Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

While there may be other educational reasons, which I do not have time to go into, why teachers might want to have pupils able to use these powerful pocket computers for learning, it is for the reasons of media literacy that I particularly urge support for my amendment to include educational reasons as an exemption from phone bans. We need better digital citizens who are media and AI savvy. We cannot achieve this without phones being allowed in classrooms for those lessons.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight. He makes a very compelling case for better media literacy. He and other noble Lords will recall that we did push very hard for that during the Online Safety Act’s rather lengthy passage, but without as much success as we would have hoped. Every week that we wait before we implement more effective media literacy is a week lost, and probably part of a generation lost as well.

I was very happy to put my name to Amendments 183CA and 183CB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. As noble Lords have heard, this is a very live subject. Countries and societies all over the world are wrestling with the effects of the technology that is all-pervading—to a greater extent than most of us would wish. When the noble Lord was talking about geolocation at Westminster School, I thought for a fleeting moment, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had geolocation in the Palace of Westminster?”. Once one entered here, one could no longer have access to news websites telling us things that are distracting and probably not very helpful for what we are trying to do. I exclude important things such as messages from your club about the lunchtime and the availability of the wine list.

The Online Safety Act took a very long time to happen. As we have learned since its enactment, making it flesh and making its intent have teeth is a very lengthy and protracted process—far longer than we had hoped and envisaged. We may still be two or three years away from knowing whether some of the key protections for children are working.

We do not have the luxury of being able to take this slowly. We need speed and we need clarity. When the noble Lord was talking about the distractions of the screen for young children, I thought of how often I, like others, pass parents or carers in the street pushing a pram; the child may well be in distress or asking for something, but whoever is pushing the pram is so deeply into their telephone or so deeply engaged in a conversation with their earphones in that they cannot even hear the child. They cannot even see it, if it is facing forward. That, in some ways, is a very good summary of the dilemma we have got ourselves into.

The Education Select Committee of another place produced a sensible report, just over a year ago in May 2024, called—perhaps the name of the Bill is a tribute to the name of the report—Screen Time: Impacts on Education and Wellbeing. As it happens, almost exactly a month ago, His Majesty’s Government—and, I assume, the Department for Education—issued their response. It is quite lengthy and fairly comprehensive. I would be surprised if, when the Minister responds to this group, she does not talk about many elements of the department’s response to the Select Committee’s report.

The import of the Government’s detailed response and its 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. We are engaged and listening, but not ready to do anything yet”. One message that we all sense is that we do not have time on our side. Society, parents, teachers, those who look after young people, educators and the companies responsible for education technology want clarity and a sense of direction. They want to know that the Government are engaged—we will never be on top of this—looking at this carefully, and willing and able to act, quite quickly if required.

Equally, and importantly, if the Government act but the consequences are not quite as intended, they should have the courage to say, “We did not get that right. We need to change it and tweak it in the light of new evidence”. This is such a dynamic situation that we need a dynamic approach to deal with it.

Lastly, I think we need to look carefully at the psychology of this. For nearly 40 years, I have been involved with a charity that is now part of Coram, of which I am a governor, called Coram Life Education. It is the largest provider of health education in 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 schools’ normal pedagogic approaches: we do not tell the children what to do; we listen. We give the children information without saying whether it is good or bad; then we ask the children to give their views on the information they been given and what conclusions they have come to—whether it is good or less good for them. In this way, the children feel they have some control over what they are asked to do.

The least effective thing would be going for any sort of blanket ban. Children, as we all know, are probably far better versed in technology than we are. The more we try to ban it, the more clever ways will be found to get around it. It simply would not work. The way to get this to work is to get the children involved and engaged, because they will come to their own conclusions. They are not stupid. The more intelligent ones know exactly what social media and these addictive applications are doing to them. We should listen and learn from them the ways to respond to this, rather than thinking that we know best. We have allowed this situation to develop in plain sight over the last 15 to 20 years, and we have been very ineffective in dealing with it. Perhaps listening to the generations who are most directly involved and on whom this is having the greatest effect would be a smart way to look at it.

Finally, my noble friends Lady Kidron and Lady Cass are unable to be with us today but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, will know, they have convened a very impressive group of genuine experts in this field. There is a growing, deeply worrying and compelling body of evidence that the effects of screen time on children before the age of six will have a lifelong impact on their cognitive skills, behaviour—everything about them. The longer we take to acknowledge what is going on and to do something about it, the more we will regret it.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently and persuasively described by my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Penn. I was also extremely struck by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on the need for education. It is about education, which is one of the safeguards on which we can rely. I was also struck by the points made by noble Lord, Lord Russell, which in some ways echoed but added to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight.

In April this year, the Times published the wide-ranging and comprehensive findings of its crime and justice commission. Its conclusions on the effects of social media on children aged under 16 were damning. They ranged from radicalisation, criminalisation and antisocial attitudes, right through to mental health problems and extremist views. The commission recommended that children under 16 be banned from accessing social media. It added that two-thirds of the population support that view, and that a higher number of the 16 to 24 year-old group do so. That is significant, because that is the group that has experienced the pressures.

As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, Australia has recently imposed such a ban, and many other countries are preparing to do so. A total ban is self-evidently beyond the scope of the Bill, but a ban on the use of smartphones in schools is within its scope, given its focus on the safeguarding of children.

The vast majority of our schools will have policies in place to deal with the use of smartphones. There can be problems in implementing them, not least because the technology is constantly evolving and policies have to adapt to keep up. Some parents have understandable anxieties, feeling the need to be in contact with their children at all times, and they might well oppose a complete ban. There are also anxieties about age limits and other issues. The fact is that the decision is left to the school, and as a result there is a huge range of policies across the school spectrum.

Many will maintain that the decision should be left to the school, in accordance with its circumstances. I have sympathy with that view, but I have a couple of points to make; indeed, I have a question for the Minister when she winds up. I hope she can tell us the view of heads of schools on an overall ban, perhaps by year group, on smartphones in school. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, might also be able to help us with this. My guess is that the majority of school heads and teachers would welcome at least knowing where they stood on this issue and having one less thing to justify or argue about to parents and colleagues. It would certainly be time-saving in developing the school’s own policy and they themselves having to police it, whatever it might be.

Restrictions on smartphone use, 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—an important safeguarding issue. Of course, this Bill is also about safeguarding. More positively, and I am sure former teachers in the Chamber will agree, schools that have introduced a reduction in access to social media through smartphones have reported better communication and participation skills in their pupils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the point about regulation, the reason why I started by referring to the Online Safety Act was precisely to identify the need that was manifest in a piece of legislation that came through this House before my time but which presumably some noble Lords around the Chamber were engaged in and which was precisely about how to regulate the use of social media for children and young people. That legislation did not happen in the last century; it is literally only just on the statute books. I was making the case that it is important, and that it is right for the Government to ensure that it is working properly as a first priority.

The issue of how we support schools to be able to have within them the type of calm behaviour that they need is, of course, absolutely crucial. In response to the question about when we will publish the survey on behaviour, it will be later this year. To come back to the point I made at the beginning, although I very much doubt that the only factor influencing behaviour within schools is mobile phones, everything that head teachers might need to put in place the restrictions on mobile phones that will, along with the other necessary things, enable them to have strong behaviour policies and practice, is, rightly, available to them in order for them to be able to ensure that that is happening.

Lastly, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I have already said that I see the point of the exemption he has proposed. However, my point is that you have two routes here: the legislative route, which has already begun to be unravelled by the inclusion of a whole range of exemptions; or a positive set of guidelines for head teachers to use to design and develop, in consultation with parents, their staff and the young people in their schools, the appropriate policies for safeguarding children, protecting behaviour and delivering what individual schools need. At this point, the Government believe that the latter is the most appropriate way forward to ensure that children have the protection from mobile phones they need and in a way that recognises the flexibility that will be necessary.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Will the Minister give way? We had a debate a few months ago on this very subject and I visited the Fulham Boys School, which is a large all-male school with about 1,200 students, to speak at some length to the headmaster. That school has had a ban on phones for about 10 years. The issue is not about having a ban in school but, as the headmaster said very clearly, what happens outside the school. It does not matter what policies you have in place; they will not solve what young people are doing outside of school time. He said the biggest problem he has had in trying to tackle this issue has not been with the pupils themselves but the parents, some of whom are very challenging and regard it as an infringement of civil liberties that anybody should tell them what their children should or should not do.

The real problem is what happens outside the school. The school can have as many policies as it likes, but until and unless we find a way of influencing what happens outside the school—which, as I said, means getting to the young people, because they know themselves some of the harm being done, and perhaps through them getting to the parents to make them realise how their children feel—we will not start to tackle the psychology behind some of the problems we are confronted with.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do note that I was coming to the end of my comments at 18 minutes—just so the Whips know I was sticking to the rules. The noble Lord tempts me to say that that was exactly the point I made at the beginning: there has been conflation in this debate of the use of mobile phones in schools, the impact of screen time across children’s lives—I can quite understand people’s concerns about that—and, as I have said, the need for us, at a very early stage in children’s lives, to be clear with them about the appropriate use of screens, which is probably practically none, and clear in the information that we provide to parents. The Government are taking action on all those areas, alongside gathering appropriate evidence. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 183B is in my name and I support the other amendments in this group. First, I draw to the Minister’s attention that this is a probing amendment. It is very long and detailed but none the less intended to generate a discussion of something I feel is very important in a children’s well-being Bill. To exclude the early years seems a lost opportunity; the intention is to generate that conversation.

It is almost 20 years—I have shocked myself by saying how long it is—since I stood as a candidate in Westminster North for the Conservative Party. As an inner-city seat, it was a challenging environment in which to work and to meet people. Deprivation was not uncommon. I remember vividly knocking on a door on the Brunel Estate. As the door opened, the fug of cigarette—and, probably, cannabis—smoke surrounded me. Through the haze, there was what looked to be a very young girl with a baby, probably six months old—now I know better—on her hip. In my shock, in the smoke that emanated from the flat, I said to her, “Is your mum at home?” But she was the mum.

By coincidence, I had just come from an excellent Sure Start drop-in centre around the corner set up by the last Labour Government. I had this moment of clarity, of thinking, “That baby is never going to get to that Sure Start centre”, and that it did not matter who was in government and what was offered—unless we had a proper strategy around early years and a way of reaching that mum, that child’s chances were going to be severely impeded.

I have declared my interest previously, and I declare an interest now, as this was the inspiration for founding Parent Gym, which has run across the country in all the years since it launched in 2010. The intention of Parent Gym, like so many other programmes now like it, was to reach young mums who probably had not had any parenting themselves. The aim was to provide support that was not otherwise available, when reaching out for that support was usually taboo because it 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 this, I realised that the beginnings of research were being published into the effects of early life experiences on children. I am delighted to stand in this Chamber today, almost 20 years later, knowing that there is a consensus now around the importance of all the early years and their impact on children—in particular, the first 1,001 days, as we call it—which are so very formative.

We also know now that it is not just those very important years after birth. There is a wealth of research showing the effects of prenatal stress that a mother undergoes. There has been incredible research done in disaster zones, such as after flooding in Puerto Rico, where they have measured the telomeres of the cohort of babies born from the mothers who were in those natural disasters. Telomeres are part of the chromosomal profile that predicts your longevity and your health outcomes. They have found them to be shorter in those babies born in the wake of disasters. We know now that the environment—the family environment, the multigenerational environment—is so very important.

As noble Lords know, I have been involved in some earlier parts of the Bill. We have had important debates about looked-after children and foster care strategy, and so on, but we have not talked at all about the strategy for these families and these very young children. There is such a such a range of evidence now. There is the scientific evidence, but there is also the economic evidence that what we invest in these families comes back multifold for society.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Professor James Heckman did the analysis and found that the returns on early years intervention far exceed those from the remedial action, for which we all bear the cost much later in life. He found returns of $7 to $12 per $1 invested in preventive steps taken.

In this country, in 2018, the Early Intervention Foundation estimated that England and Wales alone spent £17 billion every year—I am afraid that I do not know the current figure but it has grown since then—on late interventions; for example, in social care, youth offending, mental health, special educational needs and criminal justice services. These are many of the things that we have been talking about in this Bill, in this Chamber, and yet we have not discussed, until today, the opportunity here to prevent some of these issues arising.

The numbers are not abstract; they relate to real lives: lives impaired, opportunities lost, families rent asunder, and public resources consumed by crises and situations that could have been prevented. We have looked at the numbers of children in care. We have looked at the numbers of child protection plans. We have not talked quite so much yet—it is in Part 2 of the Bill—about the persistent educational attainment gap that opens up before formal schooling even begins. Only 46% of disadvantaged children achieve expected language and communication standards at age five, compared with 69% of their peers. That is the Department for Education’s own data.

If it is a question of affordability, we are asking the wrong question. The right question is whether we can continue to afford not to do anything. There is plenty of evidence of what works, and we know that there are already plenty of charities and programmes out there, including some of the government programmes that we have heard referred to today, like family hubs and, previously, the Sure Start programmes. Governments always look at this and try to use piecemeal, locally funded, sticking-plaster solutions, but there remains a postcode lottery as to whether there is an infrastructure for these young families and these children who, through no fault of their own, begin life at a disadvantage.

There are a number of things that we know work. Parenting training works, not just in the programme that I founded but in many others: the Family Nurse Partnership, home visiting by trained nurses, health monitoring done by parenting training in the Incredible Years programme, parent-infant psychotherapy—we do not have any shortage of interventions to refer to about what works. I have not tabled the amendment to be directional about which intervention the Government ought to mandate or explore further, but to facilitate a conversation on ensuring that there is a universal approach to all the children in this country to ensure that they are given the right start and right support in life.

Many charities are already doing some of this work—the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, Action for Children, the Parent-Infant Foundation—but that is no substitute for a national infrastructure. We know that Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, through her Centre for Early Childhood and the Shaping Us campaign, is working to draw attention to all this, but we need the Government to take this and grapple with it in a meaningful way to ensure that we have some way of identifying these 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 emphasis on the exploration of this, and I hope that the Committee can engage today in a sensible debate to find the solutions.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support the spirit behind all the amendments in this group. Amendment 486 is in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for also putting their names to it.

I am assuming that we are, in effect, pushing at an open door in stressing the importance of early years to the Government. The noble Baroness the Secretary of State—sorry, she is not noble yet, though she probably will be when she stops being Secretary of State. I should say the current Secretary of State, together with the Minister, came to a Cross-Bench meeting before the Bill came to our House. A question was asked about early years, and the Secretary of State was very clear that it is an absolute priority. I am therefore taking that as read, and the question is not “Is it important?” but “What do we do about it?”

I should declare an interest: I was part of the parliamentary advisory team that worked with Dame Andrea Leadsom on the Start for Life initiative under one of the previous Governments—I cannot quite remember which one—which in many ways was a concerted attempt by a Government to do something about early years. Not least, we were trying to undo the unfortunate effects of what happened to Sure Start, which I think everyone across the House, regardless of party, would agree was one of the great achievements of the Labour Administration of the 2000s. With the benefit of hindsight, it was a tragedy that we allowed it to wither on the vine.

Of course, the Labour Party did not allow it to wither on the vine; the people of this country, exercising their democratic ability to vote, which of course we in this House do not have, decided to put in place the Government who decided that there were other priorities, or could say that it was important but not give as much clear support and direction to it as before. Inevitably, what then happens is some parts of the country will continue to think it is incredibly important but others, for reasons that may seem good to them at the time, give it a lower priority. That is how you end up with such uneven distribution across the country. The lesson from that for our new Government is that, if a Government of whatever political persuasion are not crystal clear that this is a priority, and if they do not lay down clearly what that means in terms of what must happen and what is non-negotiable, the same thing will happen again.