Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to welcome the Bill back to the House of Commons, some 15 months after it started its passage at the beginning of last year. I am, however, extremely disappointed that the Government have provided such a small amount of time for us to discuss the numerous Lords amendments, and that they are throwing so many of them out. I am grateful to our colleagues in the other place for their diligence and their efforts to strengthen and improve the Bill.

Lords amendment 41 and 42, tabled by my noble Friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to introduce a price cap on the amount of branded uniform that a school can require parents to buy. We know that the price of uniform causes real hardship for families, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis. As we have just heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), it often causes genuine anxiety. Children are sometimes sent home for wearing the wrong item of uniform, which disrupts their learning. While we strongly support the Government’s intention to introduce a branded uniform items cap, I implore the Minister to look again at the detail.

The Liberal Democrats have proposed a uniform price cap, which would keep the prices down for parents while giving schools the flexibility to choose their own uniform policy and decide how many branded items they wish to include. The Minister talked about perverse incentives and driving up prices for parents. In fact, a monetary cap would do precisely the opposite, because it would be using the market and incentivising suppliers to drive down their prices. Obviously, they would want to be able to sell more items of branded clothing within that cap. I appreciate that the Government point to their manifesto commitment, but there is nothing shameful about changing one’s mind—or, dare I say, U-turning—when the evidence demands it. That is something that the Government should feel pretty comfortable with by now.

Let me turn to the theme of supporting families. Lords amendment 16 would require the Government to review the per-child funding in the adoption and special guardianship support fund following the devastating cuts that they implemented last year. The fund provides therapeutic support for some of the most vulnerable children in society, allowing them to process their trauma and relearn how to trust. As a result of last year’s cuts, many adoptive parents and kinship carers can barely afford to pay for needs assessments, let alone the complex therapy that the children actually require. A number of them have written to me from across the country about their experiences since the Government cut their entitlements. Heartbreakingly, many mention the threat of adoption breakdown looming over their family.

The fund is a lifeline for families, but that lifeline is fraying. We are told that tough choices must be made, but the Department for Education’s advertising budget hit nearly £50 million last year. That is a £15 million increase in the last two years. Just halving that budget could restore crucial therapeutic support to thousands of children. Will the Minister support our amendment that seeks to review the funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and commit herself to restoring individual grants, or are this Government more interested in glossy advertising campaigns than in supporting the most vulnerable children?

Speaking of vulnerable children, let me turn to Lords amendment 17, tabled by Baroness Tyler, who has done amazing work on the issue of sibling contact rights. The amendment seeks to close a loophole in the current regulations so that siblings, when one is in care and the other is not, are able to remain in contact. It would require a child’s care plan to include arrangements for promoting contact with all the child’s siblings, whether they are in care or not, as far as that is consistent with the child’s welfare.

The Government have said that there is no need to close the loophole because the duty already exists, but I ask Labour Members whether they can be content with such an answer when it is clear that the present system is not working. We have heard again, from the Chair of the Education Committee and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), about the importance of this issue.

I have been given permission to share Abby’s story. Abby grew up in a residential care home and lost contact with two of her sisters, which was subsequently restored. However, I do not have time to go into that now because the time for debate has been so limited this evening, but I hope that we will return to this subject again if the Government insist on doing the wrong thing and throwing out an important amendment that a number of their Back Benchers clearly support.

The Government motion on amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38 further amends the UK GDPR legislation to tighten control over children’s personal data online. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for that change for over a year. While we welcome the Government’s copying of another of our proposals, simply granting themselves the power to do something at some point is no protection for children until they act, and action has not been forthcoming. The same is true of the second part of the motion. Again, we have a consultation that appears to be dithering over whether something should be done at all.

We Liberal Democrats have made it very clear to the Government that if they want our support, they must make a firm commitment to act, and to act quickly. We are calling for a specific implementation timeline and a change in the consultation’s terms of reference, so that it becomes a question of how, and not if, we regulate social media. We have a thought-out policy that is ready to go if the Government want to take another idea of ours. We have proposed a harms-based approach to online regulation: age-rating user-to-user services according to the addictiveness of their features, the harmfulness of their content and the impact on mental health.

The solution is practical and future-proofed, and would provide the incentive to make the online world safer for us all. Unlike the Government’s approach, our approach would ensure that these sweeping powers are not concentrated in the hands of a single Secretary of State. Are the Government truly comfortable with bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny through secondary legislation? They must consider the precedent that they are setting. We are handing a loaded gun to any future Administration, of any political complexion, to decide which websites are harmful and which are not. For the sake of our children’s safety and our democratic standards, I urge the Government to think again.

Finally, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches made a promise to the campaigners, the charities and the thousands of parents who have written to us that we would not play party politics on this issue. While we may differ in our approach, we will oppose the removal of Lords amendment 38, because we need the Government to hear the voices of the thousands of parents and children who are desperate for something to change. Every hour that this House spends debating whether we should do something, another algorithm is being developed to exploit a vulnerable child. By opposing the removal of the amendment, we are sending a clear message that the safety of our children is a non-negotiable right.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

I will speak briefly to Lords amendment 17. Since 2016, I have used every single parliamentary lever possible to improve sibling contact for children in care, by trying to create parity in the legislation. Although the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents, there is no such requirement for a looked-after child’s contact with their siblings or half-siblings. If siblings cannot be placed together, they should have the same rights to contact defined in primary legislation as they do with their parents. Many siblings who come from neglectful or abusive backgrounds often state that their only constant, positive and reassuring relationship is with their siblings. After all, they have a shared experience. No matter how horrific it is, it is something that only they truly know about.