Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the next Member, I am imposing a three-minute time limit.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Let me starting by saying how much I welcome the Bill, as an important step in strengthening the role of education and multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, so that we can better identify and protect vulnerable children. A headteacher in my constituency reached out to me and said:

“Children do disclose to teachers, particularly in primary school. We spend so many hours with children—we are often the voice for the child. Parents can often tell authorities things that are not true.”

The tragic death of Sara Sharif in my county of Surrey serves as a sobering reminder of the current weaknesses in the system and the consequences of not getting such an important piece of legislation right for children at risk of neglect and abuse.

As a school governor for eight years, with responsibility for safeguarding, I understand a little of the load that teachers carry that keeps them awake at night. One headteacher told me:

“Unless you have spent sleepless nights worrying about a child, knocked on a door in the hope that a child is still alive, you don’t understand.”

As a governor during covid, when all our vulnerable children were stuck at home initially, I understand that.

The Bill is a welcome first step, but there is much more the Government can do to support children and young people. I welcome the creation of a register of children not in school, but I believe the Bill should go further. As it stands, parents will no longer have an automatic right to home-educate if their child is subject to a child protection investigation or under a child protection plan. However, I am not clear whether these provisions would have protected children such as Sara, who was previously known to social services but was not at the time of her death. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, in order to protect such children, the Bill will ensure that parents will not have an automatic right to home-educate if their child has also had a history of child protection investigation or a child protection plan, rather than if the investigation or plan is live at the time. I am also pleased with the provision compelling local authorities to share information. It took one school locally four years to track down a family who had withdrawn their child, and that family then went missing.

I support calls for the Bill to make provision for a dedicated, qualified mental health professional in every school, ensuring that all children and parents have someone they can turn to for help. In Surrey there are almost 7,000 children on mental health waiting lists, waiting for an average of eight months. Providing a dedicated mental health practitioner in these schools would be highly effective in reaching large numbers of children and young people.

Finally, I am disappointed that the Bill falls short on tackling the problem of SEND education in England, as these children are at particular risk of being forced out of the schools system and into potentially much more vulnerable situations. There are 1,800 children in Surrey missing school because of a lack of provision—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Sally Jameson.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

20:50

Division 126

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 65

Noes: 317

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I shall put a single question on Government amendments 119 to 131.

Clause 18

Information Sharing

Amendments made: 119, in clause 18, page 34, line 37, at end insert—

‘(4A) The Secretary of State may provide financial oversight information to the Care Quality Commission for use in connection with the Commission’s functions under sections 54 to 56 of the Care Act 2014.

(4B) “Financial oversight information” means information held by the Secretary of State in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions under sections 30ZE to 30ZJ.’

This amendment enables the Secretary of State to disclose certain information to the Care Quality Commission for use in connection with the Commission’s functions under sections 54 to 56 of the Care Act 2014.

Amendment 120, page 35, leave out lines 1 and 2.

This amendment removes subsection (5) because it is clear without it that the information in question may consist of or include personal data.

Amendment 121, page 35, line 14, at end insert—

‘(9) In this section, “the data protection legislation” and “processing” have the same meaning as in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.’

This amendment adds a signpost to the definition of terms used in section 30ZO of the Care Standards Act 2000 (inserted by clause 18).

Amendment 122, page 35, line 14, at end insert—

‘(2) In the Care Act 2014, after section 56 insert—56A Provision of information to the Secretary of State—

(1) The Care Quality Commission may provide market oversight information to the Secretary of State for use in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions under sections 30ZE to 30ZJ of the Care Standards Act 2000.

(2) “Market oversight information” means information held by the Commission in connection with its functions under sections 54 to 56.

(3) Except as provided for by subsection (4), a disclosure of information authorised by subsection (1) does not breach—

(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or

(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).

(4) Subsection (1) does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by that subsection).

(5) In this section, “the data protection legislation” and “processing” have the same meaning as in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.’—(Stephen Morgan.)

This amendment enables the Care Quality Commission to disclose certain information to the Secretary of State for use in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions under sections 30ZE to 30ZJ of the Care Standards Act 2000.

Clause 20

Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: children aged 16 and 17

Amendments made: 123, in clause 20, page 36, line 29, leave out “in England”.

This amendment and amendments 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 and 131 ensure that the clause 20 protection against ill-treatment or wilful neglect applies to children aged 16 and 17 in certain care and detention settings in Wales, as well as in England.

Amendment 124, page 36, line 32, after “home” insert “in England”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.

Amendment 125, page 36, line 34, after “centre” insert “in England”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.

Amendment 126, page 36, line 36, leave out

“accommodation provided at an establishment”

and insert—

“an establishment in England providing accommodation”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.

Amendment 127, page 37, line 1, after “accommodation” insert “in England”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.

Amendment 128, page 37, line 2, at end insert—

‘(e) a place in Wales at which a care home service or a residential family centre service, as defined by Schedule 1 to the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 (anaw 2), is provided;

(f) a place in Wales at which accommodation is provided to disabled children and which is notified to the Welsh Ministers in accordance with regulations under section 2 of that Act;

(g) youth detention accommodation in Wales as defined by section 188(1) of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4).’

See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.

Amendment 129, page 37, line 4, leave out “in England”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.

Amendment 130, page 37, line 14, leave out “in England”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.

Amendment 131, page 37, line 35, leave out “in England”.—(Stephen Morgan.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.

New Schedule 1

Relevant authorities

‘Part 1

List of relevant authorities

1 The Secretary of State.

2 The Lord Chancellor.

3 (1) The governing body of a maintained school in England.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “maintained school” has the meaning given by section 39(1) of the Education Act 2002.

4 (1) The proprietor of a non-maintained special school in England.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) “non-maintained special school” has the meaning given by section 337A of the Education Act 1996;

(b) “proprietor” has the meaning given by section 579(1) of that Act.

5 (1) The proprietor of—

(a) an Academy (as defined by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996),

(b) a city technology college, or

(c) a city college for the technology of the arts.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “proprietor” has the meaning given by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996.

6 (1) The governing body of an institution in England within the further education sector.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) “institution within the further education sector” has the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

(b) “governing body” has the meaning given by section 90(1) of that Act.

7 (1) The proprietor of a special post-16 institution in England in relation to which an approval under section 41(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 has effect.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “proprietor” and “special post-16 institution” have the meaning given by section 83(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014.

8 His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills.

9 NHS England.

10 An integrated care board.

11 An NHS foundation trust.

12 An NHS trust.

13 The Care Quality Commission.

14 The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

Part 2

Power to modify Part 1

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend Part 1 of this Schedule by—

(a) adding a person or description of persons,

(b) removing an entry listed in it, or

(c) varying an entry listed in it.

(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(1) Regulations under paragraph 15(1)(a) may not add a person or description of persons to Part 1 unless the Secretary of State considers that the person exercises, or (as the case may be) all persons of that description exercise, functions of a public nature.

paragraph 15(1)(a)

(2) Regulations under paragraph 15(1)(c) may not vary an entry listed in Part 1 so that it relates to a person who does not exercise functions of a public nature or, in the case of a description of persons, so that the description consists of or includes persons who do not exercise functions of a public nature.

paragraph 15(1)(c)

(1) Regulations under paragraph 15(1)(a) may not add a person or description of persons to Part 1 if the Secretary of State considers that the person or (as the case may be) any person of that description—

paragraph 15(1)(a)

(a) exercises devolved functions only, or

(b) exercises any devolved functions, unless the entry for that person or description of persons provides that they are a relevant authority only to the extent that they are exercising functions that are not devolved functions.

(2) Regulations under paragraph 15(1)(c) may not vary an entry listed in Part 1—

paragraph 15(1)(c)

(a) so that it relates to a person who exercises devolved functions only, or in the case of a description of persons, so that the description consists of or includes any persons who exercise devolved functions only, or

(b) so that it relates to a person who exercises devolved functions, or in the case of a description of persons, so that the description consists of or includes any persons who exercise devolved functions, unless the entry provides that they are a relevant authority only to the extent that they are exercising functions that are not devolved functions.

(3) In this paragraph, “devolved function” means a function that could be conferred by provision that would be within the legislative competence of—

(a) the Scottish Parliament, if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament (see section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998),

(b) Senedd Cymru, if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (see section 108A of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or

(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly, if it were contained in an Act of the Assembly, where the Bill for that Act would not require the consent of the Secretary of State (see sections 6 to 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998).’—(Stephen Morgan.)

This new Schedule lists the persons who are relevant authorities for the purposes of the corporate parenting duty introduced by NC18. It also contains a power for the Secretary of State to amend the list of relevant authorities by regulations.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Free school meals: automatic enrolment of eligible children—

“In section 512ZB of the Education Act 1996 (provision of free school lunches and milk), omit subsection (2)(b).”

This new clause would remove the requirement in the Education Act 1996 for eligible children to request free school meals of their local authority.

New clause 6—Establishment of national school food monitoring scheme—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must institute a scheme for monitoring school food standards in England (‘the national school food monitoring scheme’).

(2) The purpose of the national school food monitoring scheme will be to determine whether applicable food standards duties are being met in the provision of all food in schools in England.

(3) The national school food monitoring scheme may from time to time publish reports containing such information as it sees fit relating to school food standards in England.”

This new clause would establish a national school food monitoring scheme, to ensure that the breakfast club provision included within this bill, along with all other school food, follows school food standards.

New clause 7—Registration of children for free school meals—

“After section 512ZA of the Education Act 1996 (power to charge for meals etc.), insert—

“512ZAA Registration of children for free school meals

The Secretary of State must ensure that free school meals are provided to—

(a) all children in England who are eligible to receive free school meals; and

(b) all children whose household income is less than £20,000 per year.””

New clause 9—Duty of school governing bodies regarding mental health provision—

“(1) Subject to subsection (3), the governing body of a maintained or academy school in England has a duty to make arrangements for provision in the school of a dedicated mental health practitioner.

(2) In subsection (1), “education mental health practitioner” means a person with a graduate-level or postgraduate-level qualification of that name earned through a course commissioned by NHS England.

(3) Where a school has 100 or fewer pupils, the duty under subsection (1) may be satisfied through collaborative provision between several schools.

(4) The Secretary of State must provide, or make arrangements for the provision of, appropriate financial and other support to school governing bodies for their purposes of facilitating the fulfilling of the duty in subsection (1).”

New clause 10—Establishment of a National Body for SEND—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a National Body for SEND.

(2) The functions of the National Body for SEND will include, but not be limited to—

(a) national coordination of SEND provision;

(b) supporting the delivery of SEND support for children with very high needs; and

(c) advising on funding needed by local authorities for SEND provision.

(3) Any mechanism used by the National Body for SEND in advising on funding under subsection (2)(c) should be based on current need and may disregard historic spend.”

New clause 11—National Tutoring Guarantee—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report outlining the steps necessary to introduce a National Tutoring Guarantee.

(2) A “National Tutoring Guarantee” means a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure access to small group academic tutoring for all disadvantaged children who require academic support.

(3) A report published under this section must include an assessment of how best to deliver targeted academic support from qualified tutors to children—

(a) from low-income backgrounds,

(b) with low prior attainment,

(c) with additional needs, or

(d) who are young carers.

(4) In preparing a report under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) headteachers,

(b) teachers,

(c) school leaders,

(d) parents of children from low-income backgrounds,

(e) children from low-income backgrounds, and

(f) other individuals or organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.

(6) Within three months of a report under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take steps to implement the recommendations contained in the report.”

New clause 12—VAT zero-rating for certain items of school uniform—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, make provision for certain items of school uniform to be zero-rated for the purposes of VAT.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “certain items of school uniform” means items of school uniform for pupils up to the age of 16.”

New clause 16—Spiritual, moral, social and cultural education in assemblies—

“(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 70 (requirements relating to collective worship)—

(a) for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) Subject to section 71, each pupil in attendance at—

(a) a community, foundation or voluntary school in Wales,

(b) a foundation or voluntary school in England which is designated with a religious character, or

(c) an Academy in England which is designated with a religious character,

must on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.”

(b) in subsection (2), for “community, foundation or voluntary school”, substitute “school to which subsection (1) applies”.

(3) After section 70, insert—

“70A Requirements relating to assemblies

(1) This section applies to schools in England that are—

(a) maintained schools without a religious character;

(b) non-maintained special schools;

(c) City Technology Colleges; and

(d) Academies without a religious character.

(2) Each pupil in attendance at a school to which this section applies must, at least once during the school week, take part in an assembly which is principally directed towards furthering the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of the pupils, regardless of religion or belief.

(3) In relation to any school to which this section applies—

(a) the local authority responsible for education (in the case of maintained schools) and the governing body must exercise their functions with a view to securing, and

(b) the head teacher must secure,

that subsection (2) is complied with.””

This new clause would remove the requirement for daily collective worship in England for maintained schools and academies without a religious character, non-maintained special schools, and city technology colleges, and introduce a requirement for a weekly assembly furthering spiritual, moral, social and cultural education.

New clause 23—Provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE to persons who have not attained the age of 18 at further education providers—

“(1) The Children and Social Work Act 2017 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 34 (Education relating to relationships and sex)—

(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert “and

(c) relationships and sex education to be provided to persons who have not attained the age of eighteen and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England”;

(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;

(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;

(d) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.

(3) In section 35 (Other personal, social, health and economic education)—

(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert “and

(c) to persons who have not attained the age of eighteen and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England”;

(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;

(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;

(d) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.”

This new clause would extend the existing provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to people under the age of 18 who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.

New clause 24—Cap on new faith schools’ admissions—

“(1) Any school or academy established more than two months after the passing of this Act which—

(a) is of a religious character, and

(b) is selective on the basis of faith,

must adopt admissions criteria which provide that, where the school is oversubscribed, at least 50% of the places available each year are allocated without reference to faith-based criteria.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an academy established as a result of a maintained school being converted into an academy under section 4 of the Academies Act 2010, except where the converted maintained school was—

(a) of a religious character, and

(b) selective on the basis of faith prior to conversion.”

This new clause would require new schools with faith-based admissions (other than those which were maintained schools that have converted to being academies) to apply a 50% cap on faith-based admissions places when oversubscribed, in line with the cap for new academies and free schools.

New clause 31—Guidance on the admission of summer-born children with EHC plans—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for local authorities and school admissions authorities on the admission of summer-born children with education, health and care plans.

(2) Guidance published under this section must—

(a) detail the factors which must be taken into account when considering a request for a summer born child with an EHC plan to be placed outside of their normal age group;

(b) include a presumption that requests relating to the placement or admission of summer-born children with EHC plans should be considered on no less favourable terms than requests relating to summer-born children without EHC plans; and

(c) outline circumstances when it may, or may not, be appropriate for a child who has been placed outside of their normal age group to be moved to join their normal age group , with a presumption that such a placement should be no less favourable terms than placements relating to summer-born children without EHC plans;

(d) detail how parents may object to the placing of their child with their normal age group, and the process by which such objections will be considered.

(3) In developing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) groups representing the interests of parents;

(b) individuals and organisations with expertise in supporting children with special educational needs and the parents of such children;

(c) other such parties as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “summer-born children” means children born between 1 April and 31 August.”

New clause 32—Collection and publication of data relating to summer-born children—

“(1) A local authority must collect and publish data on—

(a) the number and proportion of summer-born children who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group—

(i) with EHC plans, and

(ii) without EHC plans

(b) the number and proportion of summer-born children—

(i) with EHC plans, and

(ii) without EHC plans

who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group and who have been required to join their normal age group;

(c) the number and proportion of summer-born children with EHC plans who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group and who have been required to join their normal age group in a—

(i) special school;

(ii) mainstream school.

(2) The Secretary of State must annually—

(a) conduct a statistical analysis of, and

(b) publish a report on the data collected by local authorities under subsection (1).”

New clause 34—Provision of free school lunches to all primary school children—

“(1) Section 512ZB of the Education Act 1996 (provision of free school lunches and milk) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (4A)(b), after "year 2," insert "year 3, year 4, year 5, year 6".

(3) In subsection (4C), after “age of 7;" insert—

“Year 3” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 8;

“Year 4” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 9;

“Year 5” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 10;

“Year 6” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 11;”

This new clause would extend free school lunches to all primary school age children in state funded schools.

New clause 38—Power to prescribe pay and conditions for teachers—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act—

(a) make provision for the power of the governing bodies of maintained schools to set the pay and working conditions of school teachers to be made equivalent with the relevant powers of academies;

(b) provide guidance to all applicable schools that—

(i) pay levels given in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document are to be treated as the minimum pay of relevant teachers;

(ii) teachers may be paid above the pay levels given in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document;

(iii) they must have regard to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document but may vary from it.”

This new clause would make the pay set out in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document a floor, and extend freedoms over pay and conditions to local authority maintained schools.

New clause 39—Approved free schools and university training colleges in pre-opening—

“The Secretary of State must make provision for the opening of all free schools and university training colleges whose applications were approved prior to October 2024.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of free schools whose opening was paused in October 2024.

New clause 40—Duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police—

“(1) Where an act listed in subsection (2) takes place which involves the use or threat of force against a member of a school’s staff, the school must report the incident to the police.

(2) An act must be reported to the police where—

(a) it is directed towards a member of school staff or their property; and

(b) it takes place—

(i) on school property; or

(ii) because of the victim’s status as a member of a school’s staff.

(3) The provisions of this section do not require or imply a duty on the police to take specific actions in response to such reports.”

This new clause would create a duty for all schools to report acts or threats of violence against their staff to the police. It would not create a requirement for the police to charge the perpetrator.

New clause 41—Right to review school curriculum material—

“Where requested by the parent or carer of a child on the school’s pupil roll, a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum, including those provided by external, third-party, charitable or commercial providers.”

This new clause would ensure that parents can view materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum.

New clause 48—Review of Impact on Home Educators and Reduction of Unnecessary Reporting—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review and report of the impact of clause 26 on home educators in England.

(2) The review must include an assessment of

(a) the administrative and reporting requirements placed on home educators as a result of clause 26;

(b) the administrative and reporting requirements placed on local authorities as a result of clause 26;

(c) the extent to which such requirements are necessary for safeguarding purposes; and

(d) any data or reporting obligations that can be reduced or removed for home educators where they are not essential for safeguarding.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the findings of the review, including—

(a) an analysis of the impact of clause 26 on home educators;

(b) a clear outline of any data or reporting obligations that will no longer be required from home educators; and

(c) a timeline for the removal of unnecessary reporting obligations, which must not exceed 12 months from the publication of the report.

(4) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult with representatives of home educators and relevant stakeholders.

(5) The report must be made publicly available.

(6) The Secretary of State must ensure that any reporting obligations identified as unnecessary under subsection (3)(b) are removed within the timeframe specified in subsection (3)(c).”

New clause 49—Provision of free meals and activities during school holidays—

“(1) A local authority must—

(a) provide; or

(b) coordinate the provision of programmes which provide,

free meals and activities to relevant children during school holidays.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant children” means children in receipt of free school meals.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument—

(a) specify minimum standards for meals and activities during school holidays;

(b) specify criteria that organisations involved in the delivery of meals and activities during school holidays must meet.”

This new clause would place a duty on local authorities to provide or coordinate free meals and activities for children eligible for free school meals during school holidays.

New clause 51—Flexibility to take into account local circumstances when following the National Curriculum—

“In section 87 of the Education Act 2002 (establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) In any revision to the National Curriculum for England, the Secretary of State must ensure that the National Curriculum shall consist of—

(a) a core framework; and

(b) subjects or areas of learning outside the core framework that allow flexibility for each school to take account of their specific circumstances.””

This new clause would clarify that, when revised, the National Curriculum for England will provide a core framework as well as flexibility for schools to take account of their own specific circumstances.

New clause 52—Parliamentary approval of revisions of the National Curriculum—

“In section 87 of the Education Act 2002 (establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) An order made under this section revising the National Curriculum for England shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.””

This new clause would make revisions to the National Curriculum subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative procedure.

New clause 53—Arrangements for national examinations for children not in school—

“After section 436G of the Education Act 1996, as inserted by section 25 of this Act, insert—

“436GA Arrangements for national examinations for children not in school

Where a child is eligible to be registered by the authority under section 436B, the authority must—

(a) provide for the child to be able to sit any relevant national examination; and

(b) provide financial assistance to enable the child to sit any relevant national examination; where requested by the parent or carer of the child.””

New clause 54—Review of Free School Meal eligibility and Pupil Premium registration—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of—

(a) the number of children in England who are eligible for free school meals but are not claiming them,

(b) the number of children who are eligible for free school meals but are not registered for the purposes of pupil premium funding,

(c) the number of additional children who would be eligible for free school meals if the income thresholds had been uprated in line with inflation since 2018, and

(d) the number of additional children who would be eligible for free school meals if the income thresholds were set at £20,000 per annum after tax.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—

(a) barriers preventing eligible children from claiming free school meals;

(b) disparities in take-up rates across different regions and demographics; and

(c) the financial and educational impact of under-registration on schools and local authorities.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the findings of the review, including any recommendations for improving registration for and take-up of free school meals and pupil premium funding.

(4) The review and report required under this section must be repeated annually.”

Amendment 219, in clause 22, page 41, line 23, at end insert—

“and for all pupils attending special schools”.

This amendment would require the delivery of school breakfast provision to all pupils in special schools, regardless of their age.

Amendment 2, page 41, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) The appropriate authority must, in securing breakfast club provision, make provision for the needs of qualifying children listed on the school’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Register.”

This amendment would require the providers of breakfast clubs to make particular provision for the needs of children on schools’ Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Registers.

Amendment 220, page 42, line 23, at end insert—

““special schools” has the meaning set out in section 337 of the Education Act 1996.”

This amendment defines special schools and is consequential on amendment 219.

Amendment 214, page 43, line 11, at end insert—

“(2A) Before making an application under subsection (1), the appropriate authority of a relevant school must consider whether the duty might be met by other forms of breakfast provision including—

(a) classroom-based provision, or

(b) takeaway provision, either at school or at a proximate site.”

This amendment would require schools to consider other models of breakfast provision before seeking an exemption from the duty to provide breakfast clubs.

Amendment 215, page 43, line 21, at end insert—

“and if the condition in subsection (4A) is met.

(4A) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the appropriate authority of a relevant school has fully considered other forms of breakfast provision in accordance with subsection (2A).”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a school had considered other models of breakfast provision before granting an exemption from the duty to provide breakfast clubs.

Amendment 217, page 43, line 29, at end insert—

“551CA Promotion of supplementary models of provision

The Secretary of State must seek to promote and support the development of supplementary models of provision where appropriate, including

(a) classroom based provision.

(b) takeaway provision, and

(c) nurture group services.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to promote supplementary models of provision.

Amendment 218, page 43, line 37, at end insert—

“(d) matters arising from the Secretary of State’s duty under section 551CA.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to develop guidance in connection with the duty to promote supplementary models of provision.

Amendment 216, page 43, line 38, leave out “have regard to” and insert “comply with”.

This amendment would require schools to comply with guidance under section 551D.

Amendment 212, page 44, line 5, at end insert—

“551E Publication of data

The Secretary of State must acquire and regularly publish data on breakfast club provision in schools, including data on—

(a) the characteristics of those receiving breakfast in schools, including their eligibility for free school meals;

(b) uptake levels;

(c) satisfaction levels amongst pupils and parents; and

(d) any assessment of the impact of provision on attendance, behaviour, health and wellbeing.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to acquire and regularly publish data on breakfast club provision in schools.

Amendment 213, page 44, line 5, at end insert—

“551E Advice and support

(1) The Secretary of State must provide to any school to which the duty under section 551B applies advice and support services when requested by the appropriate authority of the school.

(2) Services provided by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (1) should include advice and support from individuals with specialist knowledge of the delivery of school breakfast provision.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make available to schools advice and support services delivered by people with specialist knowledge of the delivery of school breakfast provision.

Government amendments 132 and 133.

Amendment 1, in clause 24, page 44, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert—

“(1) The appropriate authority of a relevant school may not require a pupil at the school to have to buy branded items of school uniform for use during a school year which cost more in total to purchase than a specified monetary amount, to be reviewed annually.

(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the monetary amount that may apply to—

(a) a primary pupil; and

(b) a secondary pupil.”

Amendment 191, page 45, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the appropriate authority of a relevant school provides second hand items which—

(a) comply with the school’s uniform requirements,

(b) are in an acceptable condition, and

(c) can be purchased for significantly less than the cost of buying the item,

the appropriate authority may require a pupil to have more than three branded items of uniform.

(2B) Where the appropriate authority provides new items which—

(a) comply with the school’s uniform requirements,

(b) are new, and

(c) can be purchased for significantly less than the cost of buying the item non-branded,

the appropriate authority may require a pupil to have more than three branded items of uniform.”

This amendment would allow schools to require more than three branded items of uniform if they are making them available, whether new or second hand, at a lower cost than buying non-branded items.

Amendment 190, page 45, line 15, after “school” insert

“except items of kit required when representing the school in sporting activities”.

This amendment would exclude items of PE kit required when representing the school in sporting activities from the limit on branded items of school uniform.

Government amendments 134 and 135.

Amendment 200, page 47, line 29, at end insert—

“(8A) Where a local authority refuses consent in respect of a child who meets the criteria for Condition A, the local authority must provide the parents or carers of the relevant child with a statement of reasons for the decision.

(8B) A statement of reasons provided under subsection (8A) must include an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child.”

This amendment would require a local authority to submit a statement of reasons when they do not agree for a child who meets Condition A to be home educated.

Government amendment 20.

Amendment 202, in clause 25, page 46, line 22, leave out “condition A”.

Amendment 201, page 46, leave out lines 23 to 28.

Amendment 224, page 46, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

Government amendments 21 to 24.

Amendment 22, in clause 25, page 46, line 25, leave out “337(1)” and insert “337”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 20.

Amendment 173, page 46, line 32, after “action” insert—

“, or has previously taken action”.

This amendment would widen the definition of “relevant child” to include children in relation to whom a local authority has previously taken action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote their welfare.

Amendment 192, page 46, line 37, at end insert—

“(c) providing services to the child or their family under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, or

(d) a local authority which has ever provided services to the child or their family under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.”

This amendment would ensure local authorities had to consent to withdrawing children from school if there is a child protection plan in place or if a child is a ‘child in need’, or if there has ever been a child protection plan in place, in relation to the relevant child or their family.

Amendment 4, page 47, line 19, at end insert—

“(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6), “suitable arrangements” in relation to the education of the child otherwise than at school mean arrangements appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child and the existence of any special educational needs.”

This amendment would clarify the meaning of suitable arrangements for the education of a child outside of school, which the local authority must consider when deciding whether to grant consent for withdrawal from school.

Government amendments 25 to 31, 136 to 138, 32, 139, 33 and 140.

Amendment 5, in clause 26, page 49, line 40, leave out “each” and insert “the”.

This amendment would remove the obligation on parents to provide information on the second parent.

Amendment 6, page 49, line 41, leave out “each” and insert “any”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.

Amendment 193, page 50, leave out lines 1 and 2.

This amendment would remove a requirement for the register of children not in school to include details of how much time a child spends being educated by parents.

Amendment 7, page 50, line 2, leave out

“each parent of the child”

and insert “a parent”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.

Amendment 194, page 50, line 4, after “parent” insert—

“, in respect of each individual or organisation which provides such education for more than six hours a week”.

This amendment would ensure that information relating to short activities such as those operated by museums, libraries, companies and charities, as well as individual private tutoring activities, would only need to be recorded on the register of children not in school if they are provided for more than six hours a week.

Amendment 175, page 50, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) The requirement to provide information under subsection (1)(b) does not apply where a safeguarding concern in respect of either parent has been identified.”

Amendment 195, page 50, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) The requirements of subsection (1)(e) do not apply to provision provided on weekends or during school holidays.”

Government amendments 34 to 39.

Amendment 196, in clause 26, page 51, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may only require further information about children to be included on the register by introducing regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations, subject to agreement in Parliament, when seeking to require additional information to be included in the register of children not in school.

Government amendments 40 to 45.

Amendment 197, in clause 26, page 53, line 14, after “436B)” insert—

“but does not include any person or provider that is providing out-of-school education to home-educated children on weekends or during school holidays.”

This amendment would mean that providers of out-of-school education would not be required to provide information to local authorities in respect of education they provide on weekends or during school holidays to home-schooled children.

Amendment 198, page 53, line 21, after “way” insert—

“, but may not refer to an amount of time that is less than or equal to six hours a week.”

This amendment would mean that providers of out-of-school education would not be required to provide information to local authorities where they provide education for fewer than six hours a week.

Amendment 221, page 53, line 21, at end insert—

“, but may not refer to an amount of time that is less than or equal to six hours a week.”

Government amendments 46 to 59.

Amendment 199, in clause 26, page 55, line 22, at end insert—

“(9) The Secretary of State shall publish annually the GCSE results of children listed on the register.

(10) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the GCSE results of children on the register are included for each set of outcome data published by the Government.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to record outcome data for children on the register as a subsection of each set of performance data published by the Department for Education.

Government amendments 60 to 67.

Amendment 8, in clause 27, page 58, leave out lines 22 to 24.

This amendment, along with Amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12, would mean that preliminary notices would not be served on a child’s parent for not providing certain information.

Government amendment 68.

Amendment 9, in clause 27, page 58, line 27, leave out “, C or D”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 8.

Amendment 13, page 58, line 32, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), “suitable education”, in relation to a child, means education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child and the existence of any special educational needs.”

This amendment would clarify the meaning of suitable education which the local authority must consider when serving a preliminary notice for a school attendance order.

Amendment 10, page 59, leave out lines 9 to 22.

This amendment is related to Amendment 8.

Amendment 11, page 59, line 24, leave out “to D” and insert “or B”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 8.

Government amendment 69.

Amendment 12, page 59, line 41, leave out “, C or D”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 8.

Government amendment 141.

Amendment 14, in clause 27, page 60, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i), “suitable education”, in relation to a child, means education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child and the existence of any special educational needs.”

This amendment would clarify the meaning of suitable education which the local authority must consider when serving a school attendance order.

Amendment 15, page 60, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—

“may consider—

(i) any of the settings outside the home where the child is being educated, and

(ii) where the child lives”.

This amendment would give local authorities the discretion to consider settings where a child is educated when determining whether a school attendance order should be served.

Amendment 16, page 60, line 10, leave out from “consider” to “so” and insert—

“whether the child is being educated in a way which is appropriate to their age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they may have”.

This amendment would require the authority to have regard to section 7 of the Education Act 1996 in respect of parents’ duty towards their child’s education.

Amendment 17, page 60, line 15, leave out from “visit” to end of line 16 and insert “meet the child”.

This amendment would remove the requirement for the child to be seen in the home.

Amendment 18, page 60, line 17, after “refused” insert “without reasonable grounds”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 19, would, where a request to meet a child has been refused by a parent without reasonable grounds, enable an authority to consider that to be a relevant factor when considering whether to make a school attendance order.

Amendment 19, page 60, line 18, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

Government amendments 70 to 78, 142 to 144, 79 to 81, 145 to 148, 82, 149, 83 to 89, 150, 90, 151 to 153, 91 and 92, and 154 and 155.

Amendment 203, in clause 32, page 72, line 16, at end insert—

“(1B) Powers under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to an academy.”

This amendment specifies that the Secretary of State should rely on the provisions in Funding Agreements as regards to academies.

Government amendments 156 to 158.

Amendment 204, in clause 34, page 87, line 5, at end insert—

“(2D) The Secretary of State must issue guidance for relevant institutions on how subsection (2)(g) is to be understood.”

This amendment to allow independent schools not to have to notify the Secretary of State about change of use for buildings.

Government amendments 159 to 167.

Amendment 205, page 99, line 33, leave out clause 41.

Amendment 222, in clause 41, page 99, line 34, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section must have regard to—

(a) the availability of qualified teachers in each school subject, and

(b) the necessity or desirability of specific sectoral expertise for teachers in each school subject””

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take account of the availability of qualified teachers in each subject, and the desirability of specific sectoral expertise when making regulations under clause 40.

Amendment 206, page 100, line 6, leave out clause 42.

Amendment 207, page 103, line 1, leave out clause 44.

Amendment 208, in clause 44, page 103, line 9, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 11 and insert—

“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty.

Government amendment 168.

Amendment 209, page 103, line 36, leave out clause 45.

Amendment 225, in clause 45, page 104, line 2, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (1A) insert—

“(1B) Before deciding whether to issue an Academy order in respect of a maintained school, the Secretary of State must issue an invitation for expressions of interest for suitable sponsors.

(1C) The Secretary of State must make an assessment of whether or not to issue an Academy order based on the established track record of parties who responded to the invitation issued under subsection (1B) with an expression of interest in raising school standards.””

Amendment 223, page 104, line 21, at end insert—

“(10) Before the amendments made by this section come into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—

(a) the mechanisms, including Academy Orders, by which improvement of school standards can be achieved, and

(b) guidance on the appropriate usage of these mechanisms.”

Amendment 210, page 107, line 32, leave out clause 51.

Amendment 211, page 109, line 5, leave out clause 52.

Government amendments 169, 170 and 93.

Amendment 3, in clause 60, page 113, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) Section [Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment] comes into force at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment is consequential on Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment.

Government amendments 94 to 110.

New clause 2—Review of the Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time—

(a) carry out a review of the impact of the provisions of this Act; and

(b) publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.

(2) A first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act, with subsequent reports published at intervals not exceeding 5 years.

(3) A report published under this section must, in particular—

(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the provisions of this Act;

(b) assess the extent to which those objectives are achieved; and

(c) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct regular reviews of the impact of this Act and publish reports.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I start by thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contribution to the debate so far.

The Bill is for children—the clue is in the name. It is for their safety, their education and their future that we bring it forward. This Government are on a mission to break down barriers to opportunity for each and every child, and the Bill is a significant step on that path. I welcome the debate that the Bill has sparked. After a decade in which education was left on the sidelines, Labour is once again bringing it to the fore, and to the centre of national life—the place it always occupies under a Labour Government. Education is at the heart of how we ensure opportunities for the next generation.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I can inform the House that Lords amendments 21, 37, 38, 39, 44, 101 and 105 engage Commons financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

After Clause 1

Cessation of Child Protection Plans

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 21, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 37 and 38, Government motions to disagree, amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment 38, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38.

Lords amendment 41, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 44, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 102, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 105, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a).

Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 6 to 15, 18, 20, 22 to 36, 39, 40, 43, 45 to 101, 103, 104

and 107 to 121.

[Olivia Bailey]

Children’s voices are heard rarely in this place and are too often ignored in our society, so I say at the outset that it is truly a special privilege to play my part in the passage of this landmark legislation. This Bill is about creating the conditions in which every child can achieve and thrive, to ensure safer and more secure childhoods, to tackle the scrouge of child poverty and to deliver high and rising school standards. Today I ask the House to renew its commitment to that ambition for our children and our country. I extend my thanks to my colleague and friend, Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, for her skilful stewardship of the Bill. I ask hon. Members to back the Government amendments made in the other place that increase the ambition of the legislation.

In part 1 of the Bill, we have introduced a new duty on local housing authorities to, with consent, notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. We have also strengthened the Government’s work to put the voices of children at the heart of decisions about their futures, with amendments on family group decision making and the kinship local offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I completely agree with the Minister’s position; parents should have the choice to send their child to whichever school they believe is best for them. In relation to admissions, one of my first cases after becoming an MP was an automatic off-rolling of a child after she had been absent for 20 days, despite the absence having been communicated to the school and extended due to a bereavement. She was off-rolled with no process and no review, and she was out of school for nine months. Will the Minister consider reviewing this punitive policy to ensure that there is a formal review before a child is removed from their preferred school?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The Minister is being very generous with her time. However, she will be aware that many Members wish to speak in this debate. As it stands, that will be very difficult, given the time constraints.

[Olivia Bailey]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about that case, I am happy to look into it for him. Off-rolling absolutely should not be happening.

Let me turn to the crucial issue of allergies. Lords amendment 105 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members across the House who have been campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools, including my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). Last week, we published draft statutory guidance, which will be in force in September. It sets out clearly that schools should have a dedicated allergy safety policy and stock spare adrenalin devices, as well as whole-staff allergy awareness training.

At the launch, I had the privilege of joining Helen and Peter Blythe, and their wonderful daughter Etta. Their campaigning in memory of their son, Benedict, has been both brave and instrumental. We recognise their argument about allergy safety requiring the strongest protections. That is why I am pleased to confirm—with Helen in the Gallery today—that we will put Benedict’s law on the statute book, with our own amendment to require schools to have and publish an allergy safety policy, to have regard to statutory guidance and to give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to allergy safety. This will protect children with allergies in schools and ensure that our guidance can evolve as clinical advice changes. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking Helen once again for her bravery and brilliant campaigning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

I cannot; I must make progress—I am so sorry.

We understand that we need to act swiftly, and rest assured that through these powers we will be able to do so. Let me be extremely clear that it is not a question of if we act, but how.

Finally, let me briefly turn to Lords amendment 106. We have always been clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but because previous guidance was not sufficiently clear, we have published strengthened guidance so there can be no doubt that, from bell to bell, schools should be mobile phone free. We are also acting to ensure that bans are properly enforced. Our network of attendance and behaviour hubs will provide targeted support to schools that are struggling. From April, Ofsted will inspect schools’ mobile phones policies and enforcement. Our consultation is seeking views on whether we need to go further to support schools—for example, whether the guidance should be placed on a statutory footing.

Hon. Members have the chance tonight to vote to keep children safe online and offline, to tackle child poverty by putting money back into parents’ pockets, and to put in place a schools system that enables every child across all our schools to achieve and thrive. I urge the House to support this vision for our children and our country’s future, and to back the Government’s amendments in lieu. I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I am delighted to address the 13 amendments sent back to us by the other place this evening. The volume of Lords amendments reflects the strong feelings in both Houses about the deficiencies in the Bill, but there is a chance tonight to make change for the better. At the moment, the Government seem to do their utmost to oppose anything that they did not come up with—not on merit, but because they have retreated into a tribal bunker in which only ideas emanating from Labour special advisers or union bosses are deemed acceptable. May I suggest that this is not serving the Government very well?

Let us take the phone ban. The Education Secretary has turned into a contortionist. First, she told me that a statutory ban on phones in the classroom was a “gimmick”. Then, the Prime Minister slammed it as “unnecessary”. The Education Secretary later admitted that there is a problem, but she said that more guidance can fix it. Finally, she is now consulting on whether to do a statutory ban but refusing to back our amendment, in Lords amendment 106, which would actually deliver one. I am flattered by the energy that the Education Secretary is putting into avoiding agreeing with me, but this is getting ridiculous.

If the Government cannot properly argue the merits of their case, we get bad legislation. We had that problem with the Bill when it first came in. The Government still cannot justify the rationale for taking away academy freedoms—the very same freedoms that have delivered improved school standards in this country. Indeed, we now have the absurdity of the schools White Paper rightly saying that academies are the driving force behind school improvement, while in this Bill the Government are destroying academies in all but name. This is palpable nonsense. Do not try to make any sense of it—it is not possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. With the exception of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be an immediate four-minute time limit.

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the Lords amendments to the Bill that are of most interest to the Education Committee, following our scrutiny work on the Bill and in relation to a number of other subsequent and ongoing inquiries.

I welcome the decision to place the expansion of the entitlement to free school meals in the Bill. The Education Committee welcomes that expansion, which will increase the number of children who can benefit from a nutritious hot meal in the middle of the day. Combined with the roll-out of free breakfast clubs, it will substantially reduce the scourge of hunger, which harms children’s health and holds back their learning.

My Committee has recommended that the Government introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals. The use of universal credit data, which the Government already hold, would make auto-enrolment much easier to achieve. I urge the Minister to ensure, by implementing auto-enrolment, that no child misses out on the meal to which they are entitled.

I welcome the introduction of a requirement to notify health and education services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. I have seen at first hand many times in my constituency the destabilising impact of temporary accommodation on children’s lives. It is usually the worst quality accommodation and is the most likely to be overcrowded, damp and mouldy. It is often far away from school and friends, with no space to do homework, and brings the constant underlying insecurity of not having a permanent home. It can have profound consequences for children’s health and education, and the new duty to notify is an important first step in ensuring that children can be supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I will not, because of the time limit.

However, there are important differences of opinion between stakeholders on the best ways in which to regulate young people’s access to smartphones and social media, so I consider it right for the Government to consult. I welcome the amendments that will allow legislation to be introduced without delay. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some assurances about the timescale for the introduction of legislation following the consultation, which I believe will be necessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I must inform the House that Lords amendment 38X engages Commons financial privilege. If this Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

After Clause 26

Power to require internet service providers to restrict or prevent access by children to internet services

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

I will finish this section of my speech and then give way.

As the Government have consistently said and as sector leaders have repeated, this is a challenge of enforcement, and I genuinely believe that the package of measures we have already put in place will ensure effective bans of phones in schools.

I have the greatest of respect for colleagues across the House who have argued that placing this guidance on a statutory footing could support enforcement, and we have tabled that amendment today. I am thrilled to see that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), has indicated her support for this position.

The Bill before us contains vital measures to keep our children safe online and offline. These measures are desperately needed, yet this Bill has been languishing for 15 months. The time has come to stop playing political games and get this Bill on the statute book.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.