say I entirely understand and respect entirely understand and respect reservations, particularly on -- are not putting in regulations in not putting in regulations in primary legislation that might make it more difficult. It is the spirit it more difficult. It is the spirit of the amendment that I was particularly concerned with. Could I just ask, is it intended that the just ask, is it intended that the modern slavery advocate will in fact be put out across the entire country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be put out across the entire country The tender is going out in the summer. I believe that the implementation will take some time and should be fully up and running

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by 2027, moving forward. I'm grateful, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss noble Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss for her support. I think she put her finger on the key point of which is the spirit of the amendment, not the the spirit of the amendment, not the details of it. I hoped that the Government would consider. She did make some important points, in particular that social work changes particular that social work changes all the time, guardians are there all the time.

There is a real danger that unaccompanied asylum seeking children could become exploited if they are not properly supported, so the kind of distinction that has been made between asylum seeking and exploited children I think is not such a clear one as has been suggested. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran and my noble friend the Minister for their kind words. But to go back to the point, the spirit of the amendment is we need to think about this. I'm glad my noble friend said conversations will continue.

Could I ask her will they continue with the ask her will they continue with the ask her will they continue with the Home Office? It is not. I originally decided I wanted to push this issue decided I wanted to push this issue when I was confronted by a group of young people who clearly just weren't, didn't know what was going weren't, didn't know what was going on, they hadn't understood anything. on, they hadn't understood anything. The difficulties that they faced as a young asylum seekers.

It seemed to me that they needed support me that they needed support throughout and then I read about the Scottish system. My question is if Scotland can do it, why can't week? I'll leave that thought with my noble friend the Minister. I would ask that the discussions with the Home Office, because I do think it Home Office, because I do think it is really important as an issue, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
15:48
15:49
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to my amendment 177 to ban access to social media before the age of 16. Other amendments in this group relate to screens in schools, edtech, family screens in schools, edtech, family use and possession of smartphones in schools. I refer to my interest in the register, particularly to the fact that I am a co-founder and chair of the multi-academy trust and an investor in a number of technology companies. We are now seeing an overwhelming body of clinical evidence about the dangers of a social media Children and Young Persons Act and rapidly increasing Persons Act and rapidly increasing awareness.

Teachers and parents and young people themselves about this. The title is Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Nothing in my view could enhance the well-being of our 9 million schoolchildren and young people more than to accept this amendment. Nothing could have a wider impact. The dictionary definition of well-being is the state of being comfortable, happy, or healthy. Sadly, millions of children are in none of these states. Indeed we would be better off scrapping the whole of the rest of the bill and just enacting this one amendment.

Dan enacting the bill without it. According to health professionals for safer screens, social media causes language and communication difficulties, emotional and social difficulties, reduced academic attainment and an impact on ADHD. They also say it causes physical impacts such as changes to the brain, poor eyesight, eating disorders, obesity and sleep difficulties. And there is evidence of that autistic children are particularly vulnerable to the impact of screen time. A recent UCL study corroborated the link between social media and eating disorders and that young people with eating disorders are more likely to be shown harmful content by social media algorithms.

Samaritans research has shown that young people frequently see self-harm and suicide content, across all social media sites as up some of which are displayed, particularly graphic and triggering content and almost 3/4 of teenage girls think that social media creates a more pressure people to look a certain way. And if I could attempt to clarify and paraphrase a leading expert as an clerk, Professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex. An overreliance on technology negatively impact our ability to think, predict and be creative.

The impact of social media on media is something we are seeing articles about. A study published in Acta paediatric concluded that an connectivity in children is increased by the tiniest reading books and decreased by the length of exposure to screen-based media. According to Teacher Tapp, 56% of teachers would prefer a world without a social media. And of course teachers are particularly aware of the impact of cyber bullying. According to mum's net, half of parents say their children's use of social media negatively affects their self-esteem.

Rising to 57% in girls and 82% of parents back a social media ban for under 16- year-olds and a 60% say they would be more likely to vote for a party that implemented such a ban. They also make the point that this is a cohort problem, i.e. It is too big for anyone a family to solve. Millions of families across the country are experiencing a daily battle with the children, because of the addictive nature of smartphones and social media.

Is this what we want for our families? I do not think so. A recent American Harris poll found that most parents wish their children grow up in a world with no social media. The same level of regret as for guns. According to HMD, 64% of parents say social media negatively impacts the child's sleep, it reduces the amount of physical activity they undertake. More than half said it reduced the amount of time socialising with friends and 75% of parents say is smartphones expose the children's internet dangers.

With more than half admitting that they just do not know whether children get up to, when using their phones. Almost half of parents believe that mobile phone use has changed their child's personality. According to Deloitte, over half of gen Z would favour an adult social media for under 16's, rising to 71% for millennial's, 78% for boomers. According to an American survey by common sense media in Act 2023, the average American, 11 to 17-year-old receives a 237 social media notifications a day.

According to parents, 67% of 16 to 18-year-olds at themselves think that smartphones are harmful and according to another study, 50% of teenagers say they are addicted to social media. New research by the British Standards Institute shows almost half of young people aged 16 to 21 were prefer to be young in a world without the internet. Adolescence is a period in life in which our sense of self undergoes a profound transition. As teenagers become more conscious of how others perceive them.

They often experience increased self-consciousness, self- criticism, social media and the algorithms attached to them only serve to amplify this. We also know that the adolescent brain is particularly susceptible to addictive behaviour. Constant exposure to fast paced, high stability and content, can only condition the brain to expect a frequent rapid rewards, making it harder to sustain focus and harder to sustain focus and concentrate. So why 16? As I have said adolescence is a significantly important time in development and we know that girls and boys may be more vulnerable to the negative effects of social media, at different times, during adolescence.

Indeed, research shows girls experience a negative link between social media use and life satisfaction, when they are 11 to 13 years old and boys when they are 14 to 15 years old. Suggesting a sensitivity to social media use might be linked to developmental changes, possibly changes in the structure of the brain, or to puberty which occurs later in boys, then girls. The 13 to 16 age group is the least risk averse and is easily influenced and highly susceptible to issues such as grooming, cyber bullying, body dysmorphia and social comparison.

A violent content, misogyny and knife crime. Not to mention a dopamine addiction. Thousands of influences pushed on social media, vaping, antidepressants, therapy, osmotic injectables and mental health misinformation. A study by Northwestern University found that children aged between seven and 18, on average use six different skincare products a day and some more than one dozen. All of which is to say that age restrictions that seek to stop children assessing harmful from an early age the 16 are unlikely to be effective, we want our children to be brought up confident, able to engage in deep thought, be reflective and unable to concentrate, exercise judgement, see the other side's point of view.

The compassionate etc.. We also want them to get a good night sleep. Smartphones and social media set up exactly the opposite behaviours. Research by the Children's Commissioner shows that the experience children have online is entirely different to that of adults and they are affected by content in different ways. Content of the adult may not find harmful can be extremely damaging to children and adolescents. The former children's Commissioner, who I am delighted to see is in her place has stated that too many children are spending their most precious years doom scrawling on their phones and often alone, while their health and well-being deteriorates.

We know the police are very concerned about use of social media in the radicalisation of Children and Young Persons and in their recruitment into gangs. The Education Select Committee has concluded that the overwhelming weight of evidence submitted to them suggest that the harms of screen time and social media outweigh the benefits for young children. The overwhelming evidence My Lords, it is time to deal with this issue and I am encouraged that the government is at least thinking about it.

But the concept of two hours per app, i.e. Two hours each on WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, TikTok etc. Is really playing. Francis planning a ban, one has been considering. We take children's safety seriously in areas like smoking and alcohol. Now is the time to step up to the play on social media. It is particularly noticeable when all the leaders of the main teachers unions have pointed out in stark terms the dangers of smartphones and social media.

The general secretary describing smartphones as a lethal weapons. This support from the unions is commendable. As the Labour government is so close with the unions, I very much hope they will follow their advice. Why should our hard pressed teachers have to deal with the consequences of this are free for all. I have quoted much research and many statistics. I would like to conclude by asking noble Lords to remember five points. Firstly, smartphones and social media are damaging the development of our children's brains.

Secondly, they are highly addictive. Thirdly, they exposed them to serious risk of sometimes life-threatening dangers, sometimes life-threatening dangers, fourthly cyber bullying is rife and finally, they are having a serious effect on our children's self- esteem, mental health and well- being, which is what we are here to debate. The formative nature of teenage brains are totally ill- equipped to win the battle against the algorithms embedded in social media, by companies with billions at the disposal. They need our help and they, their parents and teachers are crying out for it.

It is time we came to their aid. And finally I should mention, on 9 July, at one And finally I should mention, on 9 July, at 1 o'clock, the committee room in the other place, there will be a screening of a very short film starring Peter Andre, which powerfully displays the dangers of smartphones and social media. If any noble peer would like to attend, noble peer would like to attend,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak I rise to speak to I rise to speak to my I rise to speak to my amendments
16:02
Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendments 183, C CA, and CB. Before I do so I would like to add my support to would like to add my support to amendment 177 from my noble friend, the Lady Barran and 458 also in this group. My Lords, it seems odd that we have a bill before us where a legislating for the provision of breakfast clubs which I've previously said I'm a fan of, but legislating for the use of social media by teenagers and the provision or the use of mobile phones all seems to be a step too far for a bill that is focused on children's well-being.

And that's despite the wealth of evidence as my noble friend has just alluded to about how disruptive phones can be the children's wellbeing but also for their learning. I think it's not good enough to say that 90% of secondary schools report having a policy in place to ban the use of policy in place to ban the use of -- by the way that means one in 10 do allow access to funds in a school day. What matters is how effective those policies are in the evidence shows into many cases the answer is not enough.

Around 80% of secondary school surveyed by the Children's Commissioner allowed children to keep their phones on them in a school day with the expectation it's not seen or heard. The evidence is that is not working. The national behaviour survey in 2022/23 found 36% of secondary school teachers reported phones being used without permission, and in at least some of the lessons, that's 59% of pupils reporting the same. When the previous government introduced guidance on mobile phones in schools it said it would keep the approach under review and move to introduce statutory guidance if the situation had improved.

A key milestone for assessing this was the publication of this years national behaviour survey. When asked the noble Lady in January when she expected this to be publishing said it would be in the spring. I may have missed it, I don't think I have, but could the noble Lady may be update the committee on when we can expect the results of the latest behaviour survey. Turning now specifically to my amendments, which in a sense follow on from amendment 177 from the noble Lord Lord Nash in Baroness Barran which I support, they have a specific focus on the advice and guidance for parents, teachers and carers of preschool age children.

And to be really clear, unlike many who have participated in this bill so far, I'm no expert in this area. I'm working hard to ensure I am across understand as best I can the evidence in this area. But to some extent, that is the point of my amendments. If you are the parent or childcare professional or a teacher or a preschool children, is no clear summary of the available evidence and no clear advice on the best approach to children's use of screens and technology in the early years.

And yet such screens and technology are ubiquitous. Good starting point for both amendments would be the chief medical officer's advice provided for in amendment 177 which crucially specifies that it should be differentiated by age. I cannot find any public guidance from the government or Ofcom that really reflects this, in fact much of the guidance that is available is inappropriate for very young children and may give parents a misleading understanding of how they can best navigate this tricky area for preschoolers.

In my experience and I declare my interest as a mum of two preschool children, there is nothing mentioned by your GP, by your health visitor, a children's centres, so many of those important touch points, in the early years of a family. In the same absence of advice or guidance extends to early years childcare and education settings to, I could find no reference in the early years standards framework for the appropriate and safe use of screens in early years settings and that surprised me. My amendments simply seek to fill these gaps to provide proper guidance to parents in early years settings.

And so I'd be really keen to hear from the noble Lord the Minister on what work the government is doing in these areas. Within the government 's opportunity mission they have set themselves a milestone of 75% of five-year-olds reaching a good stage of development in the earlier stage by 2028. With screen so ubiquitous in children's and parents lives, and excessive screen you strain to impact on so many of the early learning goals, including communication and language, physical development and social and emotional development, this must be an essential part of the government plan.

Research shows that significant proportions of younger children have access to smart devices including phones and spend significant time online. Ofcom's children and parents media use attitudes report 2025 shows alarming trends, not just on the scale of the use but also the pace of change. One in 53 to 5-year-olds have their own mobile phone extending to 85% of that age group using any device to go online. More than half use messaging sites or apps and half use live streaming.

The proportion of parents and 3 to 5 role so the child uses social media sites has significantly increased in recent years. From around the court in 2020 /22 rising to 3 intent in 2023 and almost 4 in 10 this year. Over one third of parents of 3 to 5-year-olds whose child uses social media you sit on the children's behalf and over four in 10 say they use sites and apps together with the child. Over to intent of these parents indicate the child uses these apps independently.

Many of the debates we have had about keeping children safe online focused on teenagers and that is not surprising given the legal age for accessing social media is 13, older foursome apps currently. And many of the observed Hamzah particularly acute in teenage years, as we have heard. But what constitutes appropriate use of devices and an appropriate amount of screen time will vary wildly for a two-year-old compared to a 12-year- old. And we must reflect this. Could old. And we must reflect this.

Could I ask more specifically the noble Lord the Minister were that my understanding is correct, that there is currently no guidance for preschool settings in the early years standards framework on the safe and appropriate use of screens and if that is the case, does the government have any plans to introduce such guidance? Could I also asked the noble Lady the Minister what plans there are not just to produce guidance based on the best of evidence for parents and preschool children, but how they plan to disseminate this? For example are there any plans to integrate guidance into the start for life campaign, provide tips and information for new parents to the health visiting parent -- program? I would like to emphasise this not about judging parents or selling them to do.

Are you screens, my kids use screens, both of us, sometimes or often too much. It's not about moral panic either. It's about recognising the bigotry and nature of screens in our lives has changed. -- The ubiquitous nature has changed. And if we give clear information and tools we can help parents navigate the ever-changing environment and give more support and I think it is the government for hypnosis this particularly for early years development and I look forward years development and I look forward to hearing the plans in this area.
16:10
Lord Knight of Weymouth Portrait Lord Knight of Weymouth (Labour)
-
-
As this is my first substantive contribution in this committee stage I should declare my education interest as chair of an Academy trust and I also own half of the company that has education plans. I rise to speak to the amendment in my name which is an amendment to 458 in the name of Noble Baroness Barran, and I'm seeking to add an exemption or educational purposes for the exemptions from the policy of smartphone bands in schools proposed by her amendment.

I have read Javan hates anxious generation, Christian Rosen's extension of experience and Jenny Anderson and Rebecca with ropes disengaged team. I know that our children are losing out on the vital developmental impact of unstructured outdoor play, thanks to the distractions of technology. We are all losing the multisensory elements of engaging with real-life experiences because we are too busy on our phones, including in this chamber. And we are losing empathy as a result was to the overconsumption of violent online content is increasing the bystander effect diminishes us as communities of people.

And our children are increasingly disengaged from learning, partly due to boring content at school, and partly due to diminishing attention spans, thanks to much time scrawling short form videos on tick-tock and Instagram. -- TikTok. Social media is addictive by design. And is the main culprit in this complex set of problems. Multiple systemic reviews and surveys confirmed that excessive smartphone use is associated with poor sleep quality, increased depression and anxiety and lower life satisfaction amongst teens, something that this country has a particular problem with and that can't be solely blamed on phones and social media.

This month the Journal of the American medical Association published a large study tracking over 4,000 adolescents and finding that the smartphone risk youth mental health is primarily linked to the addictive use of smartphones, social media and videogames, and those are reported compulsive use were to 3 times more likely to experience suicidal thoughts or self-harm by the age of 14 compared to their peers. The study found it was the inductive behaviour that was the strong predictor, not the amount of screen time per se.

I therefore have something pithy with the amendment -- some sympathy in the name of Lord Nash and I compliment him on the way he introduced his amendment. However I'm unpersuaded that chief medical officers are the right people to lead on this. I'm concerned that Ofcom may not be as rigourous, and certainly I had understood, in enforcing the terms and conditions of platforms, relating to their minimum age limits. It may well be that this House should look to another opportunity in the next session to toughen Ofcom's responsibilities and duties in this regard once we have seen a little more of the impact of the act as Ofcom are implemented.

Amendment 183, CA, from the noble Baroness pan, seems sensible and I think 183, CB, should be pursued by the DfE but in close partnership with Ofcom as the Rigoletto. Amendment 458 clearly has merit. Most schools have adopted such policies to ban and control smartphones following the previous government's guidance. We are piloting the use of signal blocking patches that pupils are required to store their firms in during the school day. The early findings are that this has had a really positive impact on schools concerned in terms of learning and behaviour.

I'm told my friend, parent of children at Westminster School over the road, that they are using geo-fencing technology so that when pupils enter the location, the phone function honesty is changed to retain the use for emergency broadcasting due to security risk rated to the proximity to Parliament. In all of these schools, children are benefiting from having a rest from their phones. Teachers benefit from the lessening of distraction and the absence of a back channel of conversation going on in lessons.

In some schools there is even a reduction of fights because children are no longer able to share them online. I'm working on issues related to media literacy as part of the Communications and Digital Committee. The issues relating to social media addiction are now being amplified by the ease of creating highly credible full content using generative AI. Not only with the our grooms continue to be addictive but they will feed content that is misleading and disturbing as any of us can now create images with audio and video at will of anything that This in my view needs a new sophisticated response than simply a ban.

This My Lords needs education. It needs education in schools and for adult parents, grandparents two. It is clear from the witnesses to our inquiry in committee that just relying on a knowledge rich teaching of media literacy just won't work. If we just tell young people what is dangerous and harmful, what to look out for, then we will fail. Children do not want this to be yet another thing we are telling them off about. To me it is impossible to imagine that we can teach anyone, including young people about algorithmic addiction, about disinformation, about morality, without using To engage with young people, where they are.

With the feeds on their phones and their start them to understand why they are receiving that content, personal to them. How to question the veracity of the content, how to control what they are seeing. Speaking to sixth formers recently at 1/6 form college in Cambridge, it was clear that one of the ways that would most engage them in this important work is through teaching them how to create better online content. By teaching journalism we can teach them how to critically think, how to research, and how to write for an audience, how to be noticed.

By teaching the skills of the influencer, we can influence them to be more discerning and more informed consumers of online content. That's all needs their phones in the classroom. Whilst there may be other educational reasons, I don't have time to get into, why teachers may not want powerful pocket computers for learning. It is for the reasons of media literacy that I urge support for my amendments, to include educational reasons as an exemption from phone bands. We need better digital citizens who are media and AI savvy and we cannot do it without phones being allowed in classrooms, for those lessons.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord night and he makes a very compelling case, thought better media literacy. He will recall, as were other noble will recall, as were other noble Lords, that we did push very hard for that, during the Online Safety Act is that a rather lengthy passage through this bill, without as much
16:18
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
success as we would have hoped. Every month, every week we wait, before we implement more effective media literacy is a week lost and part of a generation lost as well. I was very happy to put my name to the two amendments in the name of the two amendments in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Penn, 183 180 3CA. Countries and societies all over the world wrestling with the effects of the technology that is all prevailing, which, to a greater extent, the most of us would wish.

When the noble Lord was talking about Westminster school. I spoke I thought for a moment wouldn't it be good have geolocation, one could no longer have access to news websites which are telling us things that are distracting and probably not very helpful for what it is we are trying to do. I exclude important things like messages from the lunchtime and the availability of the wine list. The Online Safety Act took a very, very long time to happen and as we have learnt, since its enactment, actually making it flesh and making its intent have teeth is a very lengthy and protracted process.

Far, far longer than I think we had hoped and envisaged. And in the case of some of the key protections for children, we may still be two or three years away before knowing if they are working or not. One of the Is of the luxury of taking this slowly, we need speed and we need clarity. Not least because, when the noble Lord was talking about the distractions of the screen, for young children. I think of how often I, like other noble Lords pass parents, or carers in the street, pushing a pram and the child may well be in distress, or asking for something and whoever is pushing the pram is so deeply into their telephone, or is so deeply engaged in the conversation, with their earphones on, they probably cannot even hear the child.

They cannot even see it if it is facing forward. But that is in some ways a very good summary of the dilemma we have got ourselves into. It just so happens that the Education Select Committee, of another place, produced a very sensible report, just over a year ago, in May, just over a year ago, Called perhaps, the name of this bill is a tribute to the name of the report. The name of the report was A Screen Time Impacts on Education and Well-Being.

As it happens, almost exactly a month ago, Her Majesty's Government, by which I assume the Department of education issued its response and it is quite lengthy and fairly comprehensive and I would be surprised when the noble Minister gets up to respond to this group there are quite a lot of elements in the response, from the department, to the select committee's report, that she will talk about. But the import of the government response, detailed as it is. The underlying theme is that this is very complicated and there are lots of different moving parts, we are still not really on top of it, but we are engaged, we are listening, but we are not really going to do anything yet.

I think if there is one message that all of us sense is that we do not have time on our side. Society, parents, teachers, people who look after young people, educators, the companies that responsible for education technology want clarity, want a sense of direction, want to know that the government is engaged, the government, we will never be on top of this, but the government is really looking at this very carefully and is willing and able to act, if required, quite quickly.

Equally importantly, if it does act, the consequences are not quite as well intended. To have the courage to say we did not get that right, we do need to change it and tweak it in the light of new evidence. Because of this is such a dynamic situation, I do think we need a dynamic approach to try and deal with it. So, lastly, I would say, I think we have to look very carefully at the psychology of this. For nearly 40 years, I have been involved with the charity which is now part of quorum, which I am a governor, current live education.

The largest provider of health education into primary schools, in the United Kingdom. We teach about half a million children a year. The essence of the way we teach is completely contradictory to normal pedagogic approaches, in schools. We do not tell the children what to do, we listen, what we do is to give information to the children, without saying, whether it is good or bad and we then ask the children to elicit their views on the information they have been given. And what conclusions that they have come to about whether that is good for them or less good for them.

In this way is that the children feel that they have some control over what it is they may be asked to do. The thing that will be the least effective of My Lords is basically to try and go for any sort of a blanket ban. Children, as we all know are probably far better versed in technology than we are. The more we try and ban it, the more clever ways will be found to get around that. It simply will not work. The way to work to get this to work is to actually get the children involved and engaged in this, because they will come to their own conclusions, they are not stupid and the more intelligent ones know exactly what social media and these very addictive applications are doing to them.

They are not stupid. We should actually listen and learn from them, in the ways in which we respond to this, rather than thinking we know best, because of My Lords, we have allowed this situation to develop, in plain sight, over the last 15, 20 years. And we have been a very, very ineffective with dealing with it. I do think perhaps listening to the generations that are most directly involved in this and on whom it is having the greatest effect would be a smart way to look at this.

Finally, my noble friends, Baroness Kidron, Baroness Cass are unable to be with us today, but as the noble Lord, Lord Ethel will know, they had convened a very impressive group of genuine experts, in this field. And all I would say, finally is that there is a growing and deeply worrying body of evidence which is a very, very compelling, which is that the effects of screen time, on children, before the age of six are going to have a lifelong effect on their cognitive skills, on their behaviour, everything about them.

And the longer it is before we acknowledge what is going on and do something about it, the more we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regret it. I rise to support the amendment, so eloquently and persuasively expressed, by Lord Nash, my noble friend, Lord Nash and my noble friend, Lord Nash and my noble friend, Lady Penn stop I will also add that the points made by the
16:26
16:27
16:27
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Portrait Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Conservative)
-
-
education is one of the safeguards on which we can rely. I was extremely struck by Lord Knight extremely struck by Lord Knight points. And also, noble Lord, Lord Russell who has, in some ways echoed, but added to the points made, by Lord Knight. In April this made, by Lord Knight. In April this year, the Times newspaper published a wide-ranging and comprehensive a wide-ranging and comprehensive crime and justice commission. It's conclusions on the effects of social media, on children under 16 were damning.

They ranged from damning. They ranged from radicalisation, criminalisation radicalisation, criminalisation antisocial attitudes, right through to mental health problems and to mental health problems and extremist views. The commission recommended that children under 16 should be banned from accessing social media. It added that two thirds of the population support thirds of the population support this view, with a higher number and I think this is significant My I think this is significant My Lords. 16 to 24 -year-olds, that group is the group that have actually experienced the pressures.

And has also been mentioned, I think by Lord Knight, Australia has recently imposed such a ban and many other countries are preparing to do so. A total ban is a move so for evidently beyond the scope of this bill. But a ban on the use of smart phones, in schools is, within its scope, given the bills focus, also on the safeguarding of children. The vast majority of our schools will have policies in place to deal with the use of smartphones.

There can be problems in implementing these policies, not least because the technology is constantly evolving and policies have to adapt to keep up. Some parents have anxieties and understandable. This is that they need to be in contact with their children at all times. They may well oppose a complete ban and there are also anxieties about age limits and so one. The decision is left to the school, with the result that there is a huge range of policies across the whole school spectrum it will maintain that the decision should be left to the school to decide, in accordance with its circumstances.

I have sympathy with this view but I have a couple of points to make. Indeed the question for the noble Baroness the Minister, I hope she is going to be able to tell us what the view of heads of schools is on an overall ban on smartphones in overall ban on smartphones in schools. Indeed, the noble Baroness, might also be able to help us, with this. My guess is that the majority of school heads and teachers would welcome at least where they stood, welcome at least where they stood, on this issue.

To have, heads and teachers one less thing to be able to justify, or argue about and parents. It would certainly be timesaving in terms of developing. Have they themselves also having to police the school's own policy, whatever that might be. Restriction, especially in the classroom would cut out phone -related bullying in school, which frequently transfers to the playground and sometimes into the community. It would also reduce child on child abuse and important safeguarding issues and of course this bill is also about safeguarding.

More positively and I'm sure the teachers, will agree that those schools which have introduced a real reduction in access to social media, through smartphones have reported better communications and participation communications and participation Most parents would surely welcome the certainty of knowing their children would not be exposed to harmful and malicious social media while they are at school. Indeed, if they have several children attending different schools, each with a different smart phone policy, a ban would simplify their family lives certainly.

It is not as if we do not know the effects of exposure to social media from smartphones. Rituals request at presenting the times commission report expressed her absolute shock at the increasing role of social media in encouraging dysfunction and criminality among the young. The commission itself highlighted the risk of radicalisation of our children by exposure to social media. 1/5 of those arrested for terrorist offences last year were children. Limiting the use of smartphones in our schools would support our teachers and students.

It would improve the safety of pupils and make a significant difference to our safety and life chances. I hope this is an area of policy on which we might achieve some consensus in this House. The arguments are strong. They would speak for themselves, but they are being eloquently supported

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by noble Lords and I support these amendments. Spoken at Committee stage, can I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spoken at Committee stage, can I declare my interest as Chair and adviser to the Birmingham education adviser to the Birmingham education partnership might is 25 years ago when I was along with the Noble Lord the Minister in the Department for the Minister in the Department for Education all work, discussing the rollout of technology over the rollout of technology over the years. It was just not part of school life, it was not an implement that was used, and the thing we were most worried about then that we made
16:33
Baroness Morris of Yardley Portrait Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
-
-
most worried about then that we made was that this must be the innovation that becomes available to all and is limited by social class funding going into or how much money you have got in your pocket. I never thought 1/4 of a century later that the debate would be about the damage that area of development in technology has actually brought to schools, but I think we have got to remember that does not take away from the vision and the hope and the aspiration we saw in this technology 1/4 of a century ago, but clearly we are not in the place that we want to be.

And I can't say anything to counter the evidence that indeed everyone who has spoken has said about the impact of social media on young minds. It is just as an adult I feel a responsibility that this happened and I feel we move to slowly to do anything about it. So, if at the end of the day some of us come to the conclusion that we do not want to buy smart phones in schools it should not be a political dividing line.

We are actually all on the same side. If it gets to that point. Think there is a genuine debate about how to take it forward and how we can best protect our children to look at the advantages that technology can bring and save them from the risks and the things they can do as well. I think there is a difference between smart phones and social media that has not been clear in this debate and I am not sure about the definition of smartphones at the end of the clause.

I think it says something that smart phone is something whose main purpose is not the pursuit of learning while studying. I just do not know what that means. A smart phone both enables learning and good things in life, adds to social media as it should not be reaching, so I think that my main problem is it is a bit like the atom bomb, you cannot invent it. It is absolutely entrenched in our society and there are things as adults you cannot now do unless you have got a smart phone and every single week, every month, every air, Government and everybody else pushes us, as adults, to using smart phones.

That is what AI is about. All of these advantages coming as they are connected to smartphones, so whether we like it or not for adults, smartphones are here to stay. And I do not see how abolishing smart phones in schools allows teachers and educations in the wider society to train and help young people come to terms with the adult world in which they are going to live. If they are banned in schools, if they can't be used, how can we expect them to be competent and confident adult users of smartphones and cope with social media.

It would be like saying by the time you get to an adult we will leave you by the side of the lake. It is just nonsense and we have got to help children to come to terms with smartphones and then I thought the speech made by my Noble Friend was very powerful. I think I describe myself as on a bit of a journey but when I am honest with myself I know the reason that I nearly come down on the side of banning smart phones in schools because I am panicking that we are not doing anything else and I almost reach out that at least we could ban it in schools and protect them between nine and four.

At least we could protect them between five and 18. And to be honest that is not enough. If there is this problem we all seem to go with the idea that it is a problem. It needs more from us as policymakers than to yet again Reducing teenage pregnancy with the responsibility on schools, healthy eating with the responsibility on schools, being better citizens with the responsibility of the schools. Every time we got a problem that goes through society we are not quite you how to deal with it and we put it on the curriculum as the responsibility of schools.

I do not say that schools have not got a responsibility, they actually hold major responsibility because they're going to be teaching the media literacy, but they are not the only ones who have the responsibility. And if we are serious, adults, parents, Governments, civic society, needs to get together with schools and educators and try to solve this problem. And it is not sensible to say all we can do is this build schools, that would make a bad policy, and that is all we can be doing, that really poor policy making, but we hesitate to say the Government has two do something more than they have because that is just tired, but we have known about this problem for 10 years at least and we have not moved fast enough, so I end up, probably, coming down on the side of Lord Eames to say that there are things that need to be done in schools, that is we ought to keep smartphones in schools.

We have got a specific question on that. It is interesting that the clause itself bans smartphones, then it says except in two or three circumstances, which is great, accepting the circumstance and you knew what was going to happen. People will be putting forth a man meant as to why that following case smartphones should be banned in schools and eventually we will have to start again, because in truth you cannot ban smart phones in schools, there will always be reasons why you need to use them, so you do have them coming down on the side of same we have got to use this to support young people and the last point is how do you enforce it? It is in the law.

If the Head Teacher allows, I presume it is the governing body, if presume it is the governing body, if the governing body permits the smartphones in schools, who enforces it? You have got policing, to get parents to reported, do you get kids to reported? Then you need to allow smartphones in schools. At the moment, it is to choose a running body and staff in the community to not have smartphones in schools, but they own that, it is their law, they have gone through the preparation and talked it through and arrived at a decision, and I think that makes sense.

I do worry that we may just not be seeing the rationale, but I do worry that enforcement and primary legislation will actually not be a great thing for schools, so I am coming down on the side of not buying it, but migrate worry is that it is just another couple of months past, however the very real danger is that others have not been addressed in this House or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

elsewhere. I think that Baroness Morris

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that Baroness Morris spoke for many of us with how our hopes can be a transformation and have now changed emphatically and we have now changed emphatically and we now found a place somewhere we really did not intend to be. I would like to say about Amendment 183 CA
16:41
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Conservative)
-
-
like to say about Amendment 183 CA from my Noble Friend Earl Russell, Baroness Kidron my Noble Friend Baroness Shephard, our children do need respite, but school is a wonderful place to be scared that kind of respite. And I thought very well that the impact on education is really, really hard. But it is Amendment 177 that I want to primarily address and getting rid of mobile phones altogether at some stage and that is what I would address my comments as and as a former health minister I declare my interest as a trustee of public health.

The neurobiological evidence of the harms is not ambiguous any more, it is absolutely irrefutable. We can see the causes we can see the correlations, to take one longitudinal study published years ago, and those that habitually check social media show distinct neurodevelopmental trajectories in regions governing social reward and punishment, such as the Amy Golda and dorsolateral prefrontal. In other words, their brains, the social media exploits the dopamine pathways involved, creating cycles that exploit the neurochemical pathways that determined their actions.

I also struggle with addiction and find it extremely tough, our children's brains just are not a shape to be able to survive that struggle. This challenge is not a teenage rebellion or it is a systematic neurological manipulation were companies know exactly what they are doing. Social media is a major driver in the mental health crisis that this country faces and consequences are contributing to the overwhelming of our NHS. In the 2425 NHS mental health services supported 800,012 under 18's, an increase of nearly 300,000 since the NHS is long-term plan.

I will not go into the figures in detail, but I assure this chamber this is not a question of snowflakes or woke, it is a genuine public health emergency, and the problem is not going away and I say this with some delicacy that I am one of the few peers that this House does have children, minor 18, 15, 13 and 10. And in answer to the Baroness Shephard they are all at different schools which is a problem for logistics on my behalf.

None of those are winning in this battle. I would say to the noble Baroness Morris each year I have seen this problem get worse. You can feel the algorithms getting more effective, having more of a group of your children's life. Each year children spend more hours on the phone. The communal social pressure each yeah is more. The mental health and the self harming amongst friends in schools gets worse. There is more and more disgusting pornographic filth available to young children.

Statistically, there are more predators activated by the addictive escalation of increasingly violent porn, seeking meet ups with my children. There are more frustrated parents watching their children's potential and well-being deteriorate. And the kids simply are not mature enough to handle the toxic tools. And this is before AI toxic tools. And this is before AI even gets to work on their brains. With those that screw with their heads it will get worse and worse and worse.

And if the tech companies are showing absolutely no restraint on this, recent leaks from Meta about the sexualised child AI bots show that they are absolutely not holding back. And that is why we have to add. This intolerable situation persists because the industry has deliberately played the deny connect consult, delay, repeat,, formulae. In Government have failed to stand in. Child welfare holds hostage to corporate profits, it undermined Britain's economic resilience. And it corrupts the democratic accountability of My noble friend, Lord Nash, is right about the spell, just to protect children, and yet it has a massive gaping hole by failing to address the number one challenge to our children's well-being.

This amendment is an unmissable opportunity to close this gap. I am a red-blooded capitalist and a Tory, so I distinctively oppose intrusive red tapes, but, when the harm is this great and the resistance by industry, do good practice, is so entrenched, and the resources available to technologists are so huge, I really don't think we have a choice. And that is why I am a strong supporter of 177. My Lords, I would remind this House, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Russell and Lord Knight, other countries are acting.

Australia has banned social media, China limits children to one hour a day, EU mandates children rights impact assessments, France is making efforts to ban social media. British children deserve better than to be guinea pigs in Silicon Valley's profit experiment. Let me be clear, my Lords, I'm a big supporter of big tech and its transformational potential. As a health advocate, I have seen the future of healthcare depend on AI, big data and genomics, I commend the work in these fields, but these same companies do have a blind spot, and we do need to recognise that.

The algorithms that detect cancer cells are being used to exploit children's neurological vulnerabilities. And that is a profound ethical failure. They seem unable to cope with. Amendment 177 does not seek to hobble innovation, it ensures that innovation serves humanity, and doesn't exploit the most vulnerable. The tech industry's greatest achievements lie ahead, but they cannot be realised when their entire business model depends on harming children. This under 16s social media ban amendment provides a framework to preserve innovation whilst addressing this key critical blind spot.

My Lords, to me it seems like an inevitability that our government will, one day, introduce such a restriction and outwardly good money that is before the end of this Parliament. I urge the noble Baroness, the Minister, to get on the right side of history, to put something on the table that can take this idea forward and to put Britain's children first, while maintaining our position as a global

**** Possible New Speaker ****

technology leader. I will make a small intervention

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will make a small intervention at this point. There seems to be two things here, one is social media and one is the smartphone, the two are one is the smartphone, the two are accessed via each other. However, remember what a smartphone is, a platform for using technology. The platform for using technology. The reason I raise this is because, as it is in my declaration of interest, I am somebody who believes in and uses assistive technology. One of uses assistive technology.

One of the easiest ways to get through it, and increasingly, your smartphone. As a dyslexic, I accessed literature, often with the literature, often with the complicated local accents in it, via complicated local accents in it, via technology. Initially with a tape of a book, usually. You can actually use it that way. So, there is a potential here. I think it was Baroness Morris who said the caveats
16:49
16:52
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Nash and the noble Lady, Baroness Penn, in the amendments they have proposed. I also want to say how much I agree with the say how much I agree with the comments that have been made by others, such as the noble Lady, Baroness Morris of Yardley, who makes important points, especially around the risk of overloading around the risk of overloading schools. My noble friend, Baroness Shephard, made some very important Shephard, made some very important points about safeguarding. And when, as chief, I reported on sexual harassment and abuse in schools, it was notable how much of that we was notable how much of that we found to be linked to smartphone use.

I would like to clear up a bit use. I would like to clear up a bit of confusion here. Because I think we are not properly distinguishing we are not properly distinguishing between personal devices and school controlled devices. And the noble controlled devices. And the noble Lord Addington, I think, was heading Lord Addington, I think, was heading in this direction a moment ago, in in this direction a moment ago, in his remarks, but every school has many school controlled devices. Computers, sometimes tablets.

And it Computers, sometimes tablets. And it is much easier to maintain the framework of safeguards around devices that are school owned and controlled, then it is around personal devices. These devices are absolutely suitable, both for providing teachers around media literacy, and many other aspects where schools may be teaching about, or teaching children how to use technology. They can also very effectively provide technology. I think the dividing line here is think the dividing line here is between devices schools are able to control fairly fully, and devices that essentially remain children's property and in the children's control, and where there will never be the level of supervision needed to make it safe.

Or not in the foreseeable future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, I am interested in what she said, that learning devices, she said, that learning devices, laptops, tablets, that schools have would be sufficient for teaching media literacy. Does she suggest, media literacy. Does she suggest, therefore, that they should then install social media apps on those install social media apps on those devices, create profiles, teachers have to create personas, that would start to mimic children so the start to mimic children so the algorithms would then think of them as children.

And start to feed them the sort of stuff the noble Baroness the sort of stuff the noble Baroness Russell was talking about. Is that Russell was talking about. Is that really what she is saying? Would it not be easier, for the purposes of media literacy, for the personal devices that children themselves are devices that children themselves are looking at, with the personalised feeds those children are seen, to be used in order to educate them?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

used in order to educate them? In response, I would explain it is perfectly possible for children to log in on different devices, so to log in on different devices, so they can log into a social media they can log into a social media account and the school will use broader control facilities to ensure all information is wiped, or personal details are wiped, at the end of the session. But that contains the range of what children are doing at any given session. But are doing at any given session.

But to give another analogy, we don't teach children the harms of drugs with drugs or the paraphernalia for using them on their desks. I'm afraid, the history of teaching children about risks and a sensible and safe behaviour do not have that much to show they can be successful. One of the saddest reports that republishing my time at OFSTED was actually on child obesity. Which sadly showed the schools that were doing the most to promote and encourage healthy eating did not have measurably different obesity rates from the schools that were doing the least.

So, I think there is reason to fear that simply an educational approach has also been advocated here, and might not be all that effective. Finally, I'd like to explain, while agreeing with so much of what Baroness Morris said, Ofcom to the opposite conclusion. I think it's -- I have come to the opposite conclusion. While I think it is important we enforce the authority of Head Teachers in this space, with this legislation, they would not be having to argue the toss with parents to sustain a school policy parents to sustain a school policy Always been some that parents do not like.

What we have heard so eloquently in this chamber today shows mobile phone use for the young is likely to be at least as harmful to them as smoking and we have no difficulty with having a ban on smoking in schools. I do believe a ban will help reduce arguments and give time back to schools, to heads, and teachers, as well as helping children. So, I do hope this amendment will be included in the final bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 158
16:56
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 158 in the name of Baroness Barran, and Lady Kidron, to which I have added Lady Kidron, to which I have added my name. I have spoken on this issue several times, I am not going to repeat the speeches here. I am a teacher and I have taught for 10 years, but never in a school that allows students outside the sixth form to carry phones to or into school. My noble friend, Baroness Cass, says about mobile phones, the stakeholder view and a desire for action in this area is overwhelming.

Whereas I am not going to talk about the separate issue of whether smartphones themselves are harmful, but rather, whether they should be in school at all, for the under 16s. My Lords, students who do not carry phones do not get note for phones. -- Do not get mugged for phones. In schools that do not allow phones, students talk to each of that break and lunchtime, or play games, or go to clubs, rather than staring at their phones. I'm going to be rather brave here, I am going to disagree, for the first time, with Lord Flight of Weymouth, and Lady Morris of Yardley, in the same time.

I don't think an exceptional for educational purposes would be workable. I actually think you cannot teach students how to use phones, they know far better than we do. What you can teach them as the dangers. Again, I'm going to do a first here, I'm going to say it might be rather better on a PowerPoint slide than actually doing it practically. And I really worry about 30 students in a room with their mobile phones. Carnage could happen from there. But this is the back of a fag packet stuff.

Actually, carers do not need phones, what they need is time and away to be children. Quite often, the people they are caring for Quenby very demanding and sometimes Quenby very demanding and sometimes too demanding. Schools are very good at getting messages to students, in emergencies, if it is not an emergency, then maybe the child doesn't need to know right now. Parents don't need to know where children are at any given moment, if there are emergencies with transport, they can go to a responsible adult and ask a message to be sent through or borrow them.

My Lords, we managed over 100 years of education without phones, why stop now. It was said it is up to the heads to make the decisions, when at the time, this bill, decisions about uniform, pay, admissions and curriculum, are being taken away from school leaders. I think actually a lot of school leaders would be secretly delighted to have the government take away this decision for them and take the lead on it. Rather than just to police the phone ban without them getting the blame.

My Lords, children need time to be children. To learn, to play, to interact, to build and rebuild friendships face- to-face. And apart from Lord Addington's view, which I can see, that schools can provide the technology themselves. None of these are improved with a mobile phone. are improved with a mobile phone.
17:00
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support amendments 177, 183, CA and CB, and 158. As my noble friends, Lord Nash, Lord Bethell, Baroness Penn, and many others so eloquently laid out, the devastating eloquently laid out, the devastating impact of social media on children is not speculative any more, it is irrefutable fact. Social media, as many have said, is addictive, it impedes brain development, and exposes children to predators and harmful content. Including body imaging. It is fuelling a crisis in adolescent mental health.

Last year, over 800,000 children under 18 This is a national crisis. Amendment 177 does not seek to damage mobile phone providers, it seeks to protect our children by preventing under 16's to access social media. Similarly, we must ban mobile phones in schools, the guidelines are not enough currently. Teachers, as we have heard, cannot enforce them consistently. Legislation is needed to create a clear and enforceable role that supports teachers and puts children first.

The benefit of phone free schools are well documented, many have spoken about it, Head Teachers report that when phones are removed corridors grew louder with laughter, not silence. Lunchtimes becomes social, not solitary. Children talk, play, and re-engage with each other. A phone free policy does not just improve behaviour, it helps restore childhood. France, Spain, Italy and Greece have already acted. Sweden is banning social media on 1 July and access to phones at school. Spain has banned phones as well and you have seen it for years gain in maths performance.

France has banned phones at school and seen and improvement in academic results and reduced bullying. These amendments are about the safety, well-being, and healthy development of our children. And I do not agree with your ninth Amendment because I do not think that children need to be taught at school on mobile phones about the dangers. It can be taught differently. And also I feel that children do not need to learn to use phones when they are young.

They can learn later. And it is not a question of swimming or learning to swim when you are young. This is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

technology. Of course children should be taught how to use phones.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taught how to use phones. Children, they can use phones that do not connect to the internet, that do not connect to the internet, i.e. Phones that do not access social media, like the old phones if social media, like the old phones if you needed to phone your parents in an emergency, but to have mobile phones like we are talking about now phones like we are talking about now I think children under the age of 16 I think children under the age of 16 because their development is, sorry, their brains are not developed enough to understand the harms and enough to understand the harms and the dangers, because, as we have said, it is all very addictive, big said, it is all very addictive, big tech companies know how to bring children to look at certain slides, children to look at certain slides, so I think that in order for us to protect them, in our generation we protect them, in our generation we did not have phones and we did not have that exposure to predators, we have that exposure to predators, we did not have so much mental health amongst the youth, so I would just amongst the youth, so I would just say that what looks logical, sorry.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

say that what looks logical, sorry. How on earth does she think that parents will be able to stand up against their children? So they will not have the phones and what we are discussing here is phones in school. The idea that we should prevent children under 16 from having

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unrealistic. I did not mean under 16 in general, I met under 16 under the general, I met under 16 under the amendments at school. However, with parents, I agree with some noble Lords that parents also need to be Lords that parents also need to be educated when you see parents pushing a pushchair and children looking at a videogame and things, it is probably not very helpful, but this is part of the education and where we all need to get together to educate parents.

So, I just wanted educate parents. So, I just wanted to stand up and say that I support those amendments and I think that to help our children's well-being in the future, this is something that
17:06
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington Portrait Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Conservative)
-
-
the future, this is something that we should look at.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I to rise to support amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I to rise to support amendments for 58, 177, and I am delighted to support the amendment spiked my honourable friend Baroness Penn 183C honourable friend Baroness Penn 183C CB which recognises children in CB which recognises children in their earliest years. Everyday the mounting evidence underscores a distressing reality, the issue of excessive springtime and social excessive springtime and social media usage is not of future concern but a pressing process that is contributing to a growing mental contributing to a growing mental health crisis amongst our children.

Health professionals, educators, parents and concerned community parents and concerned community members all echo similar warnings that children's wellbeing is at that children's wellbeing is at stake and we cannot afford to delay that. The detrimental effects of this exposure are children dealing with severe challenges including destructiveness, deteriorating eyesight, speech and language development, stunted emotional and social growth, poor eating habits, as discussed in the amendments on food on Thursday, distorted body food on Thursday, distorted body image, confusing ideologies as fact, image, confusing ideologies as fact, diminished education and impaired cognitive performance.

Recent research highlights the alarming prevalence of addictive behaviours associated with technology use amongst early adolescence and only last week a study revealed that half of these young individuals exhibited a high trajectory of videogame addiction and one in three struggled addiction and one in three struggled with compulsion social media use and one in four face issues with mobile phones and the implications are dire. Both high and escalating screen addiction correlates with increased suicidal behaviours, ideation, and, overall, mental health decline.

Furthermore, research indicates that one for children and young people are using smartphones in a manner consistent with behavioural addiction. Smart devices giving access to harmful online content create a whole body impact on the child, including both physical and psychological harm, eyesight, must skeletal issues, speech and language issues, issues with sleep. Health professionals are now seeing those issues in their clinics daily and the continued generational harm. The evolution of smart devices is part of the problem. Product has developed so quickly and in such a way that if it were introduced to the market now it would be doubtful it would pass regulation as a safe product for children, and yet, 2:45 to four- year-olds in the UK now own a smartphone.

While half of children under 13 R on social media. Shockingly, campaigners are in a position to prove irrefutable causation of harm whereas manufacturers proving their products are safe by design. Each development stage of childhood has unique abilities that are negatively impacted by the use of small screen devices and social media, children's brains demonstrate tremendous neural plasticity and rapid growth which is shaped by the interactions around them and the quality is essential for children to reach developmental milestones and unfortunately many harms to their develop movement brings smart devices and social media supplying real-world human interaction.

We often hear that social media smartphones and screens are an apparent issue today. However, the lack of coherent public health advice to help parents with screens and smartphones is a glaring gap. I have spoken on nutrition and car seat and there is no clear guidance for screen time, content, or device use and parents are left without the necessary tools to protect children. The UK is a player in this lack of screen time guidance for parents and front since being clear on the harms of screens for young children and advise against screens before the age of five.

The US follows the WHO guidance with no screens before the age of two, however, the UK currently remains silent. It is time we change that. Amendment 183 CB starts to address this startling omission from birth to three years of age, human brain development is extraordinarily sensitive. During this period, babies and toddlers require responsive, face-to-face social interactions, as well as the freedom to move and engage all of their senses and thrive. Although digital devices are essential to adult lives, the extensive research has reinforced earlier that frequent and prolonged screen exposure to children aged zero to three can disrupt their cognitive, physical and social and emotional development.

A study from New Zealand found that two-year-olds that had 90 minutes of daily screen time were associated with below- average language and educational skills as well as above average levels of difficulty in PR relationships. By the time they were foreign to half years old, screen time, screen use was identified as an independent predictor of development outcomes in this study, even when accounting for various individual child and family factors. This suggests the effects of screen usage are widespread. These development delays have significant consequences for school readiness and research indicates that children who spend more time on screens are less prepared for school, particularly in terms of language and cognitive development.

This can hinder their ability to access the curriculum and achieve educational success. According to a survey from 2025, 54% of teachers reported that children exceeding the recommended screen time were less ready for school. Parents and caregivers need to review the information that would help them to understand the very real harm of screen usage. It is unlikely that anyone would think it is acceptable for a child to bring a TV to school or chat with a friend throughout their classes, and yet we are still debating with a smartphones have a place in schools.

Smartphones are highly distracting, many children report struggling to put them down. And, consequently, they find it nearly impossible to resist the temptation of having smartphones in their school bags or on their person throughout the school day. Restricting these devices meaningfully can significantly benefit children and ultimately their educational attainment. Research from Unesco indicated takes young people 20 minutes to refocus on learning after being distracted by their phone. Digital distractions in the classroom negatively affect the educational performance of many students and a comprehensive study involving nearly 150,000 students across 16 countries has shown increased use of smart devices considerably undermines learning and academic achievement.

The mere presence of a smart device drains limited cognitive resources and leaving them less available for critical tasks and performance. The experiment results reveal that individual scored lower on tests when they have their phone compared to when they are left elsewhere. Placing restrictions on smartphone usage, including throughout the school day, report significance improvements in student well-being and concentration foster policy exchange and disconnect from 2024 front that schools with effective smartphone bands see GCSE results of one or two grades higher than those without the policies.

School leaders who have implemented such measures report remarkable outcomes, for instance they have expressed a 25% decrease and a 40% reduction in attendance and 80% drop in instance of online bullying. These are outcomes we should strive to see. Teachers have noted alarming behavioural issues largely influenced by smartphone use, including refusals to hand over devices when requested, of unauthorised and inappropriate usage in classes, misogynistic heavier and online bullying. Problems that arise online often spread over into the classroom, impacting students well- being and their success.

In 2022 exam boards reported to 50% increase in students participating with their devices before the examinations in 2019. Additionally, 76% of teachers admit mobile phones they would prefer a complete ban over mobile phone use during the school day and parent financials that 83% of parents believe smartphones are harmful to children, they have been campaigning since 2022 for a regulatory framework to support the introduction of safe and restricted smartphones for children along with a statutory ban on smartphones in schools.

Children must be protected by allowing them at least six hours during the school day when they can truly concentrate on their learning that the destruction of a smart We must champion a collective response to this crisis, and work together from protecting our children from the early years, into the classroom and the online world.
17:16
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I support what my noble friend, Lady Jenkin's, just said. It does seem to be an excellent prescription for the right way forward. We approach these technologies with such innocent optimism when they arrived. I absolutely remember what it was like, at the beginning of smartphones, and what we were worried about was how could we get them to everybody, how can people afford them. I run our earlier example, with my noble friend, Lady Shephard, when I was briefly her whip in the Lords and she was in charge of education, and we were looking at this wonderful new system that would enable us to replace all mass masters with machines, I am delighted it hasn't happened, and even looking at Alpha School in Texas, which is the latest round of optimism that AI can do everything, they are not looking at replacing mass masters either, merely having AI to help them.

So, we have got to be really careful about optimism when it comes to new things but we have reached the point with smartphones, where we know they are damaging. From all research that has been done, from personal experience, been done, from personal experience, which very much echoes, in my case, what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, described. Children whose lives at school, which should be full and social, the spaces between classes are dominated by phones. Although social interactions are mediated through phones, even when they are talking to each other, they are talking about what is on social media.

And the effect on boys, in terms of their relationship and ability to relate to girls is not good. We have really reached the point where we ought to start something. Because we cannot allow this level of harm to continue. What I suggest to the government is they do something along the lines of the West Dunbartonshire experiment, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Flight, remembers this setup in West Dunbartonshire, where they were testing various approaches to teaching children reading. And it collapsed after 1.5 years, it was supposed to be a five year experiment.

Because part of the design of the study was that schools running various methods, were running various methods, were talking to each other. And after 1.5 years, those schools that had not been signed for next, said I'm not putting my child through this, the phonics works, we are going to do that. So, it produced a real seachange in the way schools approached teaching children reading, because teachers can absolutely see what the difference was. And as my noble friend, Lady Jenkin's, described we know we would expect such differences, so let's set something up and see how this works.

See what the differences are between schools that have various models, the current model, the intermediate model, the total ban that I would favour and see what happens. Let them talk to each other about how they are experiencing this process. In trial run it as a total blinded trial, with only the academics pronouncing FTN, the tibial interactive thing between schools involved. I think we very quickly find out what was working, and get a good ground swell for the right solution.

Which might well be Lord Flight, I don't know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it not what is happening at the moment, in that we have a vast number of schools effectively number of schools effectively banning, as many people would like to see, then we have some of that intermediate approach, and a few intermediate approach, and a few outliers who are not. It's not the noble Lord making a good argument for not proceeding with this right for not proceeding with this right now, but for going ahead with the proper study as to the impact of those various regimes, then acting,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those various regimes, then acting, once we know what we're talking about. There is no organised study with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is no organised study with an organised direction taking part, an organised direction taking part, the recent direction between schools, yes we could do it that way, I'm looking at a government I suspect has not been persuaded as suspect has not been persuaded as the need to act now. But I think the need to act now. But I think doing a study now, getting something set up, so we can definitively get the best answer, because we have the best answer, because we have got, while academies are allowed to got, while academies are allowed to be different to other schools, we have got a wide range of policies being effectively enforced, let's take advantage of that.

Really take advantage of that. Really understand what's going on. However schools to share this information as the processes going on. I think we would find ourselves with an answer quite quickly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, if I may interject, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, if I may interject, my theory that that is happening, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight suggests, the private schools, the grammar schools, the schools in wealthy areas, that are doubling wealthy areas, that are doubling down on a success by pursuing smartphone bands in their schools. smartphone bands in their schools. And it is the schools in areas of deprivation where family ties and community ties are the weakest, that community ties are the weakest, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are being left behind. My Lords, I had a plan to speak to this group of amendments, having tabled an amendment in the following tabled an amendment in the following group. But I have an interest in the
17:21
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
group. But I have an interest in the founding of parent, and in the early years, in particular, which I hope to speak to later, I want to add some comments, given the contributions, esteem contributions, during this debate today. I rise to speak in support of all amendments in the group, would be the quickest way to describe it, with the exception of the amendment of Lord Knight, for the reasons which have Knight, for the reasons which have already been outlined.

But my noble friend, Lord Bethell, touches on a really important point in his intervention, just now. That is that we have here a real issue around the different types of parenting and families who are aware of the dangers to their children. Those deploying smartphones as substitute for childcare. And I fear that all the evidence, and very eloquently put by my noble friend, Lady Jenkin, and my noble friend, Lord Nash, who cited, at length, the reports and data around all of this, shows it is the families who do not have the resource, perhaps, or the means to engage in a daily battle, and I declare other interests, which is that I am daily on that front line with my 14-year-old daughter and I had hoped she might be here this afternoon but she has conveniently not made it.

But it is really a daily battle. And what they will tell their godparents when you are not around to hear it is they actually agree you are right and they wish they didn't have the phone, and they wish that they didn't exist, and they weren't part of their life and they want them because their peers have them. And Baroness Casey's report, published last week, very notable commentary by her about the safety of some of those girls who were groomed by gangs where she describes, it is in the early section of the report, for those who don't, as I have done, read the entire thing, but she talks of real concern about the fact that the online activity means we no longer know what is going on for these children.

We don't know, we literally don't know, who is in their bedroom at night. Who are they engaging with? Who can forget the case of Molly Russell, the terrible case of the Instagram post. There is one place we can surely assume our child should be safe and that is at school. It is not an unreasonable request that we look at this seriously, as a society, to care for the health and safety of our children. And I'm very aware of the comment by my noble Lady, Baroness Morris, and I say it is the opposite to asking schools to police the use of phones that I completely empathise with the concern about asking schools to do more.

This is removing from then the need to police phones, because it gets them off the premises, or at least locked up within the premises, so that bullying can't happen online, things can't, grooming can't be going on, boys recruited into county lines cannot be harassed or intimidated while they are meant to be at school learning, and you have heard plenty from others on various points. And I will end on one other note, let's look at what the people who invented these things are doing.

We all agree, no one has disagreed with the fact they are addictive, we all feel it every day. What other people who invented them to be addictive, who used neuroscience to do that, what used neuroscience to do that, what do they do with their children? Screen free schools, completely screen free incidentally, no tablets, no laptops, screen free completely, screen free homes. And what is China doing? It is hoovering up the data of our children, to understand everything about our society and drive their behaviours in the most destructive way possible.

If you ask AI, if I were China, what would I do to destroy the West, it is exactly what they are doing, destroy and undermine the mental health of a whole generations of people. What did China do a children? They give them one hour a day what they drive for them to watch our science and maths videos. -- Are science and maths videos. I -- Are science and maths videos. I support these amendments.
17:26
17:28
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have heard some very powerful speeches this afternoon. Particular from Lord Bethell who talked about the world health crisis. And I was also taken by my noble friend, Lord Addington, who talked about the importance of technology for special needs. I am going to be brave and agree with Lord Hampton that I want to see children talk to each other. And I want to see children play in schools. I remember being absolutely... I cannot find the adjective to describe it, when we were talking about the online safety bill and we were remembering the young girl, Molly Russell, who took her own life by being groomed online.

And her brave father sat below bar for the whole of that debate. And I thought, what a brave parent, to sit through that and listen to what had happened. I was also interested, and I don't know if anybody saw, I don't tend to watch it these days, but Question Time, last week. The question on smartphones came up, it was asked. And again, there was a young man, 18-19, who had ADHD, and he pleaded with the panel, cabana smartphones.

He said I am addicted to them, I cannot stop myself using a smartphone, please ban it. I thought, what a brave thing to say on television in front of everybody. But whatever we do, we have to make sure it works, it is no good at passing laws, which do not actually work. And I would remind noble Lords, it is not allowed for children to use social media who are under the age of 13. That does not happen, it does not happen.

I had children at my school who are seven children at my school who are seven and eight to -- Who access social media, so whatever we agree, it has to work and my feeling this whole debate is that it will not work and we will find ways around it. So, I suppose I played with... No, I do not plead with government, I plead with everybody to have a realistic streaking what we do. -- streak in what we do. If you talk to parents, the vast majority are desperate for us to ban phones in schools.

I think it is something, and they know that by year seven, nearly 90% of children have smartphones, and parents whose children haven't got them are severely pressurised into them are severely pressurised into And then when you look at not just being groomed on social media but also some of the games that are played on social media they become addictive and are designed to be addictive, some of the loot boxes, and some of the chat elements that parents find it impossible to check on who their child is talking to our extremely worrying and extremely dangerous.

So, all the evidence you would think points to the fact as we have heard from Baroness Cash I think it was that all the evidence that has been carried out points to the fact that we should ban them, but I have to tell you that is not the case. All the evidence does not, necessarily, say that. So, if I can find it in all of my research and carry out which showed that a Swedish study found that with no Swedish study found that with no input from the bands and data shows that those that ban mobile phones have no effect at all and recently in the UK H are funded study found no difference in mental health sleep or exercise between students and school with and without bands.

We just have to be careful when we weigh up the pros and cons of this particular matter. Smartphones used among children is nearly universal and uprising, the evidence that has been suggested shows that they can distract students and negatively impact learning. And addresses the deep systematic harms of excessive screen time. And the limited context -dependent impact and a more realistic strategy combining structure, use, litter that might literacy and text might be more effective. 60% more students are distracted by their peers devices which can produce learning by the equivalent by up to three quarters of a year and over 45% of children you see their report social media negatively impacts their concentration, widespread use of phones in schools, contributes to bullying and one in five children experience online bullying.

So, the evidence is mixed and I would suggest to my noble Lordships that when we leave this Committee stage you really look carefully at what we want to do. We have whatever we want to do that it has to work and there is part of this that maybe we need to gather the evidence and be sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is the right path. My Lords, we have had the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have had the privilege this afternoon, I think, privilege this afternoon, I think, listening to some very, very powerful and well-informed speeches. I would like to thank all noble
17:35
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I rise now to speak to debate. I rise now to speak to amendment 458 in my name and those of the noble Lords Hampton and Baroness Kidron. And to amendment 177 which I was very pleased to cosign with my Noble Friend Lord Nash. I note the widespread support and evidence by the popularity of my Noble Friend amendments 183C a and CB which prevented me from adding my name to those as well which is a testament to the cross-party recognition of this important issue.

Noble Lords across the House have witnessed first hand the dedication of teachers, parents, and school leaders who work tirelessly to create environments where our children can thrive. Today, I speak to an issue that threatens to undermine their best efforts. Amendment 458 would require schools to implement comprehensive smartphone bands during the school day, carefully consider practical flexibilities for children who need smartphones to access their medical device, for example for diabetes. For boarding or residential schools and for six forms.

This is not about a blanket prohibition without thought. It is about creating the conditions that are necessary for children to succeed academically, socially, and emotionally. I note amendment 458A in the name of the Noble Lord night of Weymouth and I would be delighted to talk to him after this debate in a bit more detail, but I also note the remarks made by Mike Noble Friend Baroness Spielman about the benefits of using a school owned devices in these cases and I actually did not hear any examples that could not be done on a desktop or tablet.

My Lords, I really think there is a genuine urgency to address the profound impacts of smartphones on the health and well-being of our children first I am afraid I do not agree with the Noble Lord story that the evidence is mixed. I think one needs to look very carefully and I think my Noble Friend Baroness Jenkin is for this advice on the article suggesting that the evidence was mixed, she pointed out who had funded the researchers that were writing the articles, so we have to be scrupulous and careful, both about the scale of the sample size in some of these studies, and who is funding them, and as the Noble Lord Hampton said on behalf of Baroness Cass, it is crucial to take both the personal and professional experience into account when designing policy.

The desire for change including perhaps, most importantly, as we have heard this afternoon, the desire for change from children themselves is very clear. We have two reset the social norms about around smartphone use with young people before we lose another generation to screens. And the Government has argued that existing guidance on phone use in schools is a sufficient point in fact that every school has a policy, but speaking as someone that was part of the previous Government created, many drafts of that guidance, as the noble Baroness can imagine, perhaps we are uniquely positioned to acknowledge that while it may have been the right place to start, it is insufficient that good intentions without enforcement mechanisms do not protect our children from the sophisticated algorithms designed to capture their attention.

As the Noble Lord Russell said, we need to move with speed and with clarity. Some have questioned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why we favour. A point that has been raised by a number of members, I am genuinely number of members, I am genuinely unclear whether the thinking is, I unclear whether the thinking is, I know the thinking is not that there is no harm coming to children using is no harm coming to children using smartphones outside of school, you do not know who they are talking to, so I think that is. But I not clear from those who are supporting this from those who are supporting this amendment without what they are seeing is at least they will have those hours a day when they are subject to smartphones or social media.

And whether that is sufficient, or whether there are further cones in the members minds further cones in the members minds as to how to come up with the rest of the week. My own view is that is where most of the damage happens. where most of the damage happens. Outside of school, not inside of school.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

school. I think the Noble Lady is right, that the smartphone amendment on its own is not right, as the noble Baroness the Minister said a couple Baroness the Minister said a couple of times in earlier days in committee, I will be coming to that later. So, I will try and address later. So, I will try and address the noble Ladies points if I have not by the end of my speech, please would she intervene again. So, some would she intervene again. So, some have questioned why we favour freedom and discretion for school leavers in areas such as curriculum and staffing, yet seek to mandate action on smartphones.

And the answer lies in a couple of areas. The first is about accountability, when school leaders make decisions about each and pay, qualifications or the curriculum, they're held accountable through OFSTED inspections, through public examination results, and parental choice. The consequences of their decisions are measurable and visible, but smart phone policies operate on an entirely different landscape. Here, schools face external actors, powerful social media companies with business models predicated on capturing and monetising our children's attention. There are companies that employ the use of neuroscientists and behavioural psychologists to create algorithms specifically designed to keep our children clicking and consuming content that ranges from the merely distracting to the genuinely harmful, and we can all think of cases that are tragically fatal.

Surrounding smart phone usage around children create a sobering picture and 1/4 of the U.K.'s three and four-year-olds now own a smartphone and toddlers whose cognitive development is being shaped by screens before they can properly read. This figure rises to four in five children by the end of primary school. We are witnessing the digitisation of childhood itself. The emerging evidence linking smartphones and social media to the explosion in mental health problems among young people cannot be ignored. Research demonstrates the average 12-year-old spends 21 hours a week on their smartphone.

The equivalent to a part-time job. One in four young people use their devices in ways that are consistent with behavioural addiction. And beyond real-time wasting, smartphones fundamentally disrupt sleep patterns and concentration, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. And applications are deliberately designed for addiction, to a sophisticated dopamine trigger, as my Noble Friend Lord Bethell said. This pattern is appearing consistently across destinations with research showing that earlier smartphone acquisition correlates strongly to poorer adult mental health outcomes, particularly affecting girls.

The academic evidence is equally compelling. The OCD data reveals that two thirds of 15-year-olds as the Noble Lord story said report phone distractions during their mathematics lesson, distracted students performing three quarters of the year behind their peers. Even brief nonacademic phone use would require 20 minutes for students to refocus on learning. We are not talking about minor inconveniences. We are witnessing a systematic undermining of educational achievement. Experimental research has moved beyond Coronation to establish causation.

So those where students are randomly assigned differences, perhaps I will send one of these termite Noble Friend Lord Lucas. Proof that simply having a smart phone in one's bag, in one's jacket phone in one's bag, in one's jacket or desk, reduces attention capacity and cognitive performance. Students with device access during lessons achieve measurably poorer results because the very presence of these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not disagree with what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not disagree with what the noble Baroness has said about these weapons of mass destruction and that is not, I am not saying that young is not, I am not saying that young people should be able to carry them around. I was advocating the use of vouchers as one of the things that vouchers as one of the things that could be used. What I would ask could be used. What I would ask about is it not possible that there are some circumstances where a teacher, for legitimate educational purposes, once those to be unlocked purposes, once those to be unlocked and phones to be used? And, if that were to happen, is it right that it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be? Sadly, I probably will never be, although I do have children. Think although I do have children. Think that really my answer to the Noble that really my answer to the Noble Lord and that was behind I often would sit down and talk to him, when I have talked to teachers prior to this debate about that noble Lords amendment, they have reacted a little bit like that Noble Lord Hampden, or they have suggested that Hampden, or they have suggested that much of this could be done on existing school devices.

If there existing school devices. If there are gaps in that, of course I am are gaps in that, of course I am very happy to listen to the noble Lords expertise. If I may, I will try to press on, otherwise I will be beguiled by the Frontbench for going over time. Conversely, comprehensive phone brands have demonstrated remarkable success, Norway's implementations are too improved academic performance, reduced bullying and better mental health outcomes, particularly for girls. These are not theoretical gains, they are real improvements in children's lives.

And, indeed, teachers that have implemented the ban are evangelical about the benefits, both for children and for I really echo the point made by my noble friend, Lord Bethell, thinking about which schools are implementing complete bands. And I would add to what my noble friend said, that we will be helping most of those schools struggling with behaviour and discipline, if we were to implement a ban, for the school to feel that we have their back, in terms of arguing with parents and making the case.

And with children. We need to take the pressure off schools by making this entirely clear. Many parents recognise these issues but face what economists would call a collective action problem. No parent once their child to be the only one without access to digital social networks. Parent groups like smartphone free childhood, save screens, delay smartphones, the mums net rage against the screen campaign, all advocating for precisely the kind of coordinated action that we propose today. The children's commission has warned will look back or that what we allowed.

Everything from Mental Health Act to school readiness. As we heard earlier, health professionals for safer screens has also impacted the physical health impacts such as myopia in young children, and speech and language delay. Current school phone policies remain insufficient. About 90% of schools have a policy in place. It is clear from research from both Policy Exchange and parent kind, that only between 11-14% of them maintain full day bands which is what shows is fully effective.

And the technology safe features and parental controls only offer partial solutions to a systemic problem. The impact disproportionately affect disadvantaged children for whom schools may represent the only environment free from digital distraction. My Lords, we stand at a crossroads. We can continue with ineffective guidance, while another cohort of children struggles with addiction, design and technology. we can act decisively for their well- being, education and futures. However, my lord, smart phone bands in school, while essential, represent only one element of the comprehensive approach our children desperately need.

That is why I also put my name to my noble friend, Lord Nash's amendment, 177, and I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Penn. Amendment 177 would require the Secretary of State to take decisive action in relation to social media, by commissioning advice from our Chief Medical Officers. We already protect children in school, altogether, from alcohol, tobacco and gambling, precisely because we understand the developing minds require different protections than adult brains. By requiring expert medical advice to inform policy, we ensure regulations are grounded in scientific evidence, rather than industry lobbying.

Amendment 183CB, would establish a vital public information campaign, concerning screen time for children aged zero to five and amendment 183 CA recognises, as my noble friend said, the parents bombarded by marketing, claiming educational benefits for digital apps and lack any clear guidance on what constitutes screen exposure for children. Mallows, these amendments work together. The early years campaign and guidance create the foundation for healthy childhoods. The social media age verification prevents the most harmful platforms from exploiting vulnerable adolescents.

The school smartphone ban provides the daily structure necessary for academic success and social development. Together, they would shift the social norms around the healthy use of technology by children and by society more broadly. We are our children nothing less then to act and to act now. My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been a wide- ranging debate. Probably worthwhile, as we begin to identify that as we begin to identify that amendments fall in three distinct, amendments fall in three distinct, related, but distinct areas. The use of and regulation around social media, the impacts of screen time, media, the impacts of screen time, and the proposals around the use of and the proposals around the use of mobile phones in schools. I will respond to the specifics of the respond to the specifics of the amendments, there have been times during the course of the debate when, whilst recognising the linkages between them, there has been a conflation of those three issues which will not necessarily issues which will not necessarily help us to develop clear policy.

Also say, in starting, I wholeheartedly agree with noble wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords. Parenting is hard. It was before mobile phones. But I think the point made by the noble Lady the point made by the noble Lady Baroness Penn, about the ubiquity of screeds, means it becomes even more screeds, means it becomes even more significant. Even more significant when we are talking about issues that actually have been long- that actually have been long- standing issues around cognitive behaviour, bullying, lack of exercise, mental health issues, extremism, radicalisation and crime.

I do except some of the arguments being made about that, but just to say, in response to my noble friend, say, in response to my noble friend, Baroness Morris, they welcome if I remember rightly, all issues we were exercised about when we were in the Department for Education previously, before the era of mobile phones. That is not to say that this is not a serious issue, but it is to say that there is one easy solution to these problems.

And I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend, Lord Knight, and the noble Lady, Baroness Morris, that it would really be the case that straightforward banks, would be the solution here. But what I want to emphasise a response of these amendments is actually what we need is a multifaceted policy response. And that's what the government is pursuing. The government will continue to do what is needed to keep children safe online and when using screen devices.

We did recently publish our response to the education Select Committee report on screen time. A response which sets out further the government's positions on these issues. It is not true that the government is not doing anything, in the whole range of these areas. And that goes for of these areas. And that goes for the previous government as well. And also, the men in the name of Lord
17:55
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Nash, about regulations for social media access for under 16-year-olds media access for under 16-year-olds and advice for parents. I'm surprised we had one mention of the Online Safety Act, it is a step in delivering a more positive, safe delivering a more positive, safe online environment for children. Where they are protected from online Where they are protected from online harms. As of March this year, the content duties are in force, meaning children are protected from legal content and criminal activity.

Additionally, as of April, Ofcom published its draft child safety codes, which had been laid in Parliament, subject for passing parliamentary scrutiny. And are expected to be in force next month. Services will shortly be required to Services will shortly be required to put in place measures to mitigate risks that they have identified to protect children from harm, once the codes are in force. This is not to codes are in force. This is not to say that, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who was the one person Lord Knight, who was the one person who did mention it, this is not to say that there won't come in the say that there won't come in the future, be need for us to scrutinise this carefully and take further action, but I do think it's right to focus on what this House and the focus on what this House and the other has considered on the Online Safety Act.

As the first step. There has also been important debate about where the evidence leads us. There is certainly an enormous amount of evidence in this area, but overall, the scientific evidence of social media and screen time is mixed, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, says, there is no clear scientific consensus of a negative impact of screen time on social media use on the mental health, neurological or functional development of children and young people. There is a large amount of discussion in this area, where correlation is confused with causality but that brings upon the government of responsibility to build the evidence-based and that is what we are doing.

With the Department of, innovation and technology doing a systematic review to understand the impact of smartphone social media on children's well-being, led by the University of Cambridge, the wider consortium of experts and academics, and the government will publish the results of that in due course, and we are also monitoring and learning from wider developments internationally, including in Australia, to share evidence and learn from each others experiences. In addition, in terms of parent support, we have funded further guidance and support, including three parents zone.

Further research, exploring the relationship between social media, and child health, and how it might be mediated is welcomed and departmental policies, the whole government will remain agile in light of this emerging evidence. Base. We do recognise that screen time needs to be a horse in it. We do not want screen time to displace beneficial opportunities face-to-face. And take opportunities face-to-face. And take The advice for parents and carers section of the UK's Chief Medical Officers report, encouraged parents and carers to agree on boundaries, both in and outside of school, with children and young people around online behaviours and time spent using screens.

Turning to the amendments 1H Reece EAN 183 CB, tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Penn. Which updates the statutory framework and ensure delivery of a public information campaign. Concerning the use of screens by children aged zero to five, I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lady was saying. It's clear that both the parents of young children and those providers providing early years education, the right framework, the proper information, access to both providers and parents is important. Once more here the government is not standing by but is taking action.

The early years foundation stage statutory framework which was updated last year does have a requirement for safeguarding policies to include how mobile phones, cameras, and other chronic devices with imaging and sharing capabilities are used in a setting. It is signposted to guidance with risks that children in earlier settings could be exposed to by using those devices. In September 25, we are introducing changes to the safeguarding requirements of the early years foundation stage. These were consulted on in 2025. Changes which include a requirement for designated safeguarding leads, to have training covering how to ensure internet safety.

The safety of our youngest children is of utmost priority and we continue to monitor and review early years safeguarding guidance and requirements. The helpful early years requirements online safety guidance was updated in January 2025, following a discussion with the digital standards early years action group. The guidance highlights both the benefits and challenges of devices, and devices in settings should be used as a tool to support children's learning and development, and that set entry screen time should be avoided.

There are several further resources parents had providers can turn to, and I very much take the point about how we can ensure that the information for parents is as clear and accessible as possible. That is why we recently updated the better health. For life website -- The Better Health Start for Life, which offers guidance for children aged zero to five and support for parents, and it is also the case that World Health Organization provides guidelines on physical activities, secondary behaviour, and sleep for children under five years of age, recommendations limiting screen time, it is a reasonable challenge from the nobility, Baroness Penn, that we need to keep insuring that information is accessible to parents and to those delivering in early years provision and I would certainly undertake to continue discussions with department, and how to make sure not only now but in the future that we ensure that that is the case.

I very much take the point, raised by the much take the point, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about the importance of media, and in fact, digital literacy, as key tools available to support parents and children in developing healthy digital habits from an early age. And that is why government funded programs, such as the everyday digital, delivered by parents own, have delivered practical resources for parents, uninformed, age- appropriate technology use. Turning to amendment 158 in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, which requires all schools in England to ban the use of smart mobile phones in the school day.

The government mobile phones in school guidance does already state schools should prohibited the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions, and Think in certain cases it will be the case that they are not using their phone, they are engaged in conversation and doing a whole range of other activities that noble Lords have rightly said that young people have rightly said that young people should have the opportunity to do in schools. In April 2025, the office for Children's Commissioner published a report on children's phone use and policies.

This report is based on a survey of 19,000 schools and colleges in Europe. Providing national evidence of the adoption of these laws and any exceptions to children with additional needs and this research shows that the overwhelming majority of schools, that is 99.8% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools, already have policies in place that limit or restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day. And on that point about what about the 10% of secondary schools that do not have a policy that restricts their usage, just to be clear, the outstanding 10% of secondary schools that had a policy that allowed pupils to use their phone at some point during the school day, 6% of secondary schools had a policy that allowed pupils to use their phones when a teacher says they can during lessons and 4% had a policy that allowed either pupils to use their phones at break or lunch or allowed pupils to use their phones at any time, so that 90% are effectively running the use of The course of the school day.

The children submission report is clear that while schools should prohibit the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, it is for head teachers to implement policies that are the most appropriate for their schools needs and contexts, and absolute ban on smartphones would not allow for this flexibility. It would not allow floor the flexibility outlined by my Noble Friend Lord Knight about the use of mobile phones in education at the Noble Lord story reference the OECD report which did actually identify that the use of mobile phones obviously is very tightly controlled and benefited for one hour or less a day benefited children more than a complete ban that benefited them.

I noted that the education Select Committee were concerned about the ability for parents to be able to contact their children travel to and from school. We have already heard about some of the exceptions that will be necessary for those children that have to use their phones either in order to access assistive technology or in order to deal with health conditions like diabetes. And I know that the Noble Lady introduced those exemptions into her legislation. But a piece of legislation that enables the exemptions necessary for all of the different services that schools and pupils might need for the way in which they use mobile phones rapidly becomes, sorry, I thank the Noble Lady for giving way, but presumably all of the countries that have introduced mobile phone bands in schools have found ways around this.

This cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to find a way through this. And also I just wondered what perhaps she is going to come onto this, whether she is going to comment on the power of the social media companies because in her advance so far she has come up with perfectly respectable what were effective in a former life kind of solutions like parents should set boundaries with their children, but we are, now, as children or grandparents or parents competing with social media companies with a great deal of power and expertise to disrupt all of those good kind of 20th-century type responses.

And, finally, I wondered whether how she felt the figures she gave on schools adopting restrictions tied in with the evidence from my Noble Friend on that level of disruption in lessons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, on the point about regulation, the reason why I started regulation, the reason why I started with that was precisely to identify the need that, or manifested in a the need that, or manifested in a piece of legislation that came through this House before my time and, presumably noble Lords around and, presumably noble Lords around this House were engaged in, which this House were engaged in, which was precisely about how to regulate the use of social media for children the use of social media for children and young people.

That was not in the last centuries, that was a piece the last centuries, that was a piece of legislation which is literally of legislation which is literally just on this and I was making the case that I think it is important that it is a right priority for Government to ensure that his working properly as a first working properly as a first priority. Of course the issue about priority. Of course the issue about how we support schools to be able to how we support schools to be able to have the calm behaviour that they need to have is absolutely crucial need to have is absolutely crucial and a response to the question about whether we will be publishing the survey on behaviour, that will be later on this year, but to come back to the point that I made at the beginning, I very much doubt that the only factor that influences behaviour in schools is mobile phones.

And I think there is every ability for head to your rightly, to be able to put in place restrictions on mobile phones that will enable them, along with other things it will be esoteric to have strong heavier policies and practice in place, to be able to ensure that is happening. And just turning, finally, to the amendment made by the Noble Lord night, I think I have already commented, seeing the point of the exemption that he is proposing, but I think my point is that you have two routes.

One is the legislative route which has already begun to be unravelled through the inclusion of a whole range of exemptions, or you have a positive set of guidance for head teachers to use and to design in consultation with parents, staff, young people in their schools to develop the policies which are appropriate for safeguarding children, protecting behaviour, and delivering what those individual schools need. And the Government believes at this point that is the most appropriate way to go forward in ensuring that children have the protection from mobile phones that they need in a way that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognises the flexibility. I hope. I say we had a debate a few months ago on this very subject and as part of that I went and visited as part of that I went and visited the Fulham boys school which is a large school with about 1,200 large school with about 1,200 students and spoke at some length to the headmaster. They have had a ban in the school for about 10 years. in the school for about 10 years. The issue is not having the ban in school.

The issue is very clearly school. The issue is very clearly what happens outside of the school and it does not matter what policies and it does not matter what policies you have in place, that is not going to solve what young people are doing outside of school time. And he said outside of school time. And he said that the biggest plum he has had with trying to tackle this issue has not actually been with the children not actually been with the children or the pupils themselves, it is the people that are really challenging are some of the parents that some of are some of the parents that some of whom regard this as an infringement on Civil Liberties that someone should tell them or their children what they should or should not do, what they should or should not do, but the real problem is what happens outside the school, so the school can have as many policies as they can have as many policies as they would like, and then we find a way of influencing what happens outside the school, which means, as I said the school, which means, as I said when I was speaking, getting to the young people because they know themselves some of the harm that is being done, perhaps through them getting to the parents to make the parents realise how their children feel and only then will we start tackling the psychology that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behind some of the problems that we are confronted with. I do note that I was coming to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do note that I was coming to the end of my comments at 18 minutes, I was sticking to the minutes, I was sticking to the rules, but the Noble Lord tempts me rules, but the Noble Lord tempts me to say that is exactly the point I was thinking of at the beginning was thinking of at the beginning that is what I mean when I say there has been conflation in this debate between the use of mobile phones in schools, the impact, I can quite schools, the impact, I can quite understand being concerned about the understand being concerned about the impact of screen time across children's lives and, of course, as I have said, the need, for us, at a very early stage in children's lives very early stage in children's lives to be clear with children about the appropriate use which is probably practically none of the screens.

And practically none of the screens. And the information that we provide to parents, it is for all of those areas, alongside gathering the appropriate evidence that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate evidence that this Government is taking action, and on that evidence I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments. With the noble minister allow me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the noble minister allow me before she sits down, she is quite right to point out that they did not right to point out that they did not get much mention. Maybe it is some kind of PTSD and there are some of us that had a difficult passage and one of the things that we mentioned in the debate around age verification, it started the debate with all the same arguments we have just heard, it is not technically impossible, maybe children can learn by watching pornography, the rules of telling children what to do and what not to do are not crystal- clear, the science of whether porn is good for children or not is not cast in stone and has not got longitudinal studies that we need for making decisions on it.

All of that was heard and at the end of next month we will see of combat bringing in finally a deadline whereby all of the major websites that have a risk of children seeing portable have to put in age verification software. Who in this chamber genuinely thinks now that was a bad idea or a bad decision? And yet it was fought tooth and nail from that bench by the previous Government and they had to be dragged by that decision in the Commons and a full chamber effort here.

The Minister faces a similar drain on the issue of under 16's social media, so I just wondered if she could help us understand with her multidimensional approach to this point what other metrics she is going to boost the chart whether it is right in this issue? How many I was a day do children need to spend on social media? How many predators have to go through and how many grooming gangs have to recruit children to abuse them? What other metrics to reviewing this decision?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean that Noble Lord added considerably to his speech there. considerably to his speech there. What I will say is I did not use some of the arguments that the Noble Lord is suggesting were being used Lord is suggesting were being used against porn in this House. I do not know what arguments and debates he know what arguments and debates he went through, no was I suggesting that there are not considerable issues around both the use of social media for young people and the extent of screen time that young people have.

The difference between us is whether or not the Noble Lord is very clear about this, he is very clear about this, he believes that there should be a complete ban on social media that young people under 16. I do not know if that carries a majority in this House and given that I think it is important for what I was attempting important for what I was attempting to do to demonstrate the action that this committee has already taken to this committee has already taken to address all of those issues, whether or not it is screen time, social or not it is screen time, social media, the impact on young people, or whether it is not, all of those or whether it is not, all of those are taking action without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are taking action without necessarily thinking there is one single silver band that could solve this. I really appreciate what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I really appreciate what the Noble Lady said on early years. I think it could be on safeguarding but I will look really carefully at what she has said and just on the what she has said and just on the evidence point that she referred to the Children's Commissioner's work about the policies, but we need to the effect of those policies that is the effect of those policies that is whether national behaviours are. She previously told me it was during spring and later this year, so it would be great to understand if there is a delay white there is a delay and if they could be more specific about where we can see that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

specific about where we can see that it is going on in our schools and I happy. I said more than safeguarding hopes she could go back and see but hopes she could go back and see but I was pretty succinct to the point that she was making and I said much that she was making and I said much more than safeguarding. Read me just say I share her frustration about when the survey can be published. That is all I can say about that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is all I can say about that. I think the Noble Lady the Minister for her response and I thank all noble Lords for their
18:16
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. And I wish to thank my Noble Friend for their contribution. Just so sorry that we So far as the amendment in the name of my noble friend is concerned, concerning possession and use of smartphones in schools, as my noble friend, Baroness Penn, said, it may be that 90% of schools have a policy, and smartphones are physically not allowed in schools, it will be ineffective, teachers are reporting that children are going to reporting that children are going to the loo far more often.

I see the noble Lord, a teacher, nodding. Some schools use pouches, firstly, the evidence is quite clear, the nobility, Baroness Barran said. If it is there, I can concentrate far less than if it is out of the room. Second, as my noble friend, Lord Agnew said, children are ingenious, and there are ingenious methods, I'm told, for opening these pouches using magnets and other methods and closing them again. As far as the noble Lady, Baroness Morris, is concerned about the consequences of school, and banning smartphones in schools, that they don't follow this ban, I don't think for a moment, I assume, we're talking about criminal offence here, surely a duty would do.

As far as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is concerned about allowing smartphones in schools, to teach the use of them, I have to say, I'm highly sceptical. Children know far more about how to use these things in adults, they don't need to see a phone to be told what not to watch. But unless they can't access social media or pornography or whatever, because of age verification, they will watch it, that's what kids do. So far as my noble friend is concerned, which I support, I would like to make this point.

Heads of primary schools have recently been alerted, I've used the word alerted advisedly, because none of told me they are aware of any specific notification on this. The reception baseline assessment is now going to require four-year-olds to be tested using touchscreen devices, which of course, these children have to familiarise themselves with before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they take the test. And it would bring... Does the noble Lord accept that that would be an assessment? An that would be an assessment? An analysis on evaluation of which analysis on evaluation of which started in 19, it would be carried out alongside teachers with the ability for teachers to use other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ability for teachers to use other methods with children when necessary, this is not something children should be using on their own on-screen. I understand there will be two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand there will be two devices. One of the teacher would devices. One of the teacher would have to lock the responses. And the people will use, sometimes hardcopy, but for some of these tests, they but for some of these tests, they will use, if that's what it says, they will have to touch a screen. So, bring these devices into schools, schools will be accepting of it, and goodness knows where this of it, and goodness knows where this might go in primary schools.

The government have entered into a 20 government have entered into a 20 lane pounds contract -- A £20 million contract to develop the million contract to develop the technology for the assessment. And the contract specifically states the contract specifically states that " The RBA will be the first set launched a schools in a wider suite of additional assessment tools." In other words, this is the thin end of the wedge. I do hope the government will reconsider this, with what the nobility, the Minister said, I hope there is little of this thing in early years.

Turning to amendment 177, I heard the Minister's response, I listened carefully. I am afraid the clauses and phrases like the government will do what is needed to keep children safe online, Online Safety Act, scientific evidence, correlation and causality, evidence-based, published results in due course, recommendations on limiting screen time, advice on sleep. None of these clauses and phrases fill me with any hope. All this sounds, to me, like a statistician wanting 100 years of evidence before they say the case is proven.

My Lords, the time is now. How much more evidence do we need. How much more damage to be need to see before we act? I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about Ofcom, but the social media companies are, of course, perfectly capable of implementing highly effective age limits if they want to. And I am glad he was listening so carefully to what I said, and noted some similarity between what I said today and what I said in purpose clause debate, but I hope when he rejects Hansard, he will see there was quite a lot of new material there.

My Lords, concerning my amendment 177, banning social media before 16, there are clearly very strong feelings about this. And across the House, as a noble Lady, Baroness Morris, has says. This becomes a real issue for working becomes a real issue for working families across the country, and I have no doubt, if it is not dealt with before the next election, it will be a big issue on the doorstep, as my noble friend, Lord Bethell, said. It is no secret that support for this, not only in this House, but across the pages in the other place, including Labour members, for instance, John McAllister's Bill and a number of other interventions.

I would urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to convene a meeting across the political spectrum to discuss how we can take this matter forward and our ask her now, as a first step, if you would kindly meet with me very soon, to discuss how we can take this forward. Would you can take this forward. Would you kindly do so? And we may indeed, almost certainly well, look to bring this back at report stage. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 178, Baroness Barran, not moved. After clause 26, amendment 179.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

179. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 179, 183, in my name, hopefully a lighter debate that we just had, although it was an important debate we just had. I will disclose that, taken together, these amendments are a slightly cutdown amendments are a slightly cutdown version of my support for parent centric information private bill, which secured top place in our ballot. I am, in effect, reintroducing here, giving the reasons that Baroness Merron, the reasons that Baroness Merron, the Minister for Health and social care, Minister for Health and social care, was unable to support it when it was debated in September 2024.

In those early weeks of the new government, she said we need the time, and we need to be able to roll out our own cross government package of support for infants, children and families, as noble Lords asked us to do. This
18:25
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
needs to be comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, the bill does not align with how this government intend to deliver the comprehensive intend to deliver the comprehensive change that our children need. One year on from their election victory, year on from their election victory, I and many other noble Lords who spoke in that debate, or who spoke in that debate, or who champion more systematic support in the first two years of children's lives and beyond that point, are keen to hear more about what the keen to hear more about what the government's comprehensive package will look like.

So, my Lords, these will look like. So, my Lords, these five probing amendments. Intended to five probing amendments. Intended to encourage the government to share encourage the government to share their plans. Both for the Start for Life Program and the Family Hopes Program, that are integral to the delivery and wider family support. delivery and wider family support. But it is also a second opportunity to reiterate the intention of that bill there, and these amendments bill there, and these amendments now. Not to specify what service offer should look like, but simply offer should look like, but simply to require local authorities to publish information on that offer.

A large body of evidence points to how large body of evidence points to how a very critical place, first two a very critical place, first two years of life, our children's life, and how they can be taken advantage of. These days, it is filled with stress, worry, and much joy, parents and carers who do not know what to expect, what is normal, how best to cope, where to turn for help. Start for life program, based in the HSC, included universal support through the named services in amendment 179.

Again, they Start for Life offer is not the services themselves, but rather, the information that is published, about what is available, in terms of health visiting, services, promoting positive relationships between infants, and their parents or carers, mental health, and breastfeeding and other infant feeding services. Local authorities should also provide additional information and other services as appropriate, particularly maternity, which was not deemed to be in the scope of this bill before us, as maternity is primarily about mother's health.

As an aside, I argued with the clerk that whilst the baby is inside and connected to the mother, well-being is practically invisible. With maternal health. But legally, that does not hold. I am not arguing that now, simply explaining why maternity was not specified in the list. In the mess and model of new babies, all families need to know what support is available and to access it easily. Funding was specifically provided in the family hopes. And Start for Life Program, running in 75 local authority areas, for expecting parents to receive a physical copy of their local Start for Life offer and be able to find it online.

However, without amendment 179, future funding to provide that information is not guaranteed, in whichever form is guaranteed, in whichever form is best, once the very welcome 2026 settlement of £207 million, provided to the Staff Alive by the new government runs out. I will return to the subject in a moment. Amendment 180 introduces a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidance to local authorities, relating to their duties, under the section that amendment 179 would insert. Current guidance is nonstatutory.

Amendment 183 gives accompanying interpretation for the terms used in these sections, and amendment 182 makes provision for data protection. Finally, amendment 181 requires the government to publish an annual report that gives a national overview about the support provided in England for infants and their parents and carers, and the outcomes delivering. Turning back to my intent in tabling these five amendments, private members bill they are based on was left of the business from the last Parliament. And earlier support for infants and carers in at the information Bill was poised to go through, with much cross-party support in the other place, but was pipped to the post by the snap election.

I adopted this bill, because knowing what help is available for families in the early years is essential, if they are to access and be connected with all the family hopes, and the networks of support they are the heart of provide. Access connection relationships are the three guiding principles of the government's approach to family hubs. I declare again my interest as a guarantor of FHM Oldham, the non-for profit owner of this network. The amendments don't specify the services must be provided, so this is not tying the governments hands with previous policy detail or large recurring annual cost.

They simply require local authorities to publish what is available and make that information readily available, and forgive Mr publish the aggregated national information picture. I was heartened by the recent spending review, which reiterated continued investment in the expansion of the family hubs program. Until " Working with parents giving children the best start in life." This wording is a little tantalising though, how far up the age range does the best start in life go. Why has Start for Life been dropped from the program name? I am looking at this optimistically.

My hope is there will no longer be proven to be somewhat problematic divide between early years services and early interventions of families with older children. The family hubs network has become aware that some local authorities were forced to de-prioritise the family hub part of the family hub, and the start for life program, because so much of the focus has been on Staff Alive, Sam told us they were already doing well on early years, as a legacy of their children centres. We have stayed open.

They wanted to use family hub and Start for Life funded, focusing on families with older children where they previously struggled to make progress. However, they were stymied in this with the tight specifications around Start for Life funding, albeit this allowed them to strengthen early years provision further. Family hubs figure so prominently in the family first partnership program guide but I'm optimistic the good work will not shrink back into preschool privilege only. Many hard-working staff delivering family hub and start for life in local authorities and their partner organisations would greatly appreciate a little more detail on this governance plans.

I want to take this opportunity to probe the government as to what will continue investment in expansion of the family hub program look like? There are 973 family hopes, and 133 local authorities, a massive return on leadership shown by central government. And their investment into around 87 councils, but there Not least as it is related to the other two amendments in this group. Do they know what broad contours the early years offer? Finally, will the government except now my argument that whatever they mandate or indeed fund, it is the least we can do to ensure that every parent in those fragile and fraught early days, weeks and months, that they know what support is available and how to access it.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Insert the new clause printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 183B in my name and to support the other amendments in this
18:33
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
support the other amendments in this group. First of all I draw the attention of the noble Lady the Minister that this is a long and detailed probing amendment, but nonetheless it is intended to generate a discussion over something I feel is important in the bill that is called children's well-being. Excluding the early years seems to be a lost opportunity and the intention is to generate that conversation. It is almost 20 years since I shocked myself by saying how long it is, since I stood as a candidate for an inner-city seat.

It was a challenging environment in which to work and to meet people where deprivation was not uncommon. I remember vividly knocking on a door in the Prunella estate. As the door opened, the father of cigarette smoke and probably cannabis surrounded me. Through the haze was what looked like a very younger with a baby, probably a six-month old baby are no better, on her hip. In my shock, the smoke that emanated from the flat, I said to her, is your mum at home.

But she was the mum. There was a moment, I had just come by coincidence from a really excellent the last -- from a really excellent Sure Start centre set up by the last Labour government. It doesn't matter what is offered, but we need a proper strategy otherwise the lives of children can be impeded. I declare an interest. I launched parent Jim in 2010. Like same in other programs like it, the intention was to reach young mums in situations where they probably had not had any parenting themselves and to provide support that was not otherwise available in situations where reaching out for the support was usually to be because it came via social services and they were hostile to the whole prospect of it.

At around the same time because of my interest in all of it, I realised the beginnings of research was being published into the effects of early life experiences children. I'm really delighted to stand in this chamber today, almost 20 years later, knowing that there is a consensus now around the importance of the early years and the impact of what happens on the children during those first, well, all of the early years, but particularly the first 1001 days, which is so very formative.

We also know now that it is not just those very important years after birth, but there is a wealth of research which shows that prenatal distress that a mother undergoes, and there has been incredible research done in disaster zones, like Puerto Rico funding, where they have measured the cohort of the babies born from the mothers in both natural disasters. They have ... We know the family environment, the multigenerational environment is so very important. It struck me reading the bill, and I have been involved as noble Lord no in some of the early parts of it, looked at and had important debates about looked after children and foster care strategy and so on, but we have not at all talked about the strategy for these families and these young, young children.

There is such a range of evidence now, there is a scientific evidence, but there is also the economic evidence that what we invest in these families comes back multi for full society. A Nobel prize-winning economist of the analysis showing that we have high return if preventative steps are taken. In 2018 in this country the Early Intervention Foundation estimated that England and alone spent 17 billion every year. I am afraid I do not know what the current figure is, but it has grown since then, on the cost of late interventions.

That is social care, special educational needs, criminal justice system, lots of things we have been talking about in this bill in this chamber and yet we have not discussed until today the opportunity here for us to prevent some of these issues from arising. They are not abstract numbers, they are real lives. Lives impaired, opportunities lost, families rent asunder and public resources consumed by crises in situations that could have been prevented. We have looked at the number of children in care, we looked at the number of child protection plans.

We have not talked quite so much yet, but it is in part two of the bill, about the persistent educational attainment gap that opens up before formal schooling even begins. 46% of disadvantaged children achieving expected language and communication standards at age 5 impaired to 69% of their peers and that is the data from the Department for education. There is some question of affordability, but were asking the wrong question. The right question is can we continue to afford not to do anything? There is plenty of evidence that works.

There are plenty of charities and programmes already out there, including some of the government programs we have heard referred to today, like family hub. Like previously the Sure Start programs. We have always had governments look at this and try to use sticking plaster solutions, piecemeal locally funded, but it remains a postcode lottery as to whether there is an infrastructure for these young families and these children, through no fault of their own and they begin life disadvantage. There are a number of things we know works.

Parenting training works. Not just the program I founded, but so many others, home visiting by trained nurses, health monitoring by parenting programs. There is parent infant psychotherapy. We don't have any shortage of interventions to refer to about what works. I have not tabled this amendment to be directional about which of those interventions the government to mandate, or ought to explore further. What I have tabled the amendment to do is to facilitate a conversation about ensuring that there is universal approach to all of the children in this country to ensure that they are given the right start on the right support in life.

We have many charities already doing some of this work. The NSPCC, Barnardo's, action for children, the parent children foundation, but that is no substitute for a national in. We know we have already got your We know we have already got your Royal Highness the Queen -- her Royal Highness the Princess of two is doing a lot of -- her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales who is doing a lot of work towards this. But we need to have some way of identifying this children and some means by which we place them all within the safety net of our society, knowing that how we treat our children is really a measure of what all of us are.

I have placed the emphasis on the exploration of this and I hope that we can engage the House today in a sensible debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to find the solutions. I support the spirit behind all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the spirit behind all of the amendments in this group and I put my name to amendment 4X6. I thank Baroness Thornton and Lord Young for putting their names to it Young for putting their names to it as well. I am assuming that we are in effect pushing at an open door in terms of stressing the importance of early years. The noble Lady the early years. The noble Lady the Secretary of State. She is not noble yet, but probably will be when she yet, but probably will be when she stops being Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State and the noble Lady the Minister came to the crossbench meeting before the bill
18:43
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
crossbench meeting before the bill came to the House. The question was asked about the early years. The Secretary of State was clear that it is a key priority, so I am taking that as read. The question is it important, the question is what do we do about it? I should declare an interest in the sense that I was part of the Parliamentary advisory team who worked with Dame Andrea Leadsom on the Start for Life initiative under one of the previous governments.

I can't quite remember which one, which in many ways was a concerted attempt by a government to do something about early years. Not least to undo the unfortunate effects of what happened when Sure Start, which surely I think everybody across this House regardless of party will agree was one of the great achievements of the Labour administration of the 2000s. I think it was a tragedy with the benefit of hindsight that we allowed it to wither on the Vine. What is the lesson from that? I think the lesson is, the Labour Party did not allow it to wither on the Vine.

The people of this country exercising their democratic ability to vote, which of course we in this do not have decided to put in place a government that decided there were other priorities, or that they could say it was important, but they would not give as much clear support and direction to it as before and inevitably what happens in some parts of the country will continue to think is incredibly important and others for reasons that may seem very good to them at the time give it a lower pro -- to lower priority and that's how you end up with such an uneven reach across the country.

If the government of whatever little That this is a priority. If it does not lay down very clearly what that means in terms of what has to happen, what in the sense is nonnegotiable, we will have the same thing happening again. We do, as Baroness Cass rightly pointed out, have wobbly quite a lot more information and detail about the cornucopia of different elements which can negatively impact the early years or even pre-birth and the multitude of different ways in which we might construct ways of trying to deal with that.

It's not easy and it is not cheap, but if the government makes it clear that it's serious about this as a priority, we are often good start. I'm particularly C the noble Lady the Baroness Laing field in her place because if any of your Lordships have not read this, the organisation that the noble Baroness set up before she arrived with us, the centre for young lives, has done some wonderful preparatory work in this area, which I am assuming and hoping the Department for Education and other relevant departments have read because it is a very good starting point from which to try and work out at a practical level what are we going to try to do to make this good.

Dave Andrew Leadsom is still involved. She has started a new foundation. She is involved again in what is called the 1001 critical days. I am hoping political differences in the past are put to one side, including what is a no- brainer with Dame Andrea, which is not to mention the B word at all if you want to get on important things like early years. She can and will be very helpful and will work and engage with the government.

The reason this amendment was really put down is it is a bit of a shame to have spent so much time and effort talking about trying to improve our school system without thinking about the raw material that is going into the raw material that is going into So much of the work we are trying to develop and encourage in this course, if the young people arriving there through a particularly no fault of the anchor in anyway, shape or form, or incontinent, or incapable of normal linguistic communications, are not potty trained, have attention deficit disorder, many of the things in fact partly resulting from what we were discussing in the earlier group and the effects, negative effects of screen time on very, very young children, unless we do something systematically and quickly to really start attacking that, we will unwittingly undo many of the good things that we are trying to achieve through this bill.

So for all these reasons, I'm hoping and assuming the government has taken all of these messages on board. And what we are really looking forward to hearing is that this bill may not be the right vehicle in which to try to implant a lot of this, but what it would be very helpful to know is whatever the government's intent is how this will work in conjunction with important pieces of legislation like this to improve the status quo, which is provable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Added my lame two Lord Russell's amendment and I would like to add a brief footnote to what he has just said. -- I added my name. The second reading I mentioned when I was in the place I went to a primer school the place I went to a primer school in Andover in one of the less well in Andover in one of the less well off parts of the town. The year one teacher had been there for 20 years. teacher had been there for 20 years.

She said that within a few weeks of She said that within a few weeks of time she was likely to know which children were likely to end up in trouble. And because she was magistrate in the youth culture told me she was almost almost right. There are many teachers like that, There are many teachers like that, able to defy which families need able to defy which families need support. But his what is earliest support. But his what is earliest because have said the integration department putt budget should be at the front end loaded.

As all the evidence is that this produces the greatest return on investment. Not greatest return on investment. Not just for the child but for society as a whole. Research by the IFS published only last month, early research and the new comics foundation or confirm that putting things right upstream produces things right upstream produces problems later, problems which are more serious because they have a wider social impact, which are more expensive to correct. My noble friend Lady Cash made the point eloquently in her speech, and I recall in 2010 canvassing for my noble friend in North Kensington, I'm sorry I didn't knock on nearly enough doors, as otherwise parliamentary career might have started a little earlier.

My Lords, in light of the government policy on the NHS, we should put resources into prevention rather than treatment. And as earlier speakers have said, the last Labour government recognised this with sure start there was some tension between those who wanted a universal service, sent attentive by children and families from all backgrounds, so there was good integration, and those who wanted the services to be more targeted. There was a compromise in actual start was focused on the more deprived areas
18:52
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
but was universal. This was altered but was universal. This was altered by Lord Adonis, receiving a leaflet, inviting him to take his children to inviting him to take his children to an aromatherapy session at his local Sure Start centre. All of the valuations of Sure Start were valuations of Sure Start were positive. It significantly improved the education achievement of children from 0 to 4. With benefits lasting until GCSE, age 16, lasting until GCSE, age 16, children's with access to Sure Start performed significantly better in assessments at age 7, 11, 16 and needed fewer at secondary school.

It's a sadly reduced hospitalisation and decreased absences from school. and decreased absences from school. The benefits were stronger for those in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, four boys and for those from ethnic when after Bagram. This means future initiatives should be prioritised initiatives should be prioritised and targeted, rather than universal. Indeed, the analysis I have referred to indicated that Sure Start was to indicated that Sure Start was disproportionately used by middle- class families is that of targeting specific families who needed the specific families who needed the support.

Then in 2010, the room for four Sure Start. And while there were reasons for cutting public expenditure, and reviewing how Sure Start operated, in retrospect it was a shortsighted decision, leading to the closure of many centres and the magical others. So fast forward to the introduction of family hubs and start for life, in 20 2022, like Sure Start these draw together services in education, public health, parental needs and benefits although for children aged 0 to 19, are not actually all within a centre.

Family hubs targeting a much wider range than Sure Start risks dilating the early offer of support which I believe to be crucial and of course family hubs are less generously funded than Sure Start was. Family hubs also place more priority on virtual services and signposting rather than on in-person community hubs. So what this amendment does is to invite the government to look at what has happened over the last 20 years, review all the research that is available, both here and overseas, and come up with an early years strategy.

My personal preference would be for one focused on the under fives, getting them up to speed for primary school, identifying and supporting the families of children that need help rather than wholly universal service rather than wholly universal service was I don't know if Noble no by Jenny Russell, but she said, one of its starkest examples is the recent collapse of the proportion of children who were ready for school at the age of four. A point Lord Russell made.

Start arrive 's still in nappies, 1/4 can't use the toilet alone, in a survey half of parents said school readiness wasn't there responsibly see. Those are the families that should be targeted. I know it's difficult to find money for under fives but because there is strong demand from us primer schools and secondary schools, but if and when the economy improves, that I think is where the focus should be. Finally, Baroness Casey has been in the news this week, but she also wrote a report for the coalition government working with troubled families.

She spoke after that at and a DSS conference in July She spoke after that at and a DSS conference in July 2013 about a report and this is what she said. We can tackle the problems family have better if we get to children with problems 84 rather than excluded children at age 11 -- children aged four. My teacher in Andover would wholly agree with that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I put my name to this amendment in the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham. Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham. Not because I believe my government Not because I believe my government is not going great deal about early years. I'm sure my noble friend minister will be armed with minister will be armed with information about what the department is doing and planning. Because I want to be confident that Because I want to be confident that there is a strategy which is
18:55
Baroness Thornton Portrait Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
-
there is a strategy which is comprehensive, public, understood right now I'm not absolutely sure that that is the case. I would like to thank organisations for their but I want to mention two organisations that I talked about in my second reading contribution will I also mentioned the fact that early years were not mentioned in this bill. The first of those charity based in Canada of which I am a trustee of its UK branch. In the second is speech and language UK which I haven't Association, and for which I worked many years ago when it was called something else.

I was delighted, and the education team and the opposition said, " developing early communication skills is another key foundation for life, with serious knock-on consequences when development is delayed. Labour will fund evidence- based early language interventions in primary school so that every child can find their voice. " I would like to thank the parent foundation which have produced excellent work for this debate. Roots of empathy is a leader in the empathy movement in Canada which I think has a certain irony given what United States leadership has had to say about Canada recently and the fact that actually that government seems to find empathy something which is to be disparaged rather than celebrated.

But what it is about? It is about developing empathy and emotional literacy in children, and the mission is to build caring, peaceful civil society through development of empathy in children and adults. So the vision is to change the world, child by child. Roots of empathy program which was created in 1996 by an educator and claimed social entrepreneur Mary Gordon to break into generational cycles of violence and poor parenting. My Lords, we have got roots of empathy and some of our schools here in the UK.

We have them in Wales. We have them in south London. We have them in Scotland. And I would just urge the Minister, with her colleagues, to visit these schools and see how these programs work. And because it's been running since 1996, the scientific evidence about the effects of encouraging empathy amongst our youngest children actually bears fruit as they get older, particularly for boys. So I would urge that the government should look at roots of empathy as something which can actually, which is certainly in line without values and certainly delivers.

And I'm very happy to help facilitate, because it's to those classroom where this happens. Timing of interventions, particularly for young children, has to be included in any strategy. So high quality learning in early education and childcare is crucial opportunity to choose from transform life chances and to relate is unavailable. So the funding of early language interventions in the Labour Party manifesto only specified primary schools, but actually of course I think is recognised that the moment to improve communication skills has to be earlier than primary schools, it has to be part of early years because too many children arrive at primary schools not ready to learn and not having the speaking skills that they need to be able to learn.

Language a two-year-old predicts English reading maths and writing. By the end of the reception year 20% of children are not at the expected level of learning for communication language and 30% are not at the expected level for literacy, so this is a major challenge. And that's why I want to support this intervention and discussion about early years, what is our strategy and how it will work. I of course was a great fan and supporter of Sure Start. Of course I was.

And we are introducing this amendment to ensure that the vital process and early intervention relations support and family support is not left to trans-short-term bullet e-cycles as I'm afraid it has in the past. It's based on the experience, as many noble Lords across the House of said, it took 10 years to quantify the benefits that resulted from the Sure Start programme. By which time it infrastructure had largely been dismantled. So what we need now is a strategy that is going to outlive all governments and serve all our all governments and serve all our all governments and serve all our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 183 183E in the name of the noble Lady Baroness cash. I am grateful for her Baroness cash. I am grateful for her probing amendment that allows us to think about school readiness. We've already heard about the links
19:01
Baroness Bull Portrait Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-
-
already heard about the links between poor school readiness and academic and life outcomes, including research from the Centre for young lives has made the link between long-term absenteeism. I want to look at what this means in terms of neurodiverse children and those with learning difficulties such as dyslexia.. With these conditions, you are born with a manual live with them throughout life. Without identification they will suffer, but with identification they will thrive. Finally I want to point to the crucial importance of early into in improving outcomes.

So if you take those four points together presents a compelling case for considering the identification of specific learning difficulties as a key component to school readiness. Children with specific learning difficulties will need specific support and if they get it from day one, the outcomes for them will be so much better. It is really hard to see how we can deem a child ready to learn if we have not identified a specific learning difficulty and put in place the adjustments that are necessary to meet those needs.

It is not just about securing the foundations for the future learning and giving all children an equal chance to thrive, it is also to obviate any risk that they will be mistakenly judged as stupid, lazy, not trying, all of which have got such serious impacts on self-esteem, confidence and mental health. So I very much support the noble Lady's amendment but I would like to see further strengthened by including a requirement to screen for dyscalculia and dyslexia at the beginning of the educational journey and at the very least screaming for dyscalculia should be included alongside the reading assessments undertaken against key stage I.

It's been suggested that kinder screening could be made available in every school simply by training up to teachers to undertake the testing. Of course there will be a cost involved but it is a small price to pay when we think about the long- term economic impacts, the costs to individuals of living and working within undiagnosed and unsupported learning difficulty. 17 years ago it was estimated that dyslexia can reduce lifetime earnings by £81,000. For dyscalculia it was £114,000. Goodness knows what those figures will be today, they are 17 years out of date.

And we should not forget the cost to the economy due to low numeracy. It's currently £25 billion. My noble friend will agree it's good news that the sustained focus on literacy and reading skills in greater awareness has made it more likely that dyslexic children will be identified. For children with dyscalculia it could be years before an enlightened teacher spot that they are not stupid or lazy, they just have a learning difficulty of which most people have never heard.

I heard of the school today, a 600 strong school in which there are apparently no known instances of dyscalculia. The prevalence rate is between 6-10%.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the noble Baroness give way? Noble Baroness will. There is a great way of finding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a great way of finding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a great way of finding out how you have dyslexia or dyscalculia. Japan did it, but they dyscalculia. Japan did it, but they just did not know the words.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just did not know the words. Children have 13 years, precious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Children have 13 years, precious years to gain the skills that will set them up for their adult lives and all children need to be able to take advantage of that from day one, including those children who learn differently and therefore need differently and therefore need different support from the very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beginning. I rise in support of the amendments in the name of Mike noble
19:06
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
amendments in the name of Mike noble friend Baroness cash. A national strategy to promote school readiness of all children from birth up to the age of five. I have to say that I agree with everything that has been said in this Committee stage on this subject. The noble Baroness the Minister will know I will always take an opportunity to rise in support of what will eventually come The The centre The centre for The centre for young The centre for young lives The centre for young lives also emphasises the importance and the expertise that is in this Committee stage for looking at the early stage of development and focusing on not a postcode lottery of accessibility to services, but a national strategy and to try and bring together all the work that is under way.

It is in that context that the noble Be talking on the subject of early years activity and the importance of physical activity for young children's development, promoting player, promoting an active lifestyle, building physical literacy, enhancing learning readiness and encouraging habits that can be sustained throughout lives. Getting confidence into children through physical activity as well is important. I commend the committee for the work that has been done by many organisations. Early movers comes to mind. They have highlighted there has been a decline in physical activity amongst young children and their work therefore brings our attention to that decline.

If you look at the youth sport trust, healthy movers recognise the importance of training, providing training and resources for early years staff to support physical and emotional well-being in children. There are many other organisations, all offering different programs. I think the comment on nominator amongst committee members this evening on this subject is that we really do look to see whether or not it is possible to bring a lot of the best evidence of best practice together in a national strategy. And it is that that I'm really urging the government to look at very carefully because the benefits of early physical activity are undeniable in my view.

Improved physical development is the first. Enhanced cognitive development is undoubtedly a benefit. Social and emotional benefit comes from building confidence, teamwork and social skills. Long-term health, which is critically important in early years intervention and a focus for those early years is important. Having activities that match those objectives. Outdoor activities like walking, playing in the park, exploring nature. Indoor activities, dancing, messy play, finger painting, using climbing frames, these are all really important components to early years activity.

We need to structure those activities. That is where I do believe, as my noble friend Lord Young said, Sure Start was so good. Sure Start show that one could bring all of this together and it was possible to have a strategy that could really focus on best practice for all young people rather than a postcode lottery for some who were the beneficiaries of the charity initiatives that take place. In a very short intervention on this, but a very important one as far as I'm concerned in the wider strategy, I do hope the Minister will respond to say the government is thinking about responding positively to try to bring together all best practice in the interest of all our young people.

There is no doubt that the issues and objectives I set out should be universally available and ivory much hope that through this government they will become so.
19:11
Baroness Bousted Portrait Baroness Bousted (Labour)
-
-
I want to say briefly Baroness Longfield wasn't here at the beginning of this debate so she has asked me to say that it is important that there is liaison between education and health. I want to say that I feel like I'm in a parallel universe. We are being told about the importance of early years help. There was a program was -- there was a program that was successful. it was most effective in targeting the most deprived communities, so the stories about the children who need it the most work least likely to get it is not true.

The first 700 sure start centres were set up in the most deprived areas and actually, there is a lot of work which shows it was a universal element which made it so important. It is like a parallel universe when we note that during the period from 2010-2024 there was an exponential rise in child poverty, which is that the route of lack of school readiness. It is that the route of childhood illness, family dysfunction. Nine children in every class of 30 on average will be living below the official poverty line.

That exploded under the coalition and subsequent governments due to austerity. We do need an integrated approach, but I sometimes feel the opposition that will be helpful to acknowledge what their role was in destroying that provision which was there for the most deprived children and young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. I thank the noble Lady for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for giving way. I want to clarify, from my own perspective on what I said, there was full acknowledgement of how was full acknowledgement of how successful Sure Start program was. I understood that to be the decision by consensus across the House. I'm sorry the noble Lady feel she is sorry the noble Lady feel she is living in another universe, but it is not the intention of anyone here is not the intention of anyone here to cause descent on an issue that is so important to have consensus on.

I do think everyone in this House and everyone who has intervened on this debate has been coming from a very good place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely acknowledge that, but I just think it is important to note that such a provision was available and was defunded. The number of centres was decimated. That has had long-term consequences That has had long-term consequences That has had long-term consequences About the effects now of children of that poverty provision for the poorest children. I think that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really important to note. I very much support early years strategy. Particularly the speeches from Lord Russell of Liverpool and
19:15
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Young of Cookham. I remember a Lord Young of Cookham. I remember a mother and daughter, she was three. The mother had never learnt how to speak to her daughter, who had no speech and had never heard anything speech and had never heard anything from her mother. They were invited to join, I think it was almost certainly Sure Start in North certainly Sure Start in North Kensington. Three months later, hand Kensington. Three months later, hand in hand near Christmas, they danced the steps of this preschool, singing carols together.

That place closed. This is one of the sad instance is This is one of the sad instance is that we have. I also very much support what Baroness Porter said. I support what Baroness Porter said. I have a granddaughter who at five was said to be stupid. Thank goodness said to be stupid. Thank goodness she changed schools. She was found to be dyslexic and I'm glad to say to be dyslexic and I'm glad to say she got a good degree at Edinburgh, but with a great deal of help.

To identify children at an early stage, long before they go to school, would make the most enormous difference, particularly to my granddaughter, who was extremely unhappy at her first school because she kept being told she was stupid and she was not stupid at all. She is one of countless children who are not identified at one stage early identified at one stage early enough. I just wonder if IDSA to the noble Lady the Minister, is it at all possible that this government that produced Sure Start which was so excellent, could actually think of one day when there is a little bit more money they might introduce bit more money they might introduce
19:16
19:18
Baroness Longfield Portrait Baroness Longfield (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just felt the need to add some thoughts of my own to the conversation we are having which I'm conversation we are having which I'm very pleased that we having. And I should declare my interest as the executive chair for... And I thank noble Lords for your kind comments on that. This is a really crucial, obviously, airy policy. -- Area of policy. I'm delighted that we are not only expecting an early years strategy but we have support across the House on this.

In the spirit of moving on I hope there is cross- party consensus going forward on the important of this, not only for individual children and their families but actually for the country as a whole, in terms of employment, in terms of growth, in terms of crime reduction and health. And there was plenty that I could go on, for an awful long time on this, but I will not. I wondered if my noble friend the Minister might say something in her closing remarks about the conversations you are having with health because that is particularly, that partnership is particularly important in terms of early years and early years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

development. I rise to support the group of amendments that are before us. I think they are well judged. I think they are well judged. I appreciate they are essentially probing but I want he couple of probing but I want he couple of brief observations in relation to the. The amendments are important because I think they focus our minds because I think they focus our minds on long-term strategy. It is often the complaint of government, any government, I don't want to be partisan in that regard, government
19:19
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
partisan in that regard, government ministers will quite often look at what is in tomorrow's papers, what is going to lead the politics shows on Sunday. Or at most if they are of particular levels of vision what will get them through to the next election. We know they must be within government greater focus on long-term strategy, and indeed the perils of short-term art no more acute anywhere than in the issue of education. We know that when we look at interventions, particularly in education and early interventions, the 3D evidence of what we provide and what to invest in may not manifest themselves until 10 or 15 years down the line -- the true dividends.

That is not a reason to shy away from them, indeed it is something we need to embrace. Secondly as other members have said, I'm not going to repeat the figures, we know that early intervention can create massive dividends for society. And whether that is on the basis of diversion of young people away from future social problems, from justice issues, from grounding from a social point of view, in terms of their education, from my think which is becoming an increasing problem, the need for early identification of special educational needs and we have seen the explosion in terms of the cost within that.

Those are all, if we take it from a single point of view, massive societal gains for a level of investment and early intervention. But on a personal basis, the biggest single intervention is in the change of the lives of those individuals children because I believe that any society education can be the great life changer, it can be the great delivery for young people as individuals. Thirdly I believe it is the right focus. We will spend a lot of time debating issues around the importance of whether we get qualifications right.

Whether we have school transfers with different ages correctly. What are the right provision of schools, how do we deal with curriculum and all those I think very important educational subjects. But the biggest single intervention which helps determine how successful a child is in education happens before they walk through the school doors in the first place. That is not just my opinion. But whenever I was Minister of education in Northern Ireland, we commissioned a report entitled a start.

Which gathered together experts in the field, they were academic or whether they were people who had sought of direct life experiences. And that was very much the conclusion, the biggest single thing that government can do to tackle education underachievement and raise attainment levels is in that intervention before a child even reaches school. And fourthly, and can I say without entering into the turf war on Sure Start, it is something which has worked well and whenever I was Minister in Northern Ireland I saw to enhance and supported, but it is also the case that if we are looking at early interventions, and we know that there will be families that are at risk of having their children with low educational achievement, we know there are communities out there, social economic barriers create problems, again from experience from talking to a lot of people, if we are to have the best early interventions, we need a sense of cooperation and-and that means particularly from the communities that we are targeting those interventions in.

If a community in whatever part of the United Kingdom feels that this is simply a top-down solution which is being imposed upon them, and they are being top-down them, and they are being top-down to, then the ability for that curative change, and to give a level of ownership on education, I think is greatly reduced. So it is important I think that whenever a look at early interventions, that we get it not only fully supported but get it right which is why I think that the amendments, focusing in on a strong sense of strategy, and taking a free clear look at this, is very important.

-- Very clear look at this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We very much support the amendments in the name of Lord Farmer, Baroness Cash, and Lord
19:24
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Farmer, Baroness Cash, and Lord Russell of Liverpool. If you are putting together an early year strategy, you have got all the ingredients from this chamber here, everybody has actually mentioned the ingredients that will be part of that strategy, from good toilet training, well actually to my mind, what's really crucial is early identification of problems. And then early intervention of those problems. That is the absolute key. And we have talked a lot about Sure Start. Sure Start was a very, very good government policy and I pay credit to them, the government for introducing that policy.

I note that in my city, we introduced a number of Sure Start centres in deprived areas, sadly they were so successful that the more prosperous parts of the city wanted those centres as well. The important thing about Sure Start centres was that it was not just for the children, it was also for the mums and dads. And it gave support to those mums and dads in all sorts of areas from financial support to employment, to health, a whole host, whole menu of things that were important to parents.

And then also which nobody has mentioned, there was outreach provision as well. So that staff from the Sure Start centres could go out into the communities, visit parents in their homes, mums and their homes, dads and their homes, and give their advice and support. I think we have to be honest with ourselves and remember that there was a world recession. And we were all scrambling round to try and find out where the money was coming from and perhaps in the UK, in some areas, we made some of the wrong choices.

But it was left to local authorities to decide, and many local authorities decided, although there had been a huge reduction in the funding for local authorities, many local authorities decided to keep the Sure Start centres. Sadly some of them closed. Let's not go back there now. Let's celebrate that time but also remember that we have family house. And family house, perhaps our -- we have the family house. The other son and daughter of Sure Start centres. And maybe they can over time taken some of the other roles that were provided in those previous centres.

I think the one thing about the amendments are that they say right quite rightly that they should be two elements, one is that local authority should make sure that that parents are aware of the facilities and information support that is available to them. It is not just the statutory local authority, it could be from charities as well. And secondly, that they can also of course get that information quite quickly. The Secretary of State must also produce a report which is available to parents and carers as well.

So I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. I think it has been really, really important, useful. There are two things that I thought weren't quite mentioned, it links to the other debate on, dare I mention it, smartphones. And that is one thing that icy that really upsets me currently. Parents to keep the children quiet, walkabout, hand them an iPad. And I've seen two- year-olds or three-year-olds with an iPad in the back of a car, and I'm sure will be saying to parents that is not the best use of an iPad, that is not the way to develop your children.

The other thing I want to say is, when you went into the primary school, and the Head Teacher was it, said, I can look at a child, two or three year old, four-year- old, and see that they might become problems in the future. Tony Blair said exactly the same thing 38 years ago and there was absolute flora about it when he said this, that I can go into a nursery and see the potential criminals of tomorrow.

What he meant was that if we don't deal with the problems, that is probability.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Another excellent debate, I would like to thank everyone who has
19:29
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
like to thank everyone who has spoken. It is a pleasure to speak in this group because it is, as we have heard, so important to give children the best possible start in life and to prepare them for school. And at the speakers, led by an mineable friend, Lord Farmer, and my noble friend Baroness Cash, have already set out the case very effectively. In babies and very young children and their parents -- the case for supporting young children.

Listening to Baroness Cash 's's experience of canvassing and opening the door and a cloud of smoke coming out revealing a mother and baby, reminded me that 21 years ago I was involved in a piece of research on domestic abuse called safety in numbers where we looked at the cases of 2,500 women and their 3,600 children. Who were all living with very severe levels of domestic abuse. And half of the children in that sample were under five years old and the average length of relationship before those women had got help was five years.

So half of those children had lived with severe domestic abuse from the womb, and that was my equivalent of the door Early years was an area that the previous government had a great commitment to and rather like the noble Lady the Minister mentioned in the earlier group in the Online Safety Act, I think it is something we haven't touched in this debate in the growth in support not just for the very important family hubs, but also expansion in funding for childcare for all children aged from nine months to three years with an offer from this September from this September 1930 hours of free childcare a week.

And, of course, there is a very important distinction. That support is for children, not children and parents, but it's an important element and the government has quite rightly continued with this commitment, although as the noble Baroness the Leader will know changes to employer National Insurance contribution and increases to the National Living Wage have hit childcare providers hard. She will know there are very serious concerns about the viability of some of those early years providers unless there are increases in the early years funding rates.

And indeed the educational Select Committee has stressed in its report on the provision of childcare need further funding rate to be set at sufficient levels, so I wonder whether the noble Lady take the House on the government's plans to address this. Also could she update the House on progress with the school-based nursery grant scheme. My understanding is all schools that applied were approved which is curious as I would have thought that it would have been oversubscribed.

Maybe if she could clarify. As Lord Palmer said that the government committed to introducing a cross government package of support for, children and families, it is important that we get clarity on that and as the noble Lady said that clarity also includes the role of health within it. And as my noble friend Lord Farmer said the effects of amendments hundred and 79-170 effects of amendments hundred and 79-173 -- of amendments 1792 179-183 that a report will publish to give a national review of not just what support is on offer, but also of its impact.

As commented on a number of impact. As commented on a number of times during these debates, having a newborn child, a young baby or a toddler is a challenging time for almost every family, however much almost every family, however much joy it also brings. So does seem choose not to ensure that those families have the easiest possible access to information about the support services that are available to them. And of course it is up to them to decide whether they want to use them or not.

And similarly, why wouldn't the Secretary of State want to have an annual picture of the scale and impact of Start for Life and early years support, including of course the family hubs. My noble friend has very politely probed the government to clarify its focus on the Start for Life program and I hope the noble Baroness the Leader can give him a clear answer. Amendment 183B is both thorough and forensic in its focus, not only on the interventions that will support the healthy development of young children, but also the data to help shape a response and the transparency needed regarding progress and impact through annual national reports.

HR's first year in school has been described as an emotional, social, physical and emotional, social, physical and mental workout. Every day children learn new information, social rules and the application of new skills. So a lot is packed in to 10 months of the school year. So we really have a duty to make sure children are ready for school. The government has set a target of 75 scent of children to achieve a good level of development by 2028 compared to 67.7% today.

Think across the House we welcome this target, but again, it is not clear what the strategy is to deliver it and what the milestones are. My noble friends amendment 183B would give this to the government on a plate and I hope very much they accept it. And finally amendment 486 in the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool also sets out a path to an explicit early years strategy in terms of key activities, including Start for Life and family hubs, solid data recording and collection and a workforce plan.

As Lord Young of Cookham said in his speech, all too often it is obvious by the time that children reach school which ones are likely to struggle both academically and emotionally. There is a clear potential to bring these programs together with the extended government offer of childcare for preschool aged children and focus on some of the key school readiness outcomes that both my noble friends Baroness Blackwood cash and Lord Young have talked about. I look forward to the noble Baroness the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leader's response. My Lords, we have had a good
19:38
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have had a good discussion in this set of amendments in group 3 about the very important issue of how we can ensure that children get the very best start in life. And of course this government's opportunity mission is to break the link between a child's background and their future success and it begins where it matters most, in the early years. We have heard quite a lot of discussion. Some reminiscing, this dowager about the government, the last Labour government's Sure Start scheme.

I suppose without rehearsing the reasons why we no longer have a Sure Start scheme, at least the fact that we once had them, reference by several noble Lord's, show the several noble Lord's, show the considerable success of that model. And also from going through the process of having set up under the last Labour government. It provides us at least with some hope and some roadmap about how we might, if not in the words of the noble and learned Baroness Lady Butler-Sloss, we might not reinstate Sure Start, but we might get back the very important contributions it made.

Turning to the amendment in the name of Baroness cash which seeks to publish a national strategy. As noble Lady said, it is a probing amendment and I hope I am going to be encouraging about the national strategy. This government firmly Early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances. That is why we have set an ambition for a record proportion of children starting school to be ready to learn in the classroom and we will measure progress through 75% of children at the end of Reception reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile assessment by 2028.

This is not just a statistical target, it is around 45,000 more children who will start school ready to learn, ready to thrive and ready to succeed. This is a measure that has seen little progress in years, so it is ambitious, but it is ambitious because as noble Lords around this House have said, it needs to be. And the noble Baroness suggested nobody so far had mentioned the expansion of access to childcare. The government is already delivering on this commitment through the expansion of access to childcare with 30 from deed hours for working parents from September and will be investing an additional £1.6 billion per year by 2028-9 to continue the expansion of government funded childcare for working parents, who sting life chances for children and the work choices for their parents.

Alongside that we are creating 6,000 new nursery places in schools across the country in the first wave of 300 will base nurseries backed by £37 million. At the spending review we have announced almost £370 million of further funding to create tens of thousands of places into new and expanded school-based nurseries. Secondly, we will be working in partnership with the sector to drive up standards and improve the quality of early years provision. We recognise that early years professionals need more than just professionals need more than just praise, although they are very praiseworthy.

They need real practical support and that means offering sustained professional development and working with providers to help spread evidence- based programs as part of comprehensive plans to drive high quality early education and care. Only by listening to the expertise and experience of those on the ground can we deliver this together. And here I think the noble Baroness makes an important point about the way in which we enable in early years settings the ability for the early identification of those with specific learning difficulties.

We have an other occasions from this Dispatch Box I have talked about some of the additional training and guidance that we are putting in place in early years provision in order to ensure that that happens. I am sure that the noble Lady will hold me to account for that in future years, quite rightly. And improving reception year quality is important for setting children up for success in the rest of primary school. We genuinely hope and believe that the work that we will put in place will enable children to arrive in school able to learn, but as several noble Lord have pointed out, quite often for some children it is not until they arrive at school that they have the structure and support to enable them to start having all of these skills and development necessary for them to be able to learn.

That is why the reception year is so critically important and that is why we have recently announced that for our Rice recently announced that for our Rice team is one of the four universal services is how we will help them to improve, partnership and driving improvement. We are strengthening family services through family hubs and Start for Life programs. There will be a joint system of support through pregnancy and early childhood. His family hubs are already changing lives.

At the spending review the Chancellor committed to investing in and expanding the family House expanding the family House programme. Whilst I agree with the noble Lady and other noble Lord is on the importance of national strategy, the government, or perhaps I should say whilst I agree, I should say I can assure noble Lord who have said it is also important not only to talk about progress, but also to talk about how this will be brought together into a strategy that the government has already committed to publish a best start in life strategy.

We will expect to do that this year hopefully, some of them the end of the year. The point is to recognise the point made by is to recognise the point made by noble Lord is about the need to ensure that is a coherent and wide- ranging strategy in order to be able to deliver on the strong target that has been set by the government. I do not want to pre-empt the contents of the strategy, but I can assure years that it will build on our commitment to ensure children's early outcomes and next steps on early years reform, and it will also, of course, give a view both about how delivery and that will be achieved.

And how it will be monitored, implemented and reported on. Parliament will be able to hold the government to account on that commitment and the implementation of that strategy. The amendment also requires the government to set up a strategy for delivering the five existing developmental reviews. All reviews are important in ensuring that no child. The gaps and misses the opportunity to receive early support. Regulations already mandate that the five reviews be offered to Turning now to amendment 486, I hope in many of the things I have said I have responded to the points made by the noble Lord and I just want to reiterate, in terms of the best start in life strategy, which I hope noble Lord will see as fulfilling the requirement in this amendment for an early years strategy, that there will be an opportunity to consider the wide-ranging suggestions that the noble Lord have made during the course of this debate.

I'm not giving a categorical promise that all of these will be here but I will give a promise to go back to the Department and make sure that in thinking about the best start in life strategy, my colleagues are thinking very much about the suggestions that we have heard here this evening, whether or not that is the significance of the route to empathy work that my noble friend Baroness Thornton was talking about, whether on not it's the need for special educational needs early assessment that the noble Lady Baroness Bull talked about, whether or not it's the focus on early years physical activity of all different sorts that the noble Lord Lord Moynihan raised, whether or not it's the point about the vaccinations at the noble Lord Lord Meston talked about.

It's important that this strategy is broad and crosscutting and on that, I can assure noble Lord that we are working very closely with the Department of Health in developing all elements of the opportunity mission, and of course this best start in life strategy. The noble Lord Lord Russell also proposed subsections relating to how we could ensure that vulnerable children are protected and I just want to reassure the noble Lord that as we have discussed actually during the course of this committee, this government wholeheartedly recognises instrumental role the whole children social workforce plays, and through the families first for children pathfinders that we have talked about we will be able to test that and roll out those reforms nationally.

Turning to the amendments by the noble Lord Lord Farmer, improving services for infants, their parents and carers essential to our ambition to raise the healthiest generation ever done to give every child the chance to succeed. He knows the government already found 75 local authorities to publish.for life offers and has provided national guidance to support all local authorities to develop and promote their offers. The legislative requirements of the approach he is proposing including habits to provide information to parens will be considered as part of the best start in life strategy.

On the particular point about the Spending Review he raised, can I say, we will confirm funding for both the Family Hubs and start to life elements in due course and perhaps I could write to the noble Lord about the particulars concerns he had about whether or not the way in which the funding is allocated is distorting for some local authorities between Family Hubs and start for life and I'm sorry I didn't get that point earlier. But I this point, I think, drew my comments to a conclusion and ask noble Lords to withdraw the amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords, there have been many of you Lords, there have been many of you that have contributed very richly, I think, to this debate and it's been an important vote so may I thank you for your contributions which have made clear very much that robust support for a transparent early support for a transparent early years offer is here in this House and will remain. And I will just say and will remain.

And I will just say we shouldn't neglect the support that families need with older children. I should just go into a layby here and say, I went actually to the Labour Party conference, in to the Labour Party conference, in to the Labour Party conference, in about 18 or 19, it was a windswept Brighton, and we had Family Hubs event going on there and indeed the event going on there and indeed the noble Lady and Longfield was one of noble Lady and Longfield was one of our speakers and I was going along the front at Brighton and all of a sudden I heard a voice from behind me saying, Lord Farmer? To you doing me saying, Lord Farmer? To you doing in enemy territory? And I looked around and there was the noble Lord around and there was the noble Lord Lord Ponsonby and I said, Lord Ponsonby, Family Hubs, building on Labour's Sure Start centres, and that is what I hope Family Hubs are
19:52
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
doing. And it's not just a 0 to 5, it's that 0 to 19 because the are a it's that 0 to 19 because the are a lot of our children, I know the importance of the early years intervention and it's important to get that in place but we have, those are big cohorts at the moment, teenagers, where they need help. And 44% of our children are growing up 44% of our children are growing up in a single parent family so Family in a single parent family so Family Hubs are needed in 0 to 19, zero 25 Hubs are needed in 0 to 19, zero 25 for special needs.

-- Not 25. So thank you for the contributions. As thank you for the contributions. As I have said, amendments 179, 183, should be taken together, they are should be taken together, they are probing amendments and I won't be pressing them to vote. So I appreciate although I also very much appreciate although I also very much the information that the noble Baroness the Minister has been able to share and look forward to this correspondence or maybe a meeting we can have together, but the family support in early years workforce up and down the country are very keen and down the country are very keen to learn the full unfurling of this new government's comprehensive plans.

So in the interest of moving in our shop that noble Lords are, I would like her to keep us and them closely informed on developing do tell on Family Hubs and on the early years policy. I beg to withdraw my amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is Miley withdraw. Amendment 180. Not moved. 181. Amendment 180. Not moved. 181. Amendment 182. Amendment 183. And Amendment 182. Amendment 183. And 183, a. Not moved. Amendment 183, B. 183, a. Not moved. Amendment 183, B. Not move. 183C, Baroness Barran.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not move. 183C, Baroness Barran. I rise to speak very briefly to amendment 183, C, standing in my name. Last year the revised working together guidance remove that together guidance remove that requirement for section 17 all Children In Need assessments to be Children In Need assessments to be done by qualified social worker. At the time although the change was the time although the change was welcomed by the Association of directors of children's services and directors of children's services and others, there were some including Ofsted and the British Association of Social Workers expressed concern about the change.

This was in part because they felt these practitioners including family support workers, domestic abuse workers and youth workers already held high caseloads and in part because they do not typically have the necessary qualifications to do this to the required standard needed by courts given that gravity of the decisions that are taken based on these reports. My amendment 183, C, is a simple one. It seeks to probe and get on record confirmation from the government that only qualified social workers will be able to prepare a report ordered by the courts.

I know that there is real concern, this should be the case, and the new arrangements which are being brought into merge targeted help and child need provision could lead to a change in approach. The court ordered report for private law proceedings would not generally meet the threshold for child protection and therefore is likely to be held in the team which includes nonsocial work qualified practitioners. The court will be ordering an assessment and I would argue in my amendment seeks to probe that there will be parity with other private law reports and assessments ordered by Cafcass and which are undertaken by qualified social workers.

And of course, this work is highly contested and complicated. Can the noble Baroness the Minister confirmed that these concerns are unfounded? I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
19:56
19:57
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move the speak to amendment 193, C, group 4, tabled by the Baroness Baron. I would like to start by giving everyone in the chamber some reassurance before we go. I'm sure a possibly don't need to do this. But it's absolutely crucial that everyone understands that child protection cases, there is a requirement for a social worker and I think it's absolutely imperative that we make that point absolutely clear.

And I think the issue running through the, that perhaps has driven the concern is the issue of quality and I will go on to give some reassurance about that but at the end of the day, the absolute imperative is that we do right by children and we make the best decision for children and that have the right people available to make the right people available to make sure that that actually happens. In line with the current framework, reporting to the courts can come from a range of experts as we have heard.

The legislation is written and provides a degree of Flex ability depending on the circumstances of the case and that discretion of the local authority, or the court. When specific plea considering a seven reports, there is currently no requirement for section 7's reports to be prepared by the fire social worker and it is so important that there is flexibility in two may prepare these reports to make sure that they are prepared by the right person and with the right skills, and the right experience.

The court and local authority should have discretion in determining this as well. We know actually that most reports are
20:01
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
prepared by Cafcass and social workers with a small number of them being completed by local authorities, were social work authorities, were social work leadership or oversight is needed should be built into the supervision and signed off the reports. And the court of course has a duty to ensure court of course has a duty to ensure that the reports are of sufficient that the reports are of sufficient quality. And just picking up on the issues here, the memorandum issued issues here, the memorandum issued by the president of the family division on 4 October And just picking up on the issues here, the memorandum issued by the president of the family division on 4 October of the family division on 4 October 2020 emphasised that experts including Independent social workers should only be instructed to wear it is necessary to insist the court in is necessary to insist the court in resolving issues justly.

Parties must complete an application to seek must complete an application to seek permission from the court to instruct an expert witness, judges instruct an expert witness, judges can then consider the use of expert witnesses on a case-by-case basis, witnesses on a case-by-case basis, for permission to be granted the expert witness must meet the standards given in the practice standards given in the practice direction 25, B, PD, 20 5B. And direction 25, B, PD, 20 5B. And there are a list of 11 standards set out that govern this.

And these include requirements that they have been active in the area of the work, they have sufficient experience of the issues and have familiarity with the breath of current practice or If the practice is regulated by a UK statutory body and they are in possession of a licence, in terms of possession of a licence, in terms of Of... Of course we are introducing new multiagency child protection teams through this bill. These teams will provide expert child protection support across the system of help and protection which can include providing evidence required by the courts when needed.

Leave child protection practitioners who are experienced social workers will be embedded in the new multiagency teams alongside family help practitioners. It is absolutely crucial that there will be the facility for medical experts to come forward to the courts and give the experience. There are worries that the amendment as it is framed may preclude that. Of course, there is also a risk with the amendment that the workforce and the wider system could become overwhelmed. We are confident that our reform to children social supported by the measures in this bill will actually strengthen the system of help, support and protection for all children.

Can I also just reassure the noble Baroness that might noble friend the Minister previously discussing the concerns about the multiagency protection teams has committed to speaking to a range of directors of children's services to hear their thoughts about how the reforms can be implemented effectively, and I understand she has already met some of them and has agreed that she will hold a roundtable to explore some of the concerns that might be forthcoming. I do hope that noble Lord have read the letter as well that she sent on the back of these discussions around some of the concerns which I believe are linked.

The concerns around the new multiagency arrangements are linked to some of the concerns around the points raised in this amendment. We are also aiming for this discussion at the roundtable to take place before report. So I hope that is reassuring and for these reasons I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. her amendment.
20:04
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Can I put on record how much I welcome the noble Lady's comments about the roundtable and meeting and talking to a range of directors of children's services. I think it is really reassuring and the right thing to do and build our confidence in the government's commitment to get this important area of policy right. I appreciate that enormously because I know that ministerial diaries do not have a great deal of slack in them. In terms of this amendment, just to be clear, I was not worried, I appreciate the noble Lady's verification, but I was not worried there was a risk of someone who was not a qualified social worker dealing with those cases.

I was not talking about independent social workers, nor was I talking about particular experts such as the example the noble Lady gave of some specific medical expertise. I was specific medical expertise. I was thinking more about the situation of merged targeted help and child in need teams, writing reports when Cafcass is not writing the section 7 report where you might have, for example, a youth worker or someone example, a youth worker or someone who does not have the expertise and training.

I'm not saying they could not have it, but traditionally have not had that expertise in preparing court reports. I think what I heard was, but I will reread it, that they will be able to write those reports, but under supervision from a social worker. I have misunderstood, maybe the noble Lady could set a record straight now, or maybe she will go away and doublecheck and write me a very short letter. I would appreciate that, but with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment not moved. 18C

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- 183C. It is great to see the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is great to see the noble Lady on the front bench. My noble friend on the front bench. My noble friend was an exceptional Minister for the Child Maintenance Service. What motivated us all was to improve the welfare and well-being of children, welfare and well-being of children, but I'm going to start my intervention by flagging that I had
20:07
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
intervention by flagging that I had quite a lot of arguments, or disagreements, I don't think we are disagreements, I don't think we are allowed to argue in the Lords, with clerks about the scope. They consistently reiterated that trying to do something to make it easier for children to get child maintenance wasn't connected to the well-being of children because nobody could guarantee that the child maintenance payment would actually go to the child. When I pointed out that I think for example healthy start doesn't go directly to the child.

It goes to the parent to come by food which you hope will go to the child. I am flagging this now because the intention was to bring a particular amendment about commencing certain legislation and I will talk to that now. In terms of one of the things I think is important is a recognition that were in particular it has been referred to already and in previous groups about the impact of poverty on children. It is something like nearly double the proportion of families with the single parent is in poverty, relative poverty compared to two-parent families.

In the amount of research we did and looking into this with my noble friend, we felt that aspects of the cost of living aren't being addressed. We needed to get a lot of parents to stopping further upkeep of the child. One thing that has been a success overruled is that in just over one decade there are one million children accounted for in arrangements arranged through the Child Maintenance Service. The split is roughly 60% of those are in what is roughly 60% of those are in what is called direct pay, about 40% are in collected pay.

Direct pay is where a calculation is made by the Child Maintenance Service and the parent is supposed to pay that to the two the parent who has a child in their care. I note the government's decision, but I won't get into the merits about collect and pay. I will leave it for another time. When we have a situation where there are 390,000 children, actually in the last quarter of December of December 2024, the most recent statistics available, 44% basically of children did not get a single penny.

Not a single penny. That is 170,000 children. It is fair to say that in terms of they got some contribution, about 45.6% actually did get paid 90% or more, but there was 22% to received anywhere between was 22% to received anywhere between basically zero and up to 90%. I am also conscious that the Select Committee which I service during an enquiry into child maintenance. It is not my intention to over delay the consideration. We will come back to child maintenance in more detail another time.

One of the key things that may not be realised is that in terms of these arrangements where the interlocutor is the government, whether that is true arranging the direct pay calculations offer the collect and pay money is taken from one parent and passed to another, we should think about some of the issues that has caused. I do welcome what the government has done in terms of changing the benefit deductions, so child benefit comes at the top of that will do at some point.

It is concerning sufficiently that the two particular issues I am referring to, we recognise that when I was in government and that is why we Hand-out bill is that passed through this House. One was relating to domestic abuse,, the other was a Police... With Police... With evidence Police... With evidence whether someone is a victim of domestic abuse. Today the government has decided to scrap direct pay and move everybody onto collect and pay. That will cover any situation where there is domestic abuse.

I'm not sure how long that is going to take. We still have a situation where that is a have a situation where that is a The act was done in order to make The act was done in order to make it quicker to have enforcement. Let us be candid, there is over £700 million approximately that is owned to parents. There is a variety of ways that can happen, however one of the particular ways and it seems to affect self-employed parents you are due to pay is that at the moment, and without entirely repeating the legislation, but the intention of this particular act was to speed up the process of getting a liability order.

At the moment it takes nearly 6 months to go to a magistrate. Having exhausted multiple other situations. The outcome of this was supposed to reduce that to a maximum of six weeks. I am really concerned that this particular act has not been commenced. There are a variety of reasons I am sure, including something to do with Scotland. However, I do think we should get on with it. We should really make sure that children, a variety of things are being talked about with their well-being, about phones today, other issues regarding poverty strategy.

This is a real action that could unlock a lot of money for young children. I believe that we need to get on with it. More broadly, I'm conscious of the fact that only the government can do a lot of this administrative liability. If you have an order in place, you cannot then to the small claims court. Everything has to be done through the child maintenance process. It was a way to speed process.

It was a way to speed We need to have confidence that the government will deliver that money. In the latest survey only 46% of parents said they received the amount of money that child maintenance service told them they were going to pay. So you can imagine my concern, and the Select Committee will be looking to this further that it is my intention or desire to return at the sport stage, there may be a letter read out by the clerk expressing their concerns about the scope and I hope I have said enough today to show that actually I genuinely believe that trying to put into place legislation, to enacted or commence it rather, that this will contribute to the well-being of children very to the well-being of children very much directly, and hopefully we can start to get some of that £700 million back so that those children can have a better place and better start in life, not just through the wonderful hubs and similar but by their parents being able to cover all the news that they have, or many of the needs they do.

I beg to move. .
20:17
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support my noble friend in her endeavours with this amendment. We did both work and the Department together on child maintenance and became a real campaign and became a real campaign, and we were trying to turn every stone to make sure that money that was due to children got to them. And I could keep your Lordships here all night. I'm not going to but I could, all night, with the tricks and the things that people did to avoid paying the maintenance.

And it really was truly shameful that people whose relationships have broken down were taking it out on the children and making life very difficult for those that were trying to bring them up. And it really was. You would have somebody who would do direct pay and they would pay out, and they they would do their own arrangement, everything was working well and then when they thought the child maintenance was off their back, what would they do? Stop paying.

And when they would stop paying their would be a time when the enforcement teams would be writing be writing, saying you haven't paid and they would give a whole raft of excuses which were just pathetic. And then of course the enforcement team would get involved. And it would take forever. And there were these fast outstanding sums that should have gone to children. Djuga back to collected pay, there would be sums involved which would be taken from the amount of money, but I cannot tell you the links that people go to not to pay their child maintenance, and I say it's shameful and disgraceful.

The sooner these commencement orders are enacted are enacted, the better we can get money to children the better we can get money to children, and the better the quality-of-life they have so I completely support the amendments in my noble friend's name and I tell you it was quite something to have the two of us on the case of people who didn't pay their child maintenance and I would love to be back there doing that now. My full support and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will pull something out of the hat for this.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I also support the noble Baroness Lady Coffey on this. The
20:20
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Lady Coffey on this. The question she was asked about whether this affects the child's well-being because the money doesn't go to them, the answer of course it affects their well-being. I can tell you from the family that I personally know, and I know hard cases make bad law but it's pretty difficult. Where the husband disappeared and there were four children at home and those children have survived only because of the determination and hard work of the mother. And if she hadn't been the sort of strong character that she was, those children's wellbeing would a lot worse than it is now.

So there's absolutely no question that it effects the children's wellbeing and I quite agree with noble Lady Baroness Stedman-Scott, it is a disgrace Baroness Stedman-Scott, it is a disgrace, and if anything at all can be done to improve the situation, whether it's the noble lady's amendment or something else, I will be right behind.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think my noble friend Baroness Coffey I think my noble Baroness Coffey I think my noble friend Baroness Coffey, and my noble friend Baroness Stedman-Scott, have friend Baroness Stedman-Scott, have both made an incredibly long case for the importance of this for the importance of this amendment. And indeed supported by amendment. And indeed supported by the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley. As my noble friend Baroness Coffey said, the laws Public Services said, the laws Public Services Committee is the laws Public Services Committee is, has a live enquiry into this very important enquiry into this very important topic.

The statistics are very stark
20:21
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
topic. The statistics are very stark as we heard. With over one million children covered by child maintenance agreements. But enforcement still not being effective enough, and to many parents either making no payments at all either making no payments at all, or paying a regularly or paying insufficient amounts. And when I was running the domestic abuse charity save, the issue of non-payment of child amendments was incredibly frequent -- the abuse charity Save Lives.

And caused a lot of problems in the lives of children and their mothers. Of course as other noble Lords have said at its simplest non-payment just exacerbates either the risk of poverty or the actual poverty that so many single-parent families face. And secondly, in cases of domestic abuse, non-payment was often used as a means of coercion and control over another and her child. So actually raised the risk of harm to both of them. And the anxiety that this creates and the pressure this put on mothers of course as we know has direct impacts on the well-being of her child.

Thirdly, we saw the longer term impact both in terms of physical and mental-health problems mental-health problems, for the child. And as we know, Lisa due to public policy research has found that child maintenance currently lifts around 140,000 children out of poverty across the UK and conversely when payments are not made the when payments are not made the impact is devastating. And finally, we know that child maintenance is not just a private matter between separated parents, it's a fundamental determinant of child well-being and future life chances, and when maintenance payments fail, society bears the cost through increased demand on public services, and educational support, and in healthcare intervention.

SOAS noble friend so simply and clearly put, there are two pieces of legislation on the statute books that need to be commenced and I hope very much noble Baroness the Minister will confirm the government plans to do that will confirm the government plans to do that, and that can make progress to unlocking £700 million that belongs to our children. to our children.
20:24
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Can I first start by saying that I'm not surprised that the noble I'm not surprised that the noble Lady Baroness Coffey managed to persuade those in a position to be persuaded that this amendment should have the opportunity to be discussed this evening. Can I just say there is something about the idea of the noble Lady Baroness Coffey and the noble Lady Baroness Stedman-Scott pursuing pursuing, rightly, people who own money for the children and where they have a responsibility, which is I think refreshing.

And all I can say is that I have no doubt that my noble friend Baroness Sherlock and the current Secretary of State will be equally as relentless to making sure that families are paying for the children that they have responsibility for and that is quite right. I know from what the noble Lady said that the intention of this amendment is to probe and push on the progress that is being made on each of the piece of legislation she talks about and I want to provide some reassurance on that.

Firstly the powers within section 34 of the child maintenance and other payments act, which enabled parents or Secretary of State be transferred to the parties including debt collection agencies. This power is introduced as an option to deal with the £3.8 billion debt burden which had accrued under the former Child support agency. A portion of that debt was owed directly to the secretary of state. I'm sure the issue of child support agency debt has now been resolved and the child maintenance service has strong and effective enforcement powers including imposing prison sentences for non-payment.

On the specific point about debt collection agencies that isn't evidence that using that correction agencies would actually secure more child maintenance than current enforcement powers, in fact I think a previous trial absolutely demonstrated that and so no evidence that commencing this power would have a positive impact on children's wellbeing. On the second point about the child support enforcement act 2023, which introduced powers that once commenced would enable an administrative liability order to be made against apparent with outstanding child maintenance arrears, as noble Lady says, this introduces savings in court costs and time and I'm pleased to confirm progress is being made to implement the necessary legislation to ring the necessary legislation to ring this power into force as soon as possible.

The government is working with His Majesty Courts and Tribunal Service and the Scottish government to establish a process of preventing ILO's and plans to introduce relations to Parliament by the end of this year. The Child Support Collection Bill sacked 2023 recognised that direct claiming may not be appropriate for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The act intended to provide them greater protection when using the child maintenance service by allowing them to move to the cracked and pay service but only where there is evidence of domestic abuse.

The government recognises that removing opportunities to use the childminding service to inflict economic abuse will benefit the well-being of children. However, many victims and survivors would be unable to provide the necessary evidence as required by the act and for those that could, there are risks that providing evidence of the experience of abuse and reliving events could lead to further trauma. That is why the government has published its response to the consultation could lead to further trauma. That is why the government has published its response to the consultation, child maintenance improving the transfer collection of payments the transfer collection of payments, and the government response attached plans for reforms to introduce a service that protects all parents from financial abuse and importantly includes no requirement for victims and survivors to provide evidence of their circumstances.

These reforms therefore go further than the provisions contained 2023 eight... To protect survivors of domestic abuse. The forms will have positive impact on children and their well-being is more child maintenance liabilities are in force learning to more money going to children I know is the objective of the noble Lady in raising this point. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness Baroness Coffey to withdraw these amendments although she has already identified that she has other ways other ways, for which I have no doubt she will continue to put pressure on the government to ensure progress.
20:29
20:31
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have got to move it, otherwise you cannot speak to it. My Lords, looking through this, the Criminal Justice Act sum, those in it, and the link to the special education system, those with disabilities, is something a lot of us have known something a lot of us have known about for a long time. This suggests we get earlier recognition, early assessment of it was the first contact. There are lots and lots of contact. There are lots and lots of schemes which are suggesting that this will help.

And indeed, the this will help. And indeed, the Metropolitan police, they have autism awareness and badges and things going round, to actually give you information so the police can interact properly with them. It is interact properly with them. It is something that is becoming more and more apparent that if you have problems with written work or communications, you are going to struggle with the criminal justice system. Which is something that is actually blindingly obvious when you give it a little thought actually.

give it a little thought actually. And also the case of, we know certain people from certain economic backgrounds, if they struggled in the education system, well, it seems to me criminal activity becomes a to me criminal activity becomes a much more acceptable career path for them. To put it bluntly. So, I would just like to see what the government is actually thinking about this and the approach down here. Nothing more, nothing less, I look forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to hearing what the Minister says. Are you moving? Amendment proposed after clause 26, insert the following new clause, early following new clause, early intervention and screening at first contact with the justice system, as
20:33
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled list. My Lords, I wanted to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wanted to speak to expressed some concerns about this amendment, 183 CD, the intentions amendment, 183 CD, the intentions are clearly excellent, but there are nevertheless some real concerns to take note of here. Diagnoses of special educational needs, made by educational psychologists, by experienced clinicians, and to ensure there is consistency in diagnosis and treatment, it is important that that continues to be the case. And by contrast, neurodivergent's is a term with no clinical definition or standard.

In a world where stigma about mental health conditions has been reduced, or in some cases even reverse, it is, as we know, increasingly common for teenagers and adults alike to be neurodivergent. But this sometimes leads to acclaim by, or on behalf of, the individual, that they should be able to self identify into additional services or special treatment. In the case of the criminal justice system, the have -- The hazards are very obvious and if children, parents or lawyers see an opportunity, they will have a strong incentive to take it, irrespective of whether they have a true diagnosis that actually warrants that treatment.

So, while of course it is sensible for police to obtain information about a child's diagnose health of educational condition, that are relevant to their detention and treatment, and so to make proper inquiries, that is one thing. But to set up a parallel diagnostic system, leaning on a concept that does not have a clinical definition is clearly wasteful and risky. So, those concerns, I think, should affect any consideration that is given to this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I just wanted to clarify hope that I don't think the amendment is saying that it amendment is saying that it shouldn't be qualified practitioners carrying out the assessments. Already, we know in general terms Already, we know in general terms that 85% of young offenders of that 85% of young offenders of special needs. -- Have special needs. And it is important that the
20:35
20:36
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

pupils and provide for their needs. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 183 CD in the name of the amendment 183 CD in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. And I had also thought, in the original groupings, and we were going to talk about 502, I gather that is no longer the case. My speech will be even shorter. The House will be relieved to hear! Like my noble friend, Baroness Spielman, I don't support the noble Lord's amendment. Although, I do accept absolutely that it is a real sign that a child or young person has been failed by both their family and the services designed to support them, if they end up in police custody.

But the National Police Chiefs' Council's guidance, regarding the treatment of children in police custody is clear, it already states that children should not be held overnight in police cells, suggesting that time will be particularly very limited in police custody. It's also clear on the role of the local authority where there are concerns about the child's welfare, and the child's right to have an appropriate adults present to explain their rights and help them understand the situation. But in practical terms, I would just really question whether it's the right time to try and assess, even if we could magically find an educational psychologist to go to the police station, whether that is really a good time to suggest a child for special educational needs and disabilities, since it's particularly stressful situation, and obviously, as my noble friend, Baroness Spielman said, specialist skills required to do this.

Just to reiterate, there is no high-quality definition of special educational needs and disabilities, and no clinical definition for it. And my noble friend already said, there is no clinical definition for being neurodivergent. Currently, definitions of SEND vary from school to school. And in different forms of SEND. So, this confusion would open the door to misinterpretations. And for example, a child could have ADHD, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of making decisions. So, with respect to the noble Lord, who is not in his place, I would suggest this is very hard to make this amendment work in practice.
20:39
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I turned to speak to amendment 183 CD, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and can I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for stepping in to the gap, so that we could have a brief discussion on this. I am actually disappointed that the noble Lord isn't here, because he does have a lot of experience and background in this field, and it would have been helpful to have heard. If I could perhaps move to the end of the comments I was going to make to him first, just to reassure that there are no plans for a separate system to be set up.

And I would just like to echo, the noble Baroness Barran's comments in regards to screening for special educational needs and disabilities is important to bear in mind, that police custody is primarily a place of safety and investigation. Normally, the child, a child would be there for a very short time span. This there is high likelihood of a very stressful situation and unfamiliar environment, for those reasons, we don't believe police custody is likely to be an appropriate setting to assess special educational needs and disabilities, or being neurodivergent.

But to speak to the amendment, it would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy, intended to protect and promote the well-being of children in police custody, with a particular focus on provisions relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities and children who are neurodivergent. The current's manifesto is clear that particular care must be taken when police are investigating children, children should only be detained in custody when absolutely necessary, and where there are opportunities to divert children away from custody, these should always be considered.

And as we have heard, particularly important, whether child has special educational needs and disabilities or is neurodivergent. More broadly, the government's young futures program is about intervening earlier, to ensure that children and young people who are facing outcomes and being drawn to crime are supported in a more systematic way. Effectively identifying the right young people early enough and ensuring they are accessing evidence-based support is what the prevention partnerships will aim to do. The rights and entitlements of children in police custody actually set out in a statutory code of practice, code C to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, under code C, all children in police custody must be provided with an appropriate adult, whose role is to safeguard the welfare and rights and effective participation of the child.

When a , the custody officer must notify parents and guardians as soon as practical, explaining the reasons for the child's detention and where they are detained. And in addition, all detainees, including children, have access to healthcare professionals whilst in custody. These professionals play a critical role in identifying vulnerabilities and ensuring appropriate care. We have an interesting situation where, as we have heard, different police forces are looking at different ways that they can actually train their police forces.

They have introduced things like destruction tools, books, colouring books, puzzles, foam balls, have all been provided for some police custody suites. By organisations such as The Children's Society and Autism UK, which help a child to settle whilst they are in custody. And always looking of course, for examples of good practice. And I am also aware of the work under way and some Violence Reduction Units such as London Cleveland, who provide custody navigators for young people placed in custody, involved in or at risk of serious.

Custody navigators offer support to those young people at a time of crisis, or a so-called reachable moment. This is a moment when otherwise hard to reach demographics are away from their usual environment and potentially more willing to engage with officers... With offers of support. I think it is absolutely imperative, even though, we have explored the issue of appropriateness of some of this work in those settings, I think it is important to recognise police officers and legal representatives need to undergo training which equips them for working with vulnerable suspects as children, such as children, who are neurodivergent.

The College of Policing has also published an extensive neurodivergent glossary of terms, intended for all police officers, staff and volunteers, to raise awareness and enhance understanding of neurodiversity. The National Police Chiefs' Council has a dedicated neurodiversity portfolio, chaired by ACC Maxwell state of West Midlands police, who is established working group, whose work includes supporting police officers to design and deliver a service, a service to be proud of, relating to neurodivergent victims, witnesses, and suspects. And residents, and I think we are all aware, there have been distressing examples where such manifestations have not been recognised, everything is being done to recognise.

But in the absence of Lord Carlile, our turn to the noble Lord Addington and ask him to consider withdrawing the ask him to consider withdrawing the
20:46
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and I do agree that neurodiverse and doesn't really have a case in law, but as it's not my amendment I can be as rude as I like about the drafting. Going through there, I would want to get out the fact that we got the idea that there is a divergence of approach to this across the police force in the United Kingdom. There is also a divergence between how seriously you take various conditions.

The police are going to be very aware about how you deal with something about The prison population has bad literacy, something like 70 or 80%. But other conditions like for instance autism is one where there is great concern because they are greatly overrepresented as well. You don't react to social signals or you don't understand what's going on or you are easily led I heard all of the said about people on the autism spectrum. You've got to go through it, what I wanted to get out from the noble Baroness and I think I did was the picture of a diverse situation.

There are screening tools available that would lead you to suggest how you should conduct an interview. And how you go about that, it's very important because the police got this horribly wrong in cases in the past. Which has meant wasting huge amounts of time, money and distress. I thank the noble Baroness for her answer, I will go away and have a look and see if I think it needs to be back right will consult with Lord Carlile. It is something that is a real problem.

That's why it took the House as time to move it -- house this time. But having heard the answer from the having heard the answer from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister I beg leave to withdraw. Your chips pleasure this amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn in amendment is by leave withdrawn in clause 27 amendment 183 Lord Watson clause 27 amendment 183 Lord Watson moved. Amendment 184 Lord Agnew not moved. Amendment 185 Lord Addington already debated not moved. Lord already debated not moved. Lord Moynihan not moved. 186 not moved. Moynihan not moved. 186 not moved. Moynihan not moved. 186 not moved. 186 a Lord Watson not moved.

186B and 186C Baroness Barran not moved. Amendment 187 Baroness Lister Amendment 187 Baroness Lister already debated not moved. Amendment 187 a Lord Watson not moved. The question is that clause 27 stand part of the bill. As many are of part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Of the clause 27 "Contents" have it. Of the clause 27 amendment 187 already debated amendment 187 already debated Baroness Barran not moved.

The question is that clause 28 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Of the clause 28 amendment 188 withdrawn. Amendment 189 Baroness Walmsley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 189 and to speak to 193 which is in this group which is also in my name.
20:49
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
group which is also in my name. First of all may I say again how pleased I am that the Labour government has broadened the eligibility for free school meals. However much still needs to be done, in particular on the quality of the meals and the enforcement of the standards which needed reviewing anyway which was the subject of another amendment, 190 ready debated last week. Also to ensure that all eligible children get their meal. In recent years the whole issue of school meals has been left to flounder despite their importance to children's health and I'm so pleased that the government is now picking it up again.

Amendment 189 therefore calls for an annual review with the results to be laid before Parliament of the barriers to all eligible children receiving their free school meal. Clarification of how many eligible children are missing out. The review must assess how many children are eligible under whatever the current threshold is, and how many would be eligible if the threshold had been operated since 2018. Also how many would be eligible if the threshold were to be set at £20,000 per year after tax.

Because of the inequalities we know about, the review must cover regional and demographic disparities in take-up rates and the financial and educational impact on schools and local authorities bearing in mind that the child on free school meals currently brings the pupil premium with him or her to the school for education purposes. This set of reviews would give us more information about how the system is working and would form a very useful and underpinning for the development of policy in the future.

Amendment 193 would ensure auto-enrolment of all children eligible for free school meals and expand eligibility even further than the recent change to households whose income is less than £20,000 per year after tax. This would be yet another step in the right direction. I know the Secretary of State making the recent announcement that all children and families on universal benefit will be eligible for free school meals next year claimed that this simpler system will make it easier for families to register.

But it's still not the same as auto-enrolment. In schools as well as families are losing out because they are losing the pupil premium that comes with FSM. The evidence through the food diet and obesity committee was clear that there are many children who would become eligible under whatever threshold he may not get their free school meals such as it is and also that there are many children in poverty whose parents struggle to pay for a hot meal for their children. These parents are families eligible but not registered for FSM often send a child to school with a packed lunch of dubious nutritional value, we were given several examples of not because they don't care about their children's health, but because they can't afford the price of a decent packed lunch or a hot meal.

It's these unregistered families and those just above the eligibility threshold who suffer the most from regulations. Free school meals and breakfasts are one of the most important levers the government has to ensure that however poor are the parents, however lacking their cooking facilities at home whatever kind of food desert the family living, the children can get to healthy meals every school day they also get free breakfast. To ensure that they grow up strong and at a healthy weight with no rotting teeth and no wrong food preferences to take them through life and make them susceptible to obesity.

I do hope the government will agree with these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 28 insert the following new clause, review a free school meal eligibility and pupil premium eligibility and pupil premium registration as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. I rise to speak to amendment 191 and 192 in my name which are closely and 192 in my name which are closely related to that already introduced by Baroness Walmsley. I thank you very much Baroness Lister for offering her support to my
20:54
20:55
20:55
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
for free school meals get them. Surely that is something the government wants to do. I have no government wants to do. I have no particular opinion on whether 191 or 193 is the best way to do it, we can 193 is the best way to do it, we can debate that after this point although I would like to see the government say we want to do this, we go to do this you have to worry about the set reports. The best stats of previous form of free school meals before the government's school meals before the government's recent extension showed up to 250,000 children, about 11% of those eligible for free school meals, missed out because it's an opt in missed out because it's an opt in process.

This is a point that my honourable friend and the other place has already highlighted. I won't go through it in great detail won't go through it in great detail but I will note that the fix our food research program showed it is children from non-majority communities and lone parent households who are more likely not to be registered for free school to be registered for free school meals despite being eligible, inequalities here multiply themselves again and again and themselves again and again and again.

Reasons why the charity say this may be because parents struggle to out the complex forms, language barriers, they may be simply a lack of awareness and they may also be, we should all I think the whole hope the House will join me in saying there is no reason why there should be stigma for free school meals, but the practical reality is we know that there is. I also note that the Greater London Authority has put resources into auto-enrolment showing that it is possible to make a difference in this but around the rest of the country that is not available.

I come back to my point about stigma because what amendment 192 does is extend free school lunches to all primary school aged children in state funded schools. I'm going to quote a question that was put to me by a year seven pupil from Lords would boys school in Birmingham this morning, and no I didn't put up to it, it wasn't prompted in any way. He recently said to me speaking as some of the questions identified as a representative of the government I did have to correct that misapprehension, why don't we get free school meals? That's something really high level of awareness, people are feeling the inequality, the suffering that has come from the lack of those free school meals.

My amendment 192 that Baroness Lister has kindly backed wouldn't actually help that year seven boy. This is me in the Green Party going for the moderate middle-of-the-road option, because actually the Green Party policy is free school meals to all school pupils, so would help the people in Birmingham, but what we got here is an amendment simply for primary school pupils. I think again part of the reason we have done that as we have the example from London of how positive it's been, and I note that there has been an evaluation of this conducted already to see what happened, a lived experience evaluation by the Child Poverty Action Group and implementation evaluation as well.

This policy unsurprisingly was really popular and had a very high level of take-up. Across three school terms between 88 and 90%. Among the positive outcomes for that 84% of parents said it improved the family budget. One third of parents said the policy said they had less. Three in five parents at the lower variable to spend more money on food at home as a result. We talked so often in your chips house about the issue of our broken food system and how it so difficult to get a healthy diet.

More positives, more than half of parents thought the child with trying new foods as a result of being exposed to them at school. More than half of parents, this is the kind of thing you might not think about, say it saved time in the morning they had been forced to use making packed lunches. We all know that can make a real difference to families full stop more than 1/3 of parents thought their children were concentrating better in lessons as a result.

This is a challenge to the government, a moderate challenge to the government to say, look at what has been achieved in London. We know the levels of inequality between London and the rest of the country, let's breakdown that inequality and let's make it better for at least our primary school pupils.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm pleased to add my name to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm pleased to add my name to various amendments concerning free school meals because much as I welcome the bill's provision for free breakfast there remains a strong case for complimenting with free school dinners but I will scrap of my speech to save time. This was summarised well by the Food
20:59
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
summarised well by the Food Foundation, school food has the power to enable not just better health and well-being but improved attendance, better outcomes and widest social benefits including reduced and equalities. Free school meals can break down barriers to opportunity and level the playing field so every child can have the best start in life, in a nutshell, children who have free school meals are healthier and happier and you better in school as well as later in life. The amendment 's contribute to both parts of the spell, children's wellbeing and their ability to benefit from their education.

I therefore warmly welcomed the recent announcement of the extension of free school meals to all children and families in Universal Credit next September, with transitional protection associated with the rollout of Universal Credit lasting until then full stop may I ask one small question and if it can't be answered now perhaps it could be in writing. I understand that if someone is on Universal Credit at the start of the school year they will retain entitlement the whole of that year in recognition of the fluctuating circumstances of many on low incomes.

Could the Minister confirm that is the case, and also say whether someone his parent comes onto Universal Credit during the onto Universal Credit during the When we debated the statement, my noble friend, Lady Chakrabarti, made an impassioned plea on human rights grounds that we might one day aspire to universal free school meals. An ambition that my noble friend the Minister noted. Already mentioned CP AG's evaluation of the Mayor of London's free school meals scheme and found it was highly valued by parents and children, the policy is helping to support people's happiness and well-being at school.

It is also valued by school staff, you could see the good it was doing the children, and also how it helped to strengthen school communities. All of this for what CP AG call the multiplier effect for free school meals, and the key lever of ensuring all children have access to diverse, rich education. The case is multifaceted. And I hope it's an ambition we can keep on the table, ambition we can keep on the table, i.e., a universal free school meals.

It is also modest enrolment to improve take-up, when it was debated in the Commons, the Minister sounded sympathetic, but talked about exploring legal gateways that could enable better datasharing. I wondered whether my noble friend could say more about that, when questioned the other day, she said the takeover free school meals might improve once the title is linked to UTC, it will be clearer to families. But the take-up problem is a deep- rooted one. And I cannot really understand why ministers shy away from the Autonomia solution, when questioned about it.

The recent report from the education policy Institute made a strong case for a national system of auto enrolment, suggested it would address many of the barriers to free school meals, Inequalities in access to free school meals across schools. It was also said the considerable resources required by local authorities to implemented as well as significant investment from schools and local authorities, and other activities, for free school meals and maximising registration. It would overcome practical challenges at the local authority level, such as children attending school in a different local authority to where they live.

Many local authorities indeed call for a national approach. The issue was raised at a recent meeting of the APPG on school meals, school foods. One of the great rejoicing of the extension of free school meals, but there was genuine puzzlement as to why the government, on the one hand, adopted auto enrolment, but on the other is resistant to do so itself. Even though it would reduce the overall administrative burden. Could my noble friend explain why please? In conclusion, I'm more than happy to celebrate the extension of free school meals as a downpayment on the child poverty strategy.

I won't reveal here my plea for the limit, on that strategy, but I will repeat there is work to be done and maximising benefits for free school meals, for children, parents,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schools and communities. My Lords, I rise briefly to talk about the two amendments in particular in this group, that I particular in this group, that I have co-signed in particular, the ones that are proposed by my colleague, Baroness Walmsley, and in particular, I want to also probe and press the government around free press the government around free school meals and in particular, this school meals and in particular, this issue around auto enrolment. I know from my own lived experience how that changed my life, in terms of that changed my life, in terms of being able to actually, rather than
21:04
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
being able to actually, rather than run home from school and have my dinner and come running back, and how very little engagement social time with my peers, and the fact we were able to eat together, talk together, socialise, and actually, in my case, my notes can actually discover some new foods, like lemon meringue and cheese flan. And I kid you not, if my secretary PA support from the council was here, she will tell you that often when I went to conferences on behalf of Sheffield Council, I would say to Lisa, just ask them if they do a school dinner.

Because that is what Howard like. Because that, my Lords, sometimes we joke, but sometimes, young people get a set menu and don't get a chance to actually taste other foods. I talk from my South Asian origin, the onion barges did not hit origin, the onion barges did not hit the mark in my school. But I do want to challenge the government on this issue about pupil premium, because we all see where that extra support early on, for students that could benefit from school meals, and that money that empowers teaching staff in schools to also decide what they need for those young people, or that young person in particular, that could be additional teaching assistant in school, or it could be for support for after-school stuff.

We're not just talking about school meals here, my Lords, we are talking about things that would change young people in particular for some so, I want to press the government and I want the Minister to respond to the point that was made earlier about this auto enrolment. You can push towards the right direction and you are just not quite there, and we would like, either here, or the next stage on, to push the government to do the right thing and I welcome the announcement that we heard around what happened next year, with more people being able to access school meals.

So, with that, my Lords, I sit down and look forward to the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to
21:07
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 189 and 191-193 unblock, let me thank all noble Lords who let me thank all noble Lords who Contributions thus far. We heard some excellent pieces of your Lordships house, relating to the provision of healthy nutritious food in schools. And the possibility of providing eligible children for free school meals and activities during school meals and activities during the school holidays. So, it is most opportune that we now have the ability to constructively challenge His Majesty's government around the His Majesty's government around the base provision and right for those children eligible to take advantage children eligible to take advantage of free school meals during term of free school meals during term time.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister, and Lady Cass, a noble Lady Lister, and Lady Cass, a noble Lord, Lord Hammond, seeks to require the Secretary of State to review the the Secretary of State to review the free school meal eligibility and pupil premium legislation. It is absolutely correct that schools and absolutely correct that schools and local authorities should have local authorities should have complete and full data and that those pupils eligible for free school meals to actually take them out.

They are clearly the pupils who are most likely to need free school meal provision and if His Majesty's government will please listen to the eminently sensible suggestions from other noble Lords last week, including those in your Lordships house right now, those meals will be healthy nutritious food with fruit, vegetables, and low sugar levels in both food and drink. Healthy nutritious food, and free school meals for every pupil eligible will hugely aid the learning and development of children in the UK.

Amendment 191 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Bennett as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, amendment 193 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noble Baroness, Lady Cass, noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, both seek to change the system of enrolment for free school meals so there is auto enrolment for all eligible families. It appears that difficulties can arise during the application process and for some, the forms can be overly complicated. But it is absolutely crucial that eligible families are able to access this provision.

We do understand changing the system in this way is far from straightforward. But some local authorities are investigating how to make such a system work and the question we would have the noble Baroness the Minister would be surely this is worth fighting for. Ensuring that all pupils who should receive free school meals do indeed receive them were, we believe, be a receive them were, we believe, be a top priority on every batch of your Lordships house.

Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Baroness, Ada Bennett, the noble Baroness, Ada Lister, -- Lady Lister, whilst we agreed is vital for all students to access healthy nutritious meals at school, we might suggest that this scheme would be potentially expensive to implement, and within school budgets, there could be a more efficient and appropriate allocation of resources and funding. My Lords, that's not to say free school lunches for all primary schoolchildren in state funded schools are a bad idea.

In a perfect world, of course, it is a great idea, but we would suggest a detailed analysis, as required, of how much it would cost is it realistic to have some, even if small contributed from parents, what impact would have on the other elements of school life, if the school and local authority had to find the funding without additional resource from His Majesty's government? These are just some of the questions we would seek answers for from the noble Baroness the Minister, and we look forward to hearing His Majesty's government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response. My Lords, speaking to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, speaking to the amendments in group 7 which relate to free school meals and following on of course from the interesting on of course from the interesting debate we had last week on wider issues relating to school food. Turning to speak to amendment 192
21:12
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Turning to speak to amendment 192 tables in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Bennett, which would extend the provision of free school meals to all students attending state funded primary schools. My Lords, the government is clear about the benefits children enjoy when they receive a free and nutritious lunch. They support attainment, because hungry children, concentrate and learn, by improving behaviour, nutritious and free meals also lead to better outcomes, meaning children can get the best possible education and chances to succeed in work and life.

It is in recognition of these benefits this government has confirmed all children in households receiving Universal Credit will be eligible to receive free meals from September 2026. This represents a significant expansion of support to over half a million children. The government has chosen, though, to focus not on the most disadvantaged households, which we are backing with over £1 billion in funding. This is on top of the 3.4 million children already provided with school meals by the government. Doing this in the way the government has chosen, we will lift thousands of children out of poverty, reversing the trend in child poverty we inherited from the previous government.

This is the priority then that this government has decided on. And of course, it also goes alongside the rolling out of free breakfast clubs to every primary school pupil, which we also had the opportunity to discuss last week, meaning, as the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, said, they ran out significantly more children who will be able to have both the benefit of a free breakfast and a free lunch and alongside that, as we have talked previously about expanding government funded childcare, legislating to The number of branded school uniform items, these are all serious developments in the government's plan to break the unfair link between background and opportunity.

Turning to amendments 191193, tables and the names of the noble Baroness Lady Bennett, and the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley. This meant was,, seek to ensure all households meeting eligible to criteria for free meals will automatically receive this without having to make a claim, something required under current provisions. The first and most important point to make here is the very process of now linking free school meal entitlement to Universal Credit make it far simpler and far more likely that there will effectively be an automatic understanding at least of the eligibility for free school meals.

But we do want to ensure all families who need it are able to claim the support they are eligible to receive. That is why we provide in eligibility checking system to local authorities, this is an online portal that means verifying eligibility for free meals quick and easy. We are rolling improvements out of this system to allow parents in schools to review eligibility for free school meals independently, which would make it even easier for families to claim the support they are entitled to. These sections will support the take-up of free meals, however we will keep under review the extent to which those free meals and all the benefits that come with them are being taken up.

I hope the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, who of course has worked closely on of course has worked closely on this, not least in her role as Chair of the Food Diet and Obesity Committee, will recognise the action this government has taken in opening up access to free meals, up to all households in Universal Credit, which of course goes beyond her committee's recommendation that free meals be available to all households earning £20,000 a year or less. We hope that noble Lords will also agree that our signified eligible to criteria and improved checking system will both make it easier for families to claim the support they are entitled to.

Turning to amendment 189, tables in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley. Which would require the Department to regularly review and publish data I can assure noble Lords that of course from 2026 when the criteria changes we will want to monitor the take-up of free school meals and I'm sure that will enable us to get into some of the details that the noble Lady was talking about in her introduction to this amendment. A couple of other points to respond to, first of all in response to Baroness Lister, yes it is the case that if during the school year you come off universe -- Universal Credit then you will maintain your entitlement to free school meals during the course of that year.

But if you go onto Universal Credit you can apply for your free school meals straight away. Lord Mohammed asked about the relationship to people premium, pupil premium funding entitlements will continue to be based on the existing free school meals threshold, we are reviewing how we will allocate pupil premium to ensure that it is targeted to those who need it most. We will be maintaining however the overall amount that we spend on tackling the challenges faced by children with additional needs for some of the reasons that the noble Lord outlined.

I hope that with those assurances and with the substantial investment this government is making, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I briefly ask, the noble Baroness the Minister mentioned twice monitoring the take-up. Does twice monitoring the take-up. Does the government actually know how the government actually know how many families should be claiming free school meals? Because that would surely help in understanding how close the government is to how close the government is to reaching the goal that all noble Lords are asking for which is free school meals for everyone who is school meals for everyone who is eligible.

What is that number, I don't need the answer now but does the government have that because the government have that because presumably they should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The point I was making was the linking free school meal entitlement to Universal Credit will make it much easier, both for families to much easier, both for families to apply and also for us to monitor the levels. I will respond to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord on specific point. I thank the Minister for her reply and all other noble Lords are reply and all other noble Lords are spoken in favour of these important group of amendments. I do assure the noble Baroness the Minister that I have said today and also last week have said today and also last week how much I welcome the expansion of eligibility for free school meals. Can I just make a point about Can I just make a point about amendment 189.

It is important that when the government comes as the Minister has promised, to monitor the uptake under the new eligibility rules, that there is enough detail in their. Because my amendment mentions things like demographics, mentions things like demographics, regional differences, perhaps cultural differences and so on, all that will really give a good, useful that will really give a good, useful set of information to help the government to develop policy even government to develop policy even further. I'm not going to go on any further about free school meals further about free school meals again, I could go on all night.

Like Baroness Stedman-Scott and she resisted it, so will I. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
21:20
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 190 already debated not moved? Amendment 191 not moved. Amendment 192 not moved. Amendment 193 not moved. Amendment 194 193 not moved. Amendment 194

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Walmsley not moved. I beg to move that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House resumes. We will then move on to consider the SI and associated motions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motions. The question is that the House is resumed. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have "Not content". The "Contents" have Contracts for Difference, miscellaneous amendments, number two regulations 2025, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sedgefield. I beg to move that the House approved the draft contracts for different miscellaneous amendment number two regulations 2025. The House may recall that on 12 February House may recall that on 12 February the government made a statement confirming that we intend to introduce short-term support for large-scale biomass generators to ensure the U.K.'s continued security ensure the U.K.'s continued security of supply. Following a robust public consultation process we published consultation process we published our consultation response which set out that legislative changes are needed to enable the government to provide support to existing biomass provide support to existing biomass generators through new law -- low carbon dispatchable Contracts for Difference.

I should emphasise that while this instrument enables the provision of new support, the final decision on whether to do so will be made following the consultation drawn from our thorough internal assessment and commercial negotiations. The draft SI will enable the new low carbon dispatchable CfD to be signed with existing biomass generators that is not possible currently. It amends the Contracts for Difference
21:23
None Portrait Contracts For Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (NO.2) Regulations 2025: For Approval
-

definition of eligible generated definitions 2014 that says a person is eligible for safety and respective of a biomass station
21:23
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
respective of a biomass station where it is attended that the existing biomass station will continue to generate electricity. As is the case today, the low carbon is the case today, the low carbon can or the LCCC will be the counterpart to any new CfD. The Second Amendment in the SI relates Second Amendment in the SI relates to sustainability. The government only supports the use of sustainable biomass and we continue to review sustainability requirements so we sustainability requirements so we can remain aligned to the latest evidence.

This instrument will amend evidence. This instrument will amend the electricity market reform general regulations 2014 to allow the Secretary of State to direct the LCCC to implement amendments relating to sustainability relating to sustainability obligations within the new CfD. This will mean that the government can make changes to sustainability requirements within the new contract requirements within the new contract to ensure that they keep pace with the latest evidence was I should note that these regulations were originally laid before the House on originally laid before the House on 11 March but were relayed on 2 April to correct minor drafting errors.

We liked outline the government scaffold consideration, considered position on large-scale biomass generation. Large-scale biomass generation provides around five% of the U.K.'s annual electricity generation. Current support for these generators under the CfD's in the renewables application ends 2027. I want to assure the House that the government maintains an unwavering commitment to energy's we will do everything we can to secure reliable energy system. Both for now and in the future, even if it means making hard decisions.

My department considered a range of factors before deciding whether to provide further support for these generators. Firstly, we took analysis from the National Energy System Operator and have concluded that without further support for large-scale biomass the country could face security of supply risks between 2027 and 2031. Relying on alternative options to come online in this timeframe such as building new gas plants would carry significant risks stop secondly we undertook compressive analysis of the costs of biomass against alternatives in our central projections indicate that on the right terms playing a much more limited role than today, biomass generation can be the lowest cost option during this period.

Lastly we will introduce strength and sustainability requirements from the outset of any new agreement will stop importantly this SI will also allow sustainability measures to be announced through the duration of the contract. In line with the latest scientific evidence on global breast -- best practice will stop these factors represent a sustainable shift from past arrangements on sustainability and value for money for the we have also listened to stakeholders and recognise the strength of concerns about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution.

When such decisions arise in the future the government will not be left in similar circumstances. Therefore we will undertake the essential work on strong and credible low carbon alternatives to ensure we have proper options in four years time. I want to acknowledge the regret motion tabled by Baroness Bennett which I understand focuses on concerns about drags. Earlier this year the government confirmed it had a new CfD with Drax. This will enable the new CfD, this instrument would enable that CfD should a final solution be taken to providers.

But it will equally enable similar agreements with any other biomass generators. It does not guarantee that CfD will be offered to or agreed with any biomass generator, nor does it specify the contract terms including time limits for any individual company. These draft regulations are about ensuring we have the option available to respond to security of supply needs and deliver low carbon electricity to the grade at the lowest cost to the consumer. Let me be clear that the proposed agreement with Drax would limit generation to times when the system and in turn consumers most require it.

When renewable power is abundant, Drax will -- won't generate and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead. This means that Drax will only be supporting to operate less than half as often as it currently does. As a result the deal would halve the amount in subsidies compared to existing arrangements, equivalent to a saving of nearly 6 pounds per household in annual bills. When compared to the alternative for processing gas in the capacity market, it will save consumers £170 million in subsidies in each year.

The agreement also introduces tough new measures on sustainability and we will appoint an independent adviser to support the development of policy and practice in biomass sustainability and ensure that these keep pace with the emerging science and international landscape. However this debate is about the legislation and not Drax. As I conclude I want to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their important instrument. As mentioned earlier this instrument is not specific to Drax, instead it will enable support you provide to Drax or any other biomass generators should a decision be taken to providers.

As I have orally noted, if the government does decide to provide support to Drax it will offer substantially better value for money for consumers. In relation to the committee's commitment, comments on sustainability I will clarify that the KPMG report our internal fact-finding documents commissioned by Drax in relation to existing sustainability requirements. The reports do not belong to the government or to Ofgem, they belong to Drax it is for Drax to decide whether to release them. Furthermore the Department for energy security and net zero is considering the report at the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on biomass including the recommendations and Drax's sustainability assurances.

Work is underway to strengthen the monitoring reporting and verification arrangements and the Department issued a full response to the Public Accounts Committee report on June 16. In summary, these draft regulations represent an important step in ensuring our energy's protecting all players now and well into the future. They make the necessary amendments to enable support to be provided to biomass generators when existing schemes and in 2027. This will enable us to maintain the U.K.'s security of supply, deliver value for money for consumers and enhance the sustainability requirements.

I beg to move that these regulations supported by noble Lords in this chamber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this motion is agreed to. Amendment. Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. I rise to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. As I think the Minister has already alluded to this is an already alluded to this is an amendment that is a regret motion which very closely mirrors the wording, the comments made both by our own secondary legislation
21:30
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
our own secondary legislation scrutiny committee and indeed also by the Public Accounts Committee. It regrets that these draft regulations fail to really identify the subject as the Drax and I think it's interesting I was listening to the Minister and I don't think I heard him use the word Drax until he actually got to speaking about the amendment. I think we all know and the noble Lord spoke about the difficulty as he saw it of providing alternatives to Drax, that we are not going to suddenly magic up an alternative Drax out of nowhere that suddenly is going to start I refer noble Lords and the many people who I know are listening to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, reference to this is about Drax, that is what it has to be.

I just want to explain a couple of things, because many campaigners, people I have worked with over the best part of a decade, were really disappointed that I didn't put down a fatal motion, because they are so angry and so upset about the environmental disaster, the financial disaster that this represents. What I was hoping by putting down a regret motion, since we know the House is more inclined to vote to those, we might see support from other parties in this House, but I haven't seen that support, so we are where we are.

I am waiting to see how the debate goes, what happens, but I decided to call the vote or not, for putting that on the record, but I will note there has been huge interest in this and not just around it, but also an article in the Guardian at the weekend, from the former supporter, possibly so supportive, I am not sure, a Labour government, exposing great concern. These do not provide any for Drax to be accountable.

So, what does it actually do? It cuts down old-growth North American forests which are converted into pellets, situated in areas of America, where there are awful public health consequences. Then shipped across the Atlantic on diesel powered ships. To be burnt. To say this is nothing like Green is simply a statement of the obvious. There is also the issue of cost. And it is great to see the noble Lord in his place and I think you will get to this later, but what we are talking about here is a subsidies of £1.8 billion for burning 108 million trees.

That is on top of the £6.5 billion Drax has already received for destroying 300 million trees. Now, the government had the noble Lord, the Minister, will say this is an improvement on previous arrangements. Well, yes. But this is still not where we should be. We have a climate emergency. I have to refer to this. We have just come out of a heatwave, whether figures tell us there will be 600 deaths, just out of this June heatwave, almost certainly more to come over the summer.

Our farmers are facing an awful year. And around the world, the climate and nature crisis are absolutely acute and Drax is contributing to both of those. Now, I think I have got to reference, the noble Lord, the Minister referenced what reported to Drax, which we now call the famous KPMG report to Drax, saying Drax now owns it. Isn't the government the customer here? And if the government wants to ensure the kind of sustainability that the noble Lord, the Minister, refers to, surely it could require a customer that that KPMG report be published.

That seems to be something that a customer could very easily do. Now, a couple of other things, there are so many noble Lords here and I am very aware of the hour, so a couple of the things I will mention. Actually, I do want to say, " The quote the secondary Legislation committee, talking about the KPMG report, " We consider this should be released before this instrument is debated and before Parliament pleats with any of these draft regulations." That is not me saying that, that is the second Legislation scrutiny committee.

-- The secondary Legislation scrutiny committee, that is why we are here tonight and why we have the KPMG report. I want to mention a couple of other things. The noble Lord cabinet minister, has talked about keeping the lights on. Well, renewable storage into connectors, but above all, far more work to be done on energy conservation. We see so much electricity being wasted in our society, and this is something we need to see far more from the government on. The other thing to just mention is that the government subsidising Drax, there is talk around, it's only floating in the ether at the moment, but Drax might be looking to form independent contracts with data centres around the country.

So, the government could be setting up to empower the continuation of the burning of wood, which creates 18% more carbon which creates 18% more carbon dioxide emissions than coal fired power stations. The government may be doing something to ensure more of that. This is an environmental disaster. It is a disaster for energy consumers and for the public purse. And that is why I asked noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords to support, to share their regrets, about this statutory instrument. I beg to move. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that the regulations are laid before that the regulations are laid before the House be approved, since the amendment is moved by Baroness Bennett, at the end, to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put
21:37
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

is that this amendment be agreed to. Very grateful for her speaking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful for her speaking the way she did. I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, who produced the report Committee, who produced the report she referred to. I must also declare a former interest, in that I was a director of a company which briefly, while I was a director, owned a generator which could notionally benefit from this scheme. But contrary to what the Minister said, these regulations are actually virtually all about Drax. As we said in our report, the main financial beneficial of the new arrangements are Drax, and Drax is by far the largest UK biomass generator.

I find these regulations remarkable in at least four ways. First, their presentation is remarkably shifty. The title, Draft Contracts For Difference Miscellanea Amendments Number Two Regulations, but wouldn't actually tip you off what we are talking about here is massive subsidies for massive carbon dioxide emissions. And we are talking about The SLSC pointed out, it was quite order to produce an explanatory memorandum which never mentions the word Drax. I think it's remarkable because the costs are remarkable. Drax has already enjoyed £6.5 billion worth of subsidy.

And here we go with another 1.8 billion. Over £1 million a day. A price of the electricity produced and sold, £113 per megawatt per hour, is well above than it paid for offshore windfarm electricity, are also under similar Contracts for Difference. Third, it's remarkable that the emissions are so high. As the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, said. They are 18% more than copper bowl coal-fired generation emissions. -- Comparable. The generator producing the most carbon dioxide per unit of carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced.

Fourth, it's remarkable that, whereas Drax used to be pushed, as the site at some future date of the carbon sector station, and scheme, that's dropped. That story doesn't exist any more. There is no CSS in these regulations. There's nothing about CSS, I assume, in the contract with the company. And the company have in fact paid off the staff who are working on CSS. So, that story is dead. Which means that it is counterintuitive that Drax is still sailing under a green flag.

And it's rather a delight to hear a distinguished former leader of the Green Party denouncing the flag, it should not be on this pirate ship. Given the opportunity cost of the sequestration gone in the forests of Canada that are cut down, made into pellets and shipped across the United Kingdom, the sustainability story about Drax was never particularly convincing. And I think the Public Accounts Committee, were quite right to say in their report, 25th of April, the current approach relies heavily on generators self reporting the sustainability of the biomass they use and third-party certification schemes, giving a sense that the generators are marking their own homework.

It is more in a sense they are marking their own homework. Neither the Department, quoting again from the PAC, neither Department or Ofgem no whether the approach to insurance is effective in making sure the biomass is from sustainable sources. They do not know. Drax commissioned KPMG to write a report, Baroness Bennett referred to it, I don't need to do so, the Minister says it's not the governments, it's not Ofgem's to pass to us. The PAC says it should be shown to Parliament, it should be SLSC says it should be published before this debate and should have that is right, the Minister possible argument is it is not his to publish.

He is the man who was awarding this enormous contract to the company. £1.8 billion. It is open to him to suggest to the company that it might assist the government in making a decision in favour of a company one if the company were to do what Parliament asked, but that doesn't appear to have happened. We do not know what KPMG said, because we are not allowed to see the report. Seems to me to be rather high-handed of the company.

Advanta suggests that they may have something to hide. -- And rather suggests. I think there may be a case for Drax, and I think the Minister touched on it, when he talked about security of supply. Possibly, he didn't mention this, but possibly a case in terms of dealing with a risk of a black start. Having these huge turbines turning up there could be convenient if you get a crisis and a black star. The security of the stock star.

The security of the stock supply argument is I could be persuaded that we need to keep this immensely expensive scheme going for security of supply. But it would have been more honest if the government, in their explanatory memorandum for these legislations, had made that case, which they do not do. Instead, we have the sustainability case, which I think doesn't fly for the reasons given. To explain the astonishing cost of the scheme. The selling of the skin looks shifty.

-- Scheme looks shifty. The refusal to produce the KPMG report of sustainability looks high-handed, the noble Baroness' regret motion was, in my view, well justified and exactly right. And had she been in the mood to press for a vote, I would happily have voted for it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am really concerned about this legislation in front of about this legislation in front of us, because it seeks to extend subsidies to highly profitable corporations, at least until 2031. Inevitably, the major beneficiary is Inevitably, the major beneficiary is Drax. The UK's single largest
21:45
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
Drax. The UK's single largest emitter of CO2. In 2023, its electricity generating operations generated 11.5 million tonnes of CO2. Add to that the carbon emissions arising from the shipping, the transport of the wood pellets. And it has also been destroying young trees and biodiversity. But for that, the government is going to reward it. Possibly around £500 million a year, or some estimates are could be £2.5 billion by 2031. Drax does not meet the social cost of this operation, and it has published misleading information.

In August 2024, Ofwat investigated Drax, after whistleblowers revealed it was burning wood from Drax was fined £25 million. Ofwat said and I quote, there are no excuses for Drax's admission that it did not comply with its mandatory requirement to give Ofgem accurate and robust data. Drax has actually been sanctioned nine times since 2010 and fined £63.3 million. But it is still getting free money from the public purse. Drax does not deliver value for money, every megawatt-hour of electricity produced by Drax, roughly costs more than double the price of electricity produced from gas.

The Public Accounts Committee said and I quote, we are not convinced the transitional support agreement between the Department for energy's is and Drax provides good energy's is and Drax provides good value for money for consumers ,". Hopefully the Minister can explain why despite all this, the government is providing free money to Drax? I'm sure the government is concerned about energy industry failures. There is untracked profiteering, windfarms are paying billions to turn off turbines and not produce electricity because the UK does not have the infrastructure to try and submit or squat store electricity for this free money has not benefited households or businesses the UK has the fourth highest electricity price in the world for households British businesses pay the high lesson electricity price in the developed world and of course corporate executives are laughing all the way to the bank the biggest beneficiaries are shareholders and company executives Drax had pre-tax efforts of 1.60 -- £1.06 billion in 2024 and £1.01 billion the year before.

Boosted by subsidies of around £800 million per year last year it paid £97 million in dividends and announced a £300 million share buyback program or any other corporation so why are profitable countries despite companies being subsidised, why does the government not apply some type of means test to see if they really deserve that? People are being hit twice, first there are higher household than business energy bills stop secondly government departments pay more for the energy usage. So people have to pay higher taxes to cover those bills so as kind of a double whammy billions of pounds are being handed without the government what -- requiring anything in return it could acquire equity stake in return for subsidies and Drax or any other country company that receive subsidies.

It could provide a repayable loan. Perhaps these companies could repay the loan? But billions are being handed without getting anything in return. Why? Why this kind of a charitable donation from the public purse to a highly profit companies? I'm sure the government can make much much better use of the scarce resources instead of filling corporate coffers when money could be used to enter the two-child benefit cap. And avoid the disability benefit cuts so why is the government favouring corporate welfare over human welfare? I look forward to hearing them into supply.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is an unusual pleasure for me to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is an unusual pleasure for me to be able to support the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, but tonight my cup flow with over but tonight my cup flow with over since I am also able to agree with Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord
21:50
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Sikka both of whom I agreed with all most every word they had to say Baroness Bennett and I approach this issue from opposite perspectives. The noble Baronesses primarily concerned about reducing CO2 emissions, I am concerned about reducing the cost of energy. But we both reach the same conclusion, the Statutory Instrument is fundamentally indefensible. The whole process of subsidising the Drax power station illustrates the absurdities to which net zero is leading us. It's not just the cost, it's not just the pretence that we are reducing CO2 emissions when this is the biggest emitter of CO2 in the country.

It's above all the attempts to cover up and obfuscate both the enormous costs and the minimal benefits. When you start believing in fairytales the fairytale that achieving net zero will be costless, you end up denying reality and being economical with the truth. Let me give a few examples of that of sophistication. The excellent report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee -- obfuscation. It drew attention to the failure of the Explanatory Memorandum even to mention Drax. Yet it is overwhelmingly the major beneficiary from the proposed Contracts for Difference.

Clearly department hoped we would not see this as yet another band to the company. But the report also highlights the repayment made by Drax of some £25 million. Yet there is no fair explanation of what exactly the company had done wrong the required this. It's pretty clear that it is in effect hush money to carry of cover-up non-compliance with the sustainability regulations. Then there is a reference in the PAC report on government support for biomass to the investigation conducted by Bloomberg in 2022.

Which concluded that Drax may previously have gained the system to the detriment of consumers it alleges that Drax shut down power generation and sold wood pellets in the open market to avoid paying back £639 million of subsidies as wholesale electricity prices spiked. Although the Department of energy security is reassured the PAC that the new arrangements will be more robust it did not and this is what the PSA itself said, did not offer any explanation Howard made sure have been no similar loopholes that allowed Drax to continue to game the system.

Then there's the failure to publish the KPM review of the Drax supply chain. The report called on the government to publish this audit before this debate, I'm not aware the government has done so in the introduction the Minister didn't explain what he had done so and if so why asking to address that issue when he returns at the end of this debate. The report may not belong to debate. The report may not belong to Drax but as Lord Kerr said, the government's the customer.

They insist on a number of conditions that Drax has to fulfil. They could easily insist the publication of that report is one of them. Will the government commit to reporting to Parliament the outcome of the independent audit which has been committed commissioned by Ofgem. When I worked in the city as a financial analyst, if ever I come across a company about whom there was so many unanswered questions I would have guessed it was run by Robert Maxwell or someone of that ilk.

So how much is Drax actually got costing us? Since 2022 cost support for Drax has cost the taxpayer £6.5 billion. According to the consultancy that was rising at nearly £1 billion per year before this latest measure. This will cost £113 per megawatt-hour in £212 rising with inflation since then and in future. The PAC admit this is far more what we paid to offshore wind and other renewables under CFD's recently awarded contracts for difference. And for renewables. Recently awarded the difference.

The justification given by the company presumably accepted by the government is that electricity from Drax is dispatchable and therefore worth substantially more than intermittent electricity from wind or solar generators. That raises the question why has the government not accepted that the Dieter Helm's recommendation that all electricity generators should bid for the cost of firm power, that is to say to include the additional cost they will impose on the system for backup power for when the wind or sun doesn't shine.

Instead they palm us off with references, the government palm us off with reference to level eyes cost of energy which is practically meaningless and not something that anyone ever pays. Then we come to the issue of sustainability. Will the new sustainability criteria incorporated in the CFD's apply to generate electricity generated outside the CFD. CFD will only apply 27% of the time. That's a question raised by PAC again the Minister will reply to that when he comes to reply to this debate.

The idea that burning wood pellets is sustainable given they had omit -- omit more CO2 per megawatt-hour than even Cole is hard to credit has especially given the additional additional admissions given in collecting the timber, drying it, palletising it, transporting it from Western Canada often across the continent and across the Atlantic. The serious that felled trees will be replaced and fallen branches would have decayed and emitted CO2. I counted 30 trees around my house nearly 4 decades ago not to mention more since and it will be several decades before they are ready to fail.

Multiple branches which were lying around then still lying around and haven't yet rotted and emitted their CO2. So anyone who thinks that our timescale of at least half a century and probably a century over which sustainability is to be measured, it cannot really seriously be arguing that we are in a climate crisis. If we got a century to get the CO2 back that we are omitting now we are not in a climate crisis and that effectively is what the government is saying by asking us to go on subsidising Drax.

I shall certainly subsidising Drax. I shall certainly spot Baroness Bennett if she calls a vote on her motion -- support.
21:57
Lord Birt Portrait Lord Birt (Crossbench)
-
-
Remarkably united house tonight. I also rise to support the regret motion put down by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett. I'm not going to be the first to say that the case for biomass is very weak, it is in effect a historic anomaly. As others have said biomass omit -- emits more carbon than coal and as Lord Lilley has just pointed out it takes decades, perhaps half a century decades, perhaps half a century perhaps even longer to reclaim that carbon from the atmosphere.

Actually Drax's homework has been marked nobody has mentioned the remarkable and excellent panorama made by Joe Poli just under three years ago which demonstrated very clearly that which demonstrated very clearly that Drax was burning primary ancient forests which would be exceptionally difficult if not impossible to replace that in my view is unconscionable. Nobody said the so far but Drax itself is not an organisation that inspires any confidence. It put up for those who saw that panorama it put up a remarkable -- remarkably weak case fought it was doing.

Again not been mentioned so far, its handling of the senior executive whistleblower was to put it mildly, unsavoury. I do appreciate the difficulties that Drax presents for the government, it is a major employer it produces a significant share, as others have pointed out, of our national electricity, you couldn't possibly close it down tomorrow. And it gives that energy supply on tap. But I think the question for the Minister and I hope you will address it in his closing remarks is will the government and we must have heard the passion and the power and effectiveness of the arguments from across the House this evening, will the government now consider a proper long-term plan for the phasing out of Drax and for reinvesting in real of Drax and for reinvesting in real
22:00
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of the regret motion tabled by Baroness Bennett, and against the motion tabled by Lord Wilson. This makes existing large-scale biomass electricity generators eligible for Contracts for Difference. The government argues it brings forward, is needed to prevent security of electricity supply after 27, when the current schemes for many biomass generators expire. The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that biomass is not a form of renewable energy and should not continue to receive government support.

Biomass is an incredibly inefficient and expensive and damaging to our biodiversity, as a method of producing illiteracy. It is the committee's seventh recommendations, which confirmed unequivocally there is no role for large-scale unabated biomass generation at factors in the pathway beyond the expiry of the existing contract in 2027. These regulations represent a painful and the necessary compromise to our energy policy, undermining our climate goals, squandering taxpayers money, providing poorer value for money, for energy bill payers, and will serve to erode public trust in our Net Zero goals.

As we have seen across the House, I mean, I must say I do recognise a lot of the great work the government is doing to pull us towards Net Zero, but tonight, across the House, actually for the first time in a long time, there is real uniformity across all parties, on this point of view. We recognise, we will recognise, the energy from is extremely complicated business. And we need absolutely to keep the lights on and we do welcome the fact the government has reduced the subsidies in half.

And we note the plan if that comes to be. From the government's point of view, this is a transitional supply regime. But even with all these points, my Lords, we fundamentally disagree with the approach being taken here. We feel firmly that subsidies should not continue beyond 2027. And it should be freed up, and that money that is freed up, should be spent on renewable generation, long-term energy storage capacity, so that we can provide the security supplies the government needs.

We want to see other Contracts for Difference used to benefit renewable energy generation. To reduce, to continue to reduce, the UK's dependency on fossil fuels. Investment in renewable energy is the only way, as the government well knows, to cut energy bills, lower our emissions and energy security. -- And meet energy security. As we have heard, it often comes from renewable sources, Drax was supposed to be using waste products from forestry but as we have heard, from the paranormal program, there -- The panorama program, there has been cases of quitting old growth forests which is unacceptable and should which is unacceptable and should never have happened.

It is unhelpful and it has been pointed out by the secondary scrutiny legislation committee that clearly, the subject of this Esi is Drax and it is unhelpful to debate that the word Drax was not used in the SI or the supporting documents. That is clearly what it is, and is clearly clearly what it is, and is clearly what it is intended for. Anderson to help. Taking this forward. We do welcome the governor's commitment for compliance and assurance regimes, we are concerned about the past record of Drax, and we are keen to make sure that Drax does meet its to make sure that Drax does meet its environmental impacts and costs.

As we have heard, burning would generate 18% more CO2 emissions in coal. Drax itself produces four times the mission then I will ask all fire power station. Last year, 13 million tonnes of CO2, or 3.5% of the UK total CO2 emissions, came from Drax. This is not green energy, it's not good, it's not helping with our climate goals. And even if every single tree that Drax burns is replaced, it will take at least 50 years for those new trees to grow to absorb this carbon.

And that is fundamentally not compatible with our 2030 goals. It is bad for bill payers, in spite of the environment, it's not assistant should be allowed to continue. We do recognise it generates 5% of power. We think this money should go into renewable energy generation. We do not believe it provides value for bill payers. it provides value for bill payers. We do also have concerns in key documents have not been published as part of this, the key documents need to be published before the final SI comes forward, this is an essential element in having proper parliamentary scrutiny.

My Lords, this... The government is in a difficult position, I recognise that, recognise the need for dispatchable power, but I call on the government to look at alternative solutions, continuing to use Drax is not the answer. The simple truth is we have to do, stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the government needs to look at plans for doing this before 2037.
22:07
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
I am quite full to the noble Lord, the minister, for setting up the provisions of the instrument performers at the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this regret motion and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. And as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said we are a remarkably united house this evening. At first glance, this statutory instrument appears to be a modest continuation of established policy. Extending the contract for the scheme to support low-carb and electricity and maintain energy security.

However, the context which this instrument is being brought forward raises several serious concerns that deserve the full attention of the House. The current Contracts for Difference in Is due to expire in 27, this instrument effectively paves the way for a new subsidy agreement, likely to last until 2031. The Drax group in particular, although not explicitly mentioned by name, is expected to be the principal beneficiary, and I hear what the noble Lord, the Minister, said about this being about the legislation, not about Drax.

But this does seem to be a little bit disingenuous, as the noble Lord said, these regulations are really all about Drax. In fact this is not disclosed in the legislation itself, nor even in the exclamatory memorandum, a point rightly criticised by the secondary legislation scrutiny secondary legislation scrutiny committee, the SLSC, when public money is involved on the scale, and given to a corporate entity, transparency should not be optional. That is not merely a technical failing, it obstructs parliamentary sweetening, undermines public confidence, Roma parliamentary scrutiny.

We do not question the government's intent or commitment to safeguard energy supply, but we should be candid about the trade- offs. Biomass is not a low-cost nor a convincingly low-carb in option. And serious questions remain about its long-term sustainability and effectiveness, as well as its role in the energy mix. A number of noble Lords spoke about the subsidies received by Drax. And my noble friend, Lord Lilley, laid out a compelling case. According to the think tank Ember, Drax received £869 million in subsidies for biomass in Strike price for biomass under the new Contract for Difference is expected to exceed £160 per megawatt hour, more than twice the strike price for offshore wind in the most recent Contract for Difference allocation round, which averaged £57 per MW H.

These are not trivial differences, ultimately the subsidies are paid for by consumers through their energy bills. Affordability is given priority, then it's worrying the numbers do not appear to have been considered more carefully. The government has stated that sustainability standards will increase, albeit only from 2027. And that Drax will undertake a full audit of its supply chains. Those intentions are welcome. The delay is difficult to defend, if, as the government admits, the current sustainability criteria are already insufficient. Furthermore, Drax was criticised in the other place for alleged attempts to deliberately conceal, and a number of laws have mentioned this today, the unsustainable sources of its wood pellets, and has thus far not responded to calls the published responded to calls the published KPMG report of where the wood has been coming from.

Absolutely able to noble Lord the Minister has said, that these are internal documents, but given that Drax is in receipt of considerable amounts of public money, and it would surely allay concerns, and it's disappointing that Drax has thus far failed to do so. A noble lady, Baroness Bennett, pointed out, the SLSC has called for the release of this report, prior to the legislation passing. So, my lord, the government has itself acknowledged that biomass is not a long-term solution, get it now imposes two suggests subsidies through 2031, well beyond the expiry of the current schemes, that contradiction prompts a broader question.

What is the government's long-term energy strategy? Where is the sustained investment in cleaner technology, such as offshore wind, solar, tidal, and energy storage, all of which offer better terms for consumers and the environmental survey might have these issues, I would be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister can clarify the following. Whether the full cost burden analysis was done ahead of these proposals and with this will be published. Whether further changes for biomass eligibility, under Contracts for Difference, are under active consideration.

And whether the government will commit to greater transparency in future secondary legislation, particularly where identifiable corporate beneficiaries stand to gain. This is not about opposing low-carb in generation, far from it. We support it. -- Low carbon generation. When climate benefits are uncertain and when the cost to consumers are high, we must demand transparency and sound policy rationale. And I very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much look forward to the noble Lord the Minister's responses. I would just like to thank noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just like to thank noble Lords, Baroness Bennett, Lord Low card, glossy coat, Lord Lilley, Lord Bird, Lord Russell, and Baroness Bird, Lord Russell, and Baroness Finn, for the contributors from the front benches. Can I just say we are front benches. Can I just say we are where we are with this. We have got to clear with the cars where we are, to clear with the cars where we are, we cannot re-stack the deck because we have been left with this, and we we have been left with this, and we do not believe that biomass is a long-term solution.

Here the energy long-term solution. Here the energy problems of the country. But we are faced with the dilemma, which, at the moment, is to do with security the moment, is to do with security of supply. Where 5% of the energy is of supply. Where 5% of the energy is provided and produced by biomass. It is something we have got to take
22:13
22:14
22:14
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
solution, but it is fair to say that we need to look at other sources of energy to replace that, which is what the government's actively doing, it is part of our Net Zero doing, it is part of our Net Zero ambitions to do that. But we need the time to do it and to fill that the time to do it and to fill that gap, we need this statutory is to go forward to cure that. This government, it is steadfastly committed to maintaining our energy security and maintaining bill payers security and maintaining bill payers now and in the future, and it will enable us to reduce risk to supply in late 2020s and early 2030s, by in late 2020s and early 2030s, by ensuring support from biomass, and if this is pushed forward, that is if this is pushed forward, that is what you are voting against, which is security of supply.

Additionally, is security of supply. Additionally, these regulations would also allow for the further strengthening of sustainability requirements to reflect the latest evidence during reflect the latest evidence during the delivery of any support. And just to answer some of the questions, and I will deal with all of them and if I don't, I am sure I can write to the ministers, we have got... Why did we mention Drax? We know this is about Drax and nothing else, when in actual fact, it is about any other biomass facility that can help to fill the gap, such as one in Northumberland, under the smaller producers of biomass around the country can have access to this and I know there is discussions going on about this.

It's not just about Drax. The government has agreed a high strike price for this asset, why is that? This new arrangement, perhaps the level of consumer subsidy, compared to existing arrangements, it is equivalent to a saving of nearly 6 pounds per household in annual bills. This agreement is for a substantially lower reduced load factor. Where what we want to do is see it used for 27% of the time and as part of the baseload and to be The alleged saving is compared to the current price which was astonishingly high.

It is a saving because the wholesale price of electricity all over is going down. The Contracts for Difference for wind power are now being set at A- level which is about two thirds of whether they were a couple of years ago. So this is a minor saving compared to the previous exorbitant level of subsidy shouldn't be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exaggerated. To say that we weren't trying to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To say that we weren't trying to exaggerate anything. What we are comparing that with is the fact that comparing that with is the fact that if we don't do this what we will end up with is actually the price of gas would end up being £170 million per would end up being £170 million per would end up being £170 million per year compare to some saving to households. I think we got to bear households. I think we got to bear that in mind as well.

There was talk about the outcome of Ofgem's investigation into Drax. The recent investigation into Drax. The recent comprehensive Ofgem in investigation comprehensive Ofgem in investigation Compiled a report in 2024. It found no evidence that Drax had incorrectly received subsidy payments and no subsidies were issued for unsustainable biomass. However Drax accepted the findings of the investigation and made a redress payment of £25 million. Ofgem's investigation was very comprehensive and included careful comprehensive and included careful review of the KPMG report, as well as a wider review of over 3,000 other documents, both government and other documents, both government and Ofgem are confident in this conclusion.

Moreover Ofgem has required Drax to undertake a full international audit of profiling data from its supply chain. I think hopefully that would answer the hopefully that would answer the concerns of noble Lords. The other points on the ember report for example was Britain's largest CO2 emitter in 2023. The carbon and biomass, this answers the question as well about trees, carbon and biomass is omitted as carbon from the chimney of the powerplant when the biomass is burned.

However the carbon dioxide emissions from sustainable biomass part of the biogenic carbon cycle. Unlike fossil carbon which was turned into gas millions of years ago, the carbon released from recently absorbed from the atmosphere and was reabsorbed continuously through regrowth. The bioenergy are typically low value folic forestry, sawmill residue from trees that would have been told regardless for higher value usage and therefore in contrast with fossil emissions we can consider sustainable biomass systems to be carbon neutral at harvest and product used when you take that into account.

I think also what you got to realise with this SI, one of the parts of it is about sustainability, where part of the contract is that biomass comes from 100% renewable sources, not 70% so that is a massive increase. We are going to appoint someone who is going to examine and look into the sustainability of the whole process. We can have criticisms and I think we all agree that we don't see this as being the long-term answer to the problems that we have energy -wise, but I think what is fair to say is that we've got to be realistic about this.

We can't be ideological purists, we could have an energy gap, biomass provides five% of our energy needs. I think that we shouldn't blind to that fact and we are making improvements on this, it is about the regulations is not just about Drax, you've got Lynn mouth I was talking about taking part in this process as well. It doesn't matter about the size of the biomass facility, they can all be part of this is not just about Drax. I would like to finish by saying the draft regulations in front of the committee that my committee today will enable the government to continue to deliver security of supply at the lowest cost to the consumers whilst protecting and enhancing vital sustainability measures.

I beg to move that the draft regulations be approved by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. Before the Minister sits down may
22:20
22:21
22:22
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I rise in a warm glow of unusable universal support from all corners universal support from all corners of your Lordships house. We've had tonight and adding to the consensus we have already had from the Public Accounts Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee as Earl Russell said from the Committee on Climate Change, that this is a really bad idea. The Statutory Instrument is a disastrous outcome. I think the noble Earl and many others made the point that the way the government has gone about this, we already have a huge problem with public trust in politics.

The way the government has gone about this doing this really has not helped. I doing this really has not helped. I want to reassure the noble Lord that perhaps if you looked at Hansard afterwards you will see that in my remarks I wasn't just expressing concern about the climate emergency and the carbon impact, I was also very much expressing concern about the enormous costs thing laid on the public purse. I want to thank all noble Lords you stayed to now 10:22 PM in the evening, I also want to put out a special thanks to the staff who we are keeping here for doing this.

And thank the Minister for his response. It's been a very full debate and I'm not going to summarise it in length. I will just reassure Lord Kerr that it's not a new thing for myself or the Green Party to be seeking to pull down the false plan of greenness attached to Drax, there is a photo from me but from 2016, the oldest I can remember but there may have been earlier standing outside the power station with a nice cardboard at saying axed Drax.

Because it gets the message across so well. Thank you to Lord Sikka for a typically forensic speech and I think means testing for corporate benefits is a phrase I may be bond roaring from the noble Lord in the future. Lord Lilley I think can agree with a fair amount of what the noble Lord said, certainly in terms of Drax although I would point out to the noble Lord problem here is not with the issue of net-zero, the problem here is terrible government policy over successive governments.

That has worked out very badly and of course we have had many decades of terrible government policy towards fossil fuels companies that have cost the Exchequer, cost the country an enormous amount. I think, thank Lord Birt for raising the excellent panorama program, I was very aware of the time so I cut quite a bit out of my speech because I was confident other noble Lords would pick up in the debate. I want to thank also Baroness Finn for really stressing the point of the need for a long- term strategy.

I'm afraid I don't think the Minister answered that point about the long-term strategy that was also the later intervention from Lord Birt. The couple of points I will made responding to the Minister is very welcome to interrupter me if you would like to provide further information. We haven't heard about long-term strategy. What we have had announced very recently in Spending Review was that the previously announced £8.3 billion that we are -- were going to Great British Energy for renewables, £2.5 billion of that was taken away to go to nuclear.

I'm not going to relitigate the issue of nuclear power but I will make the point -- time point that nuclear power is not going to be relevant in 2131 -- 2031 when this SI runs out. So it's not solving, doing anything to deal with that long-term strategy that fills in the gaps. The Minister also said that we are going to have better scrutiny of Drax's sustainability will stop I will point to Secondary will stop I will point to Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee which itself expressed concern about the ability of Ofgem and the Department to hold Drax to account.

It's not just me saying that, it's the Department. The Minister didn't make any reference to Lord Kerr is comments about carbon So I'm going to assume from that that the government has entirely given up with carbon When it comes to Drax. Finally I think there is a really important point if I may respectfully correct the Minister, the point that the noble Lord spoke about carbon cycle and regrowth. We are now getting horrendously close to 1.5degrees of our preindustrial levels of heating.

As multiple noble Lord said, if the trees regrow which is a very large if the changing climate with huge problems with forest fires et cetera, if the trees regrow capture, carbon is recaptured decades later. That is not helping us keep below 1.5 which we have now practically lost or below to and once we get it -- two once we get into runaway territory what happens decades hence is not going to help us very much at all.

So the carbon cycle argument simply does not add up. There is a time problem here which has not been resolved. I will come back to a comment made by Baroness Finn. This is a Statutory Instrument that serves the -- deserves the full attention of the House. I'm acutely aware of the hour, kept open the possibility of calling the boat but I don't think at 10:27 PM that any vote in your Lordships house would be any kind of measure of the views of the House.

I think this debate has established those views very clearly from all sides of your Lordships house so I'm not going to call, with reluctance I'm not going to call about. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw my amendment. -- A vote. Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. The questionnaires that the original motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The "Contents" have it. I beg to move the House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. At the House do now adjourn. --
22:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Support for the live music industry
-

22:35
22:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Support for the live music industry
-

22:35
22:35
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page