Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Future Academies. I strongly support the child protection measures in the first part of the Bill, and I commend the Government for bringing them forward. The addition to this part that I would like to see is a ban on social media before the age of 16—no measure could enhance our children’s well-being more than this.

I support the measures in Part 2 on home education, but I have one major concern. Ten to 15 years ago, there were probably 20,000 to 30,000 children being home educated, many by parents perfectly capable of doing so—the so-called home education lobby. These are not the children or parents I am concerned about. There are now probably up to another 100,000 children apparently being educated at home, many of whom are not receiving any suitable education, or any education at all, and some of whom are involved in gangs and crime. Particularly for children not known to social services, how is the local authority to know that they are not receiving a suitable education without a right of inspection?

I am sure LAs would not use this power very often—many would not be staffed to do so—but I think they should have it. If an LA was, for instance, to sample 100 children and find that the vast majority were not receiving a suitable education, it would throw the whole issue into higher profile. While Sara Sharif had previously been under a CPP, she does not appear to have been so at the time of moving into home education.

On the part of the Bill on schools, it seems most odd that the Labour Party, having invented the academy movement—albeit building on the CTC reforms introduced by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking—now seems intent on dismantling it, despite the obvious success of the academy and MAT movement in the substantial increase in the performance of our schools. Rather, the Labour Party should be taking the credit which it deserves; it was a brilliant piece of innovation. Why is it determined to deny future children the benefits that the academy freedoms have brought? There are quite a few failing schools that are academies, but then 82% of secondary children attend academies and MATs have taken on many failing schools, often quite recently. It can take many years to turn some of these schools around.

I am quite sure that the RISE teams will be ineffective. It is obvious from past attempts to bring consultants in to turn around schools that they just do not work. They have no skin in the game, they are temporary and they have no direct real authority—the complete opposite to a MAT.

I am concerned about the clauses taking micromanaging powers to the centre, which I do not think are necessary, the overriding of funding agreements, which are contracts—never a good look for a Government—the ability for LAs to change hands and, of course, the sledgehammer Henry VIII clause. From this, coupled with the weak academisation intervention powers the Government are now adopting, it is pretty clear that, if the Government pass this legislation, they are setting themselves up for endless litigation and judicial reviews. Good luck with that.

The Government have rushed out this legislation on schools without any material consultation directly with teachers and school leaders, from whom I sense no desire for it. I remember our Prime Minister saying outside No. 10 that he was going to tread lightly on our lives. Well, this part of the Bill is not going to tread lightly on the lives of working people in academies, who are already substantially disturbed by having to balance their budgets, and I strongly believe it is going to work against the interests of children and parents. The Government would be well advised to scrap it and start again.

If not, there will clearly be many amendments to the Bill, put forward in the spirit, I am sure, of a genuine attempt to improve it. When I took the Children and Families Act through your Lordships’ House, we made over 170 amendments, including many I accepted from those now on the Government Benches. I hope the Government will take a similar constructive approach.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I sat through almost all the Second Reading but deliberately did not intervene in it because I was trying to ascertain how much of the Bill was to do with Wales and how much was not. In the context of her amendment, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to clarify subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause, where it says, and I select the words deliberately,

“improve … standards … in schools in … Wales”.

Education in Wales is a totally devolved subject. I know that the Welsh Government and the Senedd have asked for certain provisions to be made via the Bill for application to Wales. I am sure the Minister can confirm that. Those are specific provisions that have been asked for and not a matter of generality. As I read the proposed new clause, there is a suggestion that it applies to the generality of standards in schools in Wales. The noble Baroness spoke of autonomy and accountability. That goes to the heart of the administration and provision of education in Wales, which is a devolved matter, and we must be clear in our minds why we are choosing those words.

Clearly, the term “England and Wales” can arise quite rightly when we are talking about the jurisdiction or the legal aspects of it. But here we are talking about the administration of education. Specifically, we are talking about schools and schools in Wales, and the Senedd has the right to know to what extent amendments such as this are meant to apply to them.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I will not repeat my Second Reading speech. I draw attention to my interests on the register, particularly the fact that I am chair of a multi-academy trust.

Regarding subsection (1)(a) of this proposed new “Purpose” clause, the Long Title states that it is to make

“provision about the safeguarding and welfare of children”.

Nothing that we could do to further that endeavour could be greater than to restrict access to social media to those aged over 16. That is why I have tabled Amendment 177 to that effect. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, said, this is so central to the overriding purpose of the Bill that I will take a few moments to elaborate.

I think we all know naturally that social media is very harmful to our children, but there is now an overwhelming body of evidence to support this. I recommend that anybody who has not done so reads the excellent book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. We want our children to be brought up confident, able to engage in deep thought, reflective and able to concentrate, to exercise judgment, to see the other side’s point of view, to be compassionate et cetera. We also want them to get a good night’s sleep. Smartphones and social media set up exactly the opposite behaviours.

In the 2022 PISA assessment, our children were in the bottom 10 of 31 countries in areas such as curiosity, perseverance, emotional control, stress resistance or grit, empathy and co-operation. There is now a strong body of clinical evidence on the harm that excessive use of smartphones and social media is doing to our children’s brains and eyesight.

Adolescence is a period of life in which our sense of self undergoes a profound transition. As teenagers become more conscious of how others see them, they often experience increased self-consciousness and self-criticism. Social media and the algorithms attached to them serve only to amplify this.

We also know that the adolescent brain is particularly susceptible to addictive behaviour. Constant exposure to fast-paced, highly stimulating content can condition the brain to expect frequent, rapid rewards, making it harder to sustain focus and concentrate. Numerous studies have shown the causal link between screens and the use of social media and sleep and depression.

A recent UCL study corroborated the link between social media and eating disorders and found that young people with eating disorders are more likely to be shown harmful content by social media algorithms. Samaritans research has shown that young people frequently see self-harm and suicide content across all social media sites, some of which display particularly graphic and triggering content, and almost three-quarters of teenage girls think that social media creates more pressure for them to look a certain way. Nearly one in five people arrested for terrorism-related offences in the past year was a child under 18. The Metropolitan Police has attributed this rise to social media, saying:

“You have the combination of the overt social media and then closed messaging apps”.


Social media has significantly expanded the reach of criminal drug networks, particularly among teenagers and young adults. Numerous studies in the UK have shown that gangs view social media platforms as essential tools for drug trafficking and gang recruitment. Parentkind tells us that more than 90% of parents think that social media is harmful to children and that more than 80% of parents feel that the age limit of 13 for signing up is too low. Australia has raised the limit to 16, Ireland is considering doing so and the EU is now considering similar measures. Bill Gates has described what Australia is doing as “a smart thing”, and we know that many people who work in the tech industry severely restrict their children’s use of social media and smartphones and often send their children to very screen-light schools.

Teaching unions have strongly pointed out the dangers of social media. The president of ASCL has said:

“It leaves a trail of harm—safeguarding concerns, fractured friendships, bullying, anxiety, and the spread of extremist ideologies. And increasingly, it is being weaponised against schools and teachers, with disgruntled parents using it as a platform to target staff”.


The general secretary of the NEU has said:

“We have to view the online world, social media and mobile phones in the same prism as we view the tobacco companies. These are harmful to our young people and they need regulating”.


The general secretary of NASUWT has described mobile phones as “lethal weapons”. Why should we let the consequences of this fall on our hard-working teachers, who have enough to do as it is?

The movement in support of the thinking behind my amendment is growing rapidly. We now have Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Smartphone Free Childhood, the Safe Screens campaign, the Unplugged Coalition and many other organisations.

Speaking to subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause and turning to improving

“the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings”,

I will sound just one note of caution. I am totally in favour of cutting out the cowboys, but the Government should exercise their powers to restrict profits and impose unlimited financial penalties with caution. Residential settings for children and other groups are very out of favour in the private equity space, and further restrictions on their financial flexibility can only reduce capacity. The public sector has no money, as we all know, so in order to increase capacity, private sector professional operators must be encouraged.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

This is a Second Reading speech, but it is very interesting. Does the noble Lord accept that the charitable sector and social enterprises probably have quite an important role to play in the delivery of residential care for children and that flexibility will help with the finances of that because they are not in the business of making excess profits?

[Lord Nash (Con)]

There are many in the charity sector that are professional, but there are many others. I do not think we disagree about this.

Turning to other settings, I am an adviser to the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which works with more than 200 independent and state boarding schools across the country to support care-experienced and vulnerable children into often fully funded school bursary places. A significant proportion of the almost 300 children supported since 2021 are either with foster carers or in kinship care arrangements. Those in kinship care arrangements have achieved a 100% stability rate, which means that they have not needed to change carers, and those in foster care a 98% stability rate. Independent research by the University of Nottingham shows that they are four times more likely to achieve good GCSEs when compared with a matched control group, and 75% of them are going to university versus just 13% of care-experienced young people nationally. RNCSF is working hard to expand this provision, and I would be grateful if the Government could consider meeting its representatives to discuss how they can help it to do this further. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that she or one of her colleagues is prepared to meet them. They are good people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, whom I respect and enjoy debating with, but does he accept that if all 80 of us who made Second Reading speeches—and I enjoyed his four minutes—speak for nine minutes, as he has done, ranging across the whole of the Bill, it will make a nonsense of the work of this House?

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I do not think all of us are going to make a nine or 10-minute speech, but I will wrap up now and hope that keeps him happy.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading and I will resist the temptation to make a Second Reading speech now. Rather, I wish to concentrate on Amendment 1.

Any consideration of a proposed purpose clause should take us all back to the Renton report, in which it was said that sometimes such clauses can be useful and sometimes they can be unnecessary, and that they should be used selectively and with caution. On one view, the scope and effects of this Bill are clear enough and there does not appear to me, at least, to be any complexity for which a purpose clause would help interpretation.

However, there is perhaps some value in this amendment, which uses the word “improve” three times, emphasising the intention of the Bill—and the Bill as amended in due course—to achieve improvement in the areas specifically mentioned, and not to maintain or simply tweak the status quo. For that limited reason, I would support Amendment 1.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak to this amendment, but I have to say that the idea that schools have not been at the centre of child protection and safeguarding over the last 20 years is just ludicrous. Under the last Government, the central grant to local authorities decreased by 40%. Real-terms school funding decreased by 9%. In that period, schools became the fourth emergency service as children’s social work, child protection and all the safeguarding systems around the child were absolutely decimated by austerity.

Schools have become extremely good at identifying children in need of safeguarding and protection. They have become extremely good at providing information, support and training to their staff, and they did this very well at a time when the last Government were reducing real-terms support to schools. They have had to become experts in child safeguarding and child protection because the other services that should have been there to work with schools simply were not. Multi-agency professional teams, legally responsible for working with schools to support them to protect children, will strengthen child safeguarding and child protection. CPD, or professional development, is always helpful, but the idea that schools need extensive CPD on this, that they have not been doing this, and that it will be a new thing to them is, frankly, ridiculous.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, about schools becoming very good at child protection in recent years, there will be a cost to engaging in this activity. I support my noble friend Lord Agnew and his point about the cost for schools. All schools are facing a very severe funding shortfall, and I am concerned that they will have to make a lot of redundancies. None of us wants to see that but schools are telling me that it is the only way they will be able to balance their budgets. If the Government’s worthy target of getting 6,500 new teachers into the profession is a net figure of leavers and people coming into the profession, then redundancies will make them miss that target. I support the point about money being needed to support this activity.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, schools are absolutely fundamental to knowledge about children. For any child who has started at school, any of that child’s teachers are extremely likely to know more about the child than anybody else except the parents. In some cases, they know more than the parents. The idea that they are being looked at for the first time, as it appears is being said, is, as the noble Baroness said, ludicrous. I hope that the Minister will underline the importance of involving schools at the earliest possible moment. Any amendment that can help with that should be supported.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

I shall speak to several amendments—to Amendment 170, on a capacity plan, and to Amendment 134B, on planning. I declare my interest as a former Ofsted chief inspector, where I spoke repeatedly over seven years about the issues with sufficiency in many parts of the country, and the urgency of taking action to enable homes to open in the places where they were needed.

I support what my noble friend Lady Evans just said, and I will not cover the same points about planning. I will say that the most acute need is partly in the most expensive areas, for obvious reasons, and partly for the children with the highest needs, for whom it is most difficult to configure, recruit, train and get a home open where we need it, when the children are there. We need planning for high needs. I stress that capacity planning should pay particular attention to the very high-needs children, whose care accounts for a startlingly large proportion of the total spend on care, and whose needs, in the main, are predictable, if not from birth then from very early in life. There is a high level of certainty of that being needed all the way through their childhood, and many of them will, sadly, also be in care homes in their adult lives. We need that focus and urgency to do everything that can be done, and to think intelligently, sufficiently far in advance, to enable homes to open so that, at the point and age at which children need them, they can move to somewhere within a reasonable distance of home.

I reassure the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, that the existence of children in unregistered accommodation is a serious concern to Ofsted. We spent a significant amount of our resources on putting pressure on those accepting placements of children to register as children’s homes, as they should.

I will speak briefly on a couple of other points. I support the boarding proposal for those for whom such schools are genuinely the right place; it is a way to create stability and a strong partnership with foster parents to make something more stable and enduring—in certain cases. The principle that it should at least be considered is important. I also support Amendment 165. As others, including my noble friend Lady Sanderson have said, that seems so obvious that one cannot imagine that it is not happening everywhere already.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I support Amendment 119, in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, about the availability of boarding places. I do so as a former south London boy who was, rather unexpectedly, because of family circumstances, sent away to a boarding school—with, I believe, considerable financial help. Pretty much every child in care I have ever spoken to, when I have asked them, as I tend to do when I meet them, what the biggest issue facing them is, replies that it is the lack of a constant adult in their lives—the revolving door of people responsible for them. This leaves issues of lack of trust, which can stay with such children all their lives.

In a boarding school, a child has a constant adult—often a housemaster or mistress. I accept that it might not be appropriate for all children, but I agree that children should be offered it. It can be a very inexpensive way in which to look after these children, although obviously that is only a secondary consideration. I have seen the benefit of this in many cases of young people who have experienced boarding, thanks to the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation.

I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and others about unregistered settings and about children being sent away many miles from their home.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that all these amendments would enhance the life chances and life opportunities of looked-after children, and they should be seriously considered.

In the 21st century, the words “unregistered” or “unregulated” should never enter into our dialogue or vocabulary. It is not acceptable for our schools or our children; whether it is an unregulated school or an unregulated home, it should not exist. I wish that I had signed the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and I apologise for not doing so. The noble Lord is absolutely right to call it scandalous. Noble Lords should have a look at the BBC “Panorama” programme from two or three years ago that looked at looked-after children in unregulated schools. Never mind caravans—some of them were being housed in barges. Imagine that in the winter. Unregulated provision is never inspected, and anything can go on in them. The children are not safe—we should not allow it to happen. Of course, Ofsted does not inspect them either. We owe it to our children to give them something better than that. I agree with my noble friend Lady Tyler that we cannot do that overnight, but we can make a stand and say that we are not going to have children in unregistered provision and we will phase it out. That would be a testimony to the current Government.

On Amendment 129 from my noble friend Lady Tyler, to which I added my name, everything that she says almost ties in with that of the noble Lord, Lord Watson; they are very similar on what they say.

I turn to Amendment 119 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. I think that the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Bennett, are looking at a stereotypical view of boarding schools. I would like to take them both to Liverpool College, which was an independent school and is now an academy, and where the local authority buys in places for looked-after children. The children get accommodation of high quality, but they also get adults who properly look after them, and they get sport and they get clubs and activities as well as outdoor pursuits. What is more, they go to the school and get fantastic results. I agree that not every boarding school would be suitable, but if it is a choice between being on a barge or in a caravan or some other dump, as some of the unregistered schools are, a boarding school would be a better prospect.

I had not thought about the link between schools, GPs and looked-after children moving into a particular area. Presumably, in a digital age, when we are about to move to a new registration system, probably linked to NHS numbers, there is a real opportunity for us to be very joined up. When children move into those areas, the doctor and the school will be notified, and it can only benefit the child as well.

I like the idea from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, of a national plan to ensure that there are sufficient places for children and we are not in the same position that we are in currently. We cannot wave a magic wand and expect this to happen overnight, but all of us in this Chamber want the same thing—we want the best possible opportunities for children, including registered schools and proper provision properly inspected. As we have said time and again, we also want the children to be as close to their locality and their family and friends as possible.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Knee-jerk reactions and assumptions that, “Oh, they’re just ripping the system off” are often based on the views of people who know nothing. Let us face it. There may be people who are ripping you off as well, but both are out there. In trying to get a good idea of what the Government are actually trying to get out of this, we all agree the principle, but then we have dozens of different assumptions about what that means. So if we can find out what the Government mean in this series of amendments, it will probably be able to work. Hopefully, this will be something that, as much of this Bill has been, is essentially cross-party. It is about how we get the right answer here, because the Government—as in all good democracies—have brought forth a slightly reactive Bill. They are dealing with problems that exist. I do not say that as a great criticism of the Government: it is simply that that is the situation we are in. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea of how the Government’s thinking is going around about the transparency, how we get out and how, for instance, if you think that someone is grossly overcharging you, you are actually saying that is happening. That is what I hope we will get out of this discussion.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 134A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. I also believe that the transparency of prices should extend to the SEND sector. I agree we need responsible, not highly leveraged, private investment. I understand why the Government are bringing forward these provisions of a profits cap and monetary penalties, because, of course, none of us wants cowboys looking after our children. What worries me, however, is that these kinds of assets are already very out of favour in the private equity sector, which is struggling to sell the assets it has. The provision of the profit cap and monetary penalties or fines is just going to drive capacity out of the sector, and I really am worried about this. Who is going to replace the inevitable lack of capacity that I am sure will result as a consequence of these provisions?

In an ideal world, of course, many of us would like all provision for these kinds of children to be run by charities or the public sector, although some public sector operators have had their own problems. We do not, however, live in an ideal world; the public sector has no money, and charities are struggling to raise money. Most of the private equity operators are highly professional operators, very concerned about their reputation and safety and the quality of their provision, and we need to encourage them. Otherwise, we will have—and I predict this will lead to—a massive shortage of capacity as a result of fines and caps. I am, however, all for full transparency.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

How does the noble Lord feel that we need to make the transition to the kind of system that we want, if he is so worried about the reduction in capacity? How do you deal with the profit gouging that has gone on? If you sort of say you do not have profit gouging, what happens when the suppliers walk away?

[Lord Nash (Con)]

Transparency is a good start. I think it is the case, and I know there are vastly different prices charged around the country, perhaps for different reasons, property prices or whatever; but I think transparency is key. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington: I think that trying to interfere in markets is generally dangerous and you generally have unintended consequences. Everybody knows that I am a career venture-capital private-equity guy, but I do know that these assets are completely out of favour.

There are a number of groups that have these assets and cannot sell them, and we are just going to run out of money, so I think the Government need to be very careful. I say that as somebody who is very concerned about this sector, and that is why I am here. I do not have any magic solutions, but I think that, if people are threatened with fines, who is going to want to run these homes? Individuals. It is something that needs to be thought about very carefully.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The noble Lord has just essentially agreed with what I said, that some of these entities are financially unstable and uncertain. Would the noble Lord understand, at least, the argument that it is better to bring these back? These facilities are going to have to stay open: we need them. It is better to bring them back into non-profit hands in an orderly manner rather than, if one of these private equity companies goes down, having an immediate crisis. What do the Government do then?

[Lord Nash (Con)]

The care sector is slightly different, for the reasons people have mentioned. But what are we going to do—nationalise it for nothing? Are we going to become a communist country? Are we going to pay for it, and if so, where will that money come from? Anyway, even if you deal with the ownership issue—obviously, I do not agree with the idea of nationalisation—threatening people who operate them with fines just does not seem reasonable. That is why I support the amendments on limiting fines and not applying them to natural persons, as opposed to corporations.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 140A, in my name, and propose that Clause 14 do not stand part of the Bill.

Before I turn to my own amendments, I add my support to my noble friend Lady Sanderson’s Amendment 134A. As we have heard, it would bring much needed transparency to the children’s homes market and help to level the playing field for smaller and larger providers. Of course, this transparency would help the negotiating position of local authorities and regional care co-operatives in future. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley for making it real and giving us very practical examples.

Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, made important points about the level of profit in the area of supported accommodation. As I understand it from the CMA report, it has some of the highest margins in the sector and today provides about two-thirds or three-quarters as many places as children’s homes do, at just over 6,000, or 7% of the market for looked-after children.

Amendment 141, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks, as we heard, to extend the profit cap to independent special schools. As the noble Lord understands extremely well, this is a very complex area, and one has to be careful, given the range of provision. Some of these homes offer short-term respite to foster carers, for example, so any changes would need to be thought through carefully to avoid unintended consequences.

Along with others, and not just on my Benches, including the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I cannot support Amendment 174, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Our starting point is that there needs to be greater capacity to limit price increases and ensure a choice of suitable care. We were very clear when we were in government that we do not condone profiteering in this market, but we have concerns about how the transition in Wales will work to a market where there are no for-profit providers. Obviously, the problem of very high pricing will only be exacerbated, as my noble friend Lord Nash just explained, if sufficient new capacity is not created quickly or even if capacity is withdrawn. Such an approach cannot be considered in England until the Government have invested in new, not-for-profit or social enterprise capacity, whether that be in the local authority or in the voluntary sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, very ably outlined.

I confess that it is slightly curious to be in a position of challenging the Government’s attempts to regulate and limit the profits of some actors in this industry, which have rightly drawn criticism from the CMA, local authority leaders and indeed many in your Lordships’ House. My amendments to this clause and the others in this area are definitely not about defending a group of companies that can well defend themselves; I am simply trying to test the viability and impact of the Government’s proposals. It is important, because there is such a level of frustration with the behaviour of some of the actors in this sector that we risk having a confirmation bias that anything we change it to will be better. We need to test these proposals and be confident that the solution the Government propose will work.

As we have discussed at numerous points in Committee, there is a fundamental problem with the lack of residential care capacity, whether that be in relation to fostering, children’s homes or supported accommodation. The Competition and Markets Authority described the current shortfall as a “fundamental failure” in market functioning, imposing, in its words,

“severe limitations on the ability of the 206 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, who purchase placements, to engage effectively with the market”.

We need a clear plan to address this shortage. My fundamental concern is that the measures in Clauses 12 to 18 will not have the desired impact that the Government seek—and that, across your Lordships’ House, we all seek. Amendment 140A is simply an example of why I do not think the plan for a financial oversight regime as presented in the Bill has been properly road-tested and that we can have confidence in its impact.

New Section 30ZI, to be inserted by the Bill, gives the Secretary of State the power to arrange for an independent business review by an external qualified person. You would assume that, in such cases, almost the first thing that they would look at, if it existed, would be the recovery and resolution plan set out at new Section 30ZG, but it is not even mentioned. There is a list of things that they should look at, but the recovery and resolution plan is not mentioned. It would be fundamental for them to look at that plan, given that it covers, according to the Government, the

“nature and extent of any risk to the financial sustainability of the person … the action the person proposes to take”

to address this, as well as

“impacts on local authorities, and children”.

That makes me lose confidence that this has been properly thought through. I hope that the Minister can either add it to the list of things that independent business reviewers will look at, or, more importantly, reassure me and the Committee that this area has been properly considered.

My opposition to Clause 14 standing part of the Bill is probing. The proposed financial oversight scheme for children’s social care represents part of the regulatory response to the market failures identified by the CMA. As with many parts of the Bill, much of this scheme will be set out in regulation. The scheme requires information from parent undertakings, but, as the Minister knows, private equity structures are notoriously complex and opaque. I wonder whether she is concerned whether providers might restructure to minimise oversight burden—how will the Government mitigate this? I am not clear how the scheme will address jurisdictional limitations on enforcement for offshore-based organisations. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that, or write to me if the answer is particularly technical or it is not at her fingertips. It is reasonable to question whether the DfE has or will acquire the specialised financial and private equity expertise needed to analyse complex corporate structures and financing arrangements effectively—I think this fly in the Chamber has been sent in by a private equity firm.

Similarly, is the Minister confident that local authorities have the capability to respond to advance warning notices? Is she concerned that the act of alerting local authorities about the financial fragility of a provider could lead to them withdrawing placements, leading to the financial collapse that the scheme seeks to avoid? I would be grateful if she could set out how the Government think that the contingency planning will work. I wonder whether the Government have had conversations with providers about how they expect to create realistic plans, given the prevailing market conditions. Surely existing supply shortages will make rapid replacement extremely difficult, and emergency placement costs are already unsustainable.

There are a lot of questions about the impact that this will have on the shape of the market. Will it actually result in more concentration in the market, because the 40 largest providers will have gained the confidence of local authorities? Could it result in financial pressures on smaller providers where there is less transparency?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

177: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Action to promote the wellbeing of children in relation to social media(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, for the purposes of promoting the wellbeing of children—(a) direct the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom (“the UK CMOs”) to prepare and publish advice for parents and carers on the use of social media by children at different ages and developmental stages, and(b) by regulations made my statutory instrument require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly-effective age assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users. (2) Any advice published under subsection (1)(a) must have regard to—(a) the paper published on 7 February 2019 entitled “United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on 'Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews'”, and(b) any scientific or other developments since the publication of that paper which appear to the UK CMOs to be relevant.(3) Any regulations under subsection (1)(b) must be treated as an enforceable requirement within the meaning of section 131 (and for the purposes of Part 7) of the Online Safety Act 2023.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)(b) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) For the purposes of this section—“the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom” means the Chief Medical Officers for—(a) England,(b) Wales,(c) Scotland, and(d) Northern Ireland;“regulated user-to-user services” is as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to their use of social media by commissioning advice from the Chief Medical Officers and introducing regulations to prevent under 16s from accessing social media.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 177 seeks to ban access to social media before the age of 16. Other amendments in this group relate to screens in schools, edtech, and the use and possession of smartphones in schools. I refer to my interests in the register, particularly the fact that I am co-founder and chair of a multi-academy trust and an investor in a number of technology companies.

We are now seeing an overwhelming body of clinical evidence about the dangers of social media for children and young people, and a rapidly increasing awareness about this among parents, teachers, and children and young people themselves. The title of this Bill is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and, in my view, nothing could enhance the well-being of our 9 million schoolchildren and young people more than to accept this amendment. Nothing could have a wider impact.

The dictionary definition of well-being is the state of being comfortable, happy or healthy. Sadly, millions of children are in none of these states. Indeed, it would be better to scrap the whole of the rest of the Bill and enact only this one amendment than to enact the Bill without it—although I am not proposing that.

According to Health Professionals for Safer Screens, social media causes developmental issues such as language and communication difficulties, emotional and social difficulties and reduced academic attainment, and has an impact on ADHD. It says it causes physical impacts, such as changes to the brain, poor eyesight, eating disorders, obesity and sleep difficulties. There is evidence that autistic children are particularly vulnerable to the impact of screen time.

A recent UCL study corroborated the link between social media and eating disorders, and that young people with eating disorders are more likely to be shown harmful content by social media algorithms. Samaritans’ research has shown that young people frequently see self-harm and suicide content across all social media sites, some of which display particularly graphic and triggering content. Almost three-quarters of teenage girls think that social media creates more pressure for people to look a certain way. If I can attempt to paraphrase such a leading expert as Andy Clark, professor of cognitive philosophy at the University of Sussex, overreliance on technology negatively impacts our ability to think, predict and be creative.

The impact of social media on reading is something we are seeing ever more articles on. A study published in Acta Paediatrica concluded that brain connectivity in children is increased by the time they spend reading books and decreased by the length of exposure to screen-based media. According to Teacher Tapp, 56% of teachers would prefer a world without social media and, of course, teachers are particularly aware of the impact of cyberbullying.

According to Mumsnet, half of parents say their children’s use of social media negatively affects their self-esteem, rising to 57% for girls, and 83% of parents back a social media ban for those under 16. Some 60% told Mumsnet that they would be more likely to vote for a party that implemented such a ban. It also makes the point that this is a cohort problem—that is, it is too big for any one family to solve. Millions of families across the country experience a daily battle with their children because of the addictive nature of smartphones and social media. Is this what we want for our families? I do not think so.

A recent American Harris Poll found that most parents wished their children grew up in a world with no social media—the same level of regret as for guns. According to HMD, 64% of parents say smartphone use negatively impacts their child’s sleep, and 61% say that it reduces the amount of physical activity they undertake. More than half are worried that it will reduce the amount of time they spend socialising with friends, and 75% of parents fear smartphones expose their children to internet dangers, with more than half admitting that they just do not know what their children get up to when using their phones. Almost half of parents believe mobile phone use has changed their child’s personality.

According to Deloitte, over half of Gen Z would favour a ban on social media for under-16s, rising to 71% for millennials and 78% for boomers. According to an American survey by Common Sense Media in 2023, the average American 11 to17 year-old receives 237 social media notifications a day.

According to Parentkind, 67% of 16 to 18 year-olds themselves think smartphones are harmful, and according to a Millenium Cohort Study, 50% of teenagers say they are addicted to social media. New research by the British Standards Institution shows that almost half of young people aged 16 to 21 would prefer to be young in a world without the internet.

Adolescence is a period of life in which our sense of self undergoes a profound transition, as teenagers become more conscious of how others perceive them; they often experience increased self-consciousness and self-criticism. Social media and the algorithms attached to it serve only to amplify this. We also know that the adolescent’s brain is particularly susceptible to addictive behaviour. Constant exposure to fast-paced, highly stimulating content can only condition the brain to expect frequent, rapid rewards, making it harder to sustain focus and concentrate.

So, why 16? As I have said, adolescence is a significantly important period of development, and we know that girls and boys may be more vulnerable to the negative effects of social media at different times during their adolescence. Indeed, research shows that girls experience a negative link between social media use and life satisfaction when they are 11 to 13 years old and boys when they are 14 to 15 years old, suggesting sensitivity to social media use might be linked to developmental changes, possibly to changes in the structure of the brain, or to puberty, which occurs later in boys than in girls.

The 13 to 16 age group is the least risk-averse and is easily influenced and highly susceptible to issues such as grooming, cyberbullying, body dysmorphia and social comparison, violent content, misogyny and knife crime, not to mention dopamine addiction. Thousands of influencers push on social media vaping, antidepressants, therapy, cosmetic injectables and mental health misinformation daily on to our teenagers.

A study by Northwestern University found that children aged between seven and 18 on average use six different skincare products a day, and some more than a dozen—all of which is to say that age restrictions which seek to stop children accessing harmful content on social media from an earlier age than 16 are unlikely to be effective in stemming harm.

We want our children to be brought up confident, able to engage in deep thought, be reflective, able to concentrate, able to exercise judgment and see the other side’s point of view, be compassionate and so on. We also want them to get a good night’s sleep. Smartphones and social media set up exactly the opposite behaviours.

Research by the Children’s Commissioner shows that the experience children have online is entirely different from that of adults, and that they are affected by content in different ways. Content that adults may not find harmful can be extremely damaging to children and adolescents. The former Children’s Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, who I am delighted to see is in her place, has stated that:

“Too many children are spending their most precious years sedentary, doomscrolling on their phones and often alone, while their health and wellbeing deteriorates”.


We know that the police are very concerned about the use of social media in the radicalisation of children and young people and in their recruitment into gangs. The Education Select Committee has concluded that:

“The overwhelming weight of evidence submitted to us suggests that the harms of screen time and social media significantly outweigh the benefits for young children”.


It is time to deal with this issue, and I am encouraged that the Government are at least thinking about it. However, the concept of two hours per app—two hours on each of WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, TikTok and so on—is really playing at the issue. France is planning a ban, one is being implemented in Australia, New Zealand is bringing forward legislation on one and Greece, Spain, Denmark and Ireland are considering one. We take children’s safety seriously in areas such as smoking and alcohol; now is the time to step up to the plate on social media.

It is particularly noticeable that all the leaders of the main teaching unions have pointed out, in stark terms, the dangers of smartphones and social media, with the general secretary of NASUWT describing smartphones as “lethal weapons”. This support from the unions is commendable. As the Labour Government are so close with the unions, I very much hope that they will follow their advice. Why should our hard-pressed teachers have to deal with the consequences of this free-for-all?

I have cited much research and many statistics, but I will conclude by asking noble Lords to remember five points. First, smartphones and social media are damaging the development of our children’s brains. Secondly, they are highly addictive. Thirdly, they expose them to serious risk of sometimes life-threatening dangers. Fourthly, cyberbullying is rife. Finally, they are having a serious effect on our children’s self-esteem, mental health and well-being, which is what we are here to debate. The formative nature of teenage brains is totally ill equipped to win the battle against the algorithms embedded in social media by companies with billions at their disposal. They need our help—and they, their parents and their teachers are crying out for it. It is time that we came to their aid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for his contribution. I am just so sorry that we will perhaps not see him around this place for very much longer.

On the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran concerning the possession and use of smartphones in schools, as my noble friend Lady Penn said, it may be that 90% of schools have a policy, but, unless smartphones are physically not allowed in schools, bans will be ineffective. Teachers are reporting that children are going to the loo far more often; I see the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who is a teacher, nodding. Some schools use pouches, but the evidence is clear. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, if my smartphone is there, I will concentrate far less than if it is out of the room. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Agnew said, children are very ingenious. I am told there are ingenious methods of opening and closing these pouches by using magnets and various other methods.

On what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said about the consequences for any school or person who did not follow a ban if we passed this amendment to ban smartphones in schools, I do not think for a moment that we are talking about a criminal offence. Surely a duty would do.

I am highly sceptical about what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about allowing smartphones in schools to teach their safe use. Children know far more about how to use these things than adults. They do not need to see a phone to be told what not to watch. Unless they cannot access social media, pornography or whatever because of age verification, they will watch it. That is what kids do.

On my noble friend Lady Penn’s amendment, which I support, I will make this point. Heads of primary schools have recently been alerted—I used that word advisedly, because none of them can tell me they were aware of any specific notification on this—to the fact that the reception baseline assessment, the RBA, will now require four year-olds to be tested using touch-screen devices, which, of course, they will have to familiarise themselves with before they take the tests. If we bring these screens into schools—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord accept that that assessment—the procurement, analysis and evaluation of which started back in 2019—will be carried out alongside teachers, with the ability for teachers to use other methods with children where necessary? This is not something that children will use on their own, on screen.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I understand that entirely. I understand that there will be two devices, on one of which the teacher will have to log the responses. The pupil will sometimes use a hard copy, but they will have to touch a screen for some of the tests. So we will be bringing these devices into primary schools, which will accept their existence for these ages. Goodness knows where this might go in primary schools without the kinds of amendments my noble friend Lady Penn is proposing.

The Government have entered into a £20 million contract with Made Tech Group plc to develop the relevant technology for the reception baseline assessment. The contract specifically states that

“the RBA will be the first service launched to schools in a wider suite of digital assessment tools”.

In other words, this is the thin end of the wedge. I hope the Government will reconsider this. I note what the Minister said about hoping that there is very little of this sort of thing in the early years.

I heard the Minister’s response to my Amendment 177. I listened carefully, and I am afraid that clauses and phrases such as “The Government will do what is needed to keep children safe online”, “Online Safety Act”, “scientific evidence mixed”, “correlation and causality”, “build the evidence base”, “publish results in due course”, “recommendations on limiting screen time” and “advice on sleep” do not fill me with any hope. All this sounds to me like statisticians wanting 100 years of evidence before they say the case is proven. The time is now. How much more evidence do we need? How much more damage do we need to see before we act?

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about Ofcom, but social media companies are perfectly capable of implementing highly effective age limits if they want to. I am glad he was listening so carefully to what I said and noted some similarity between what I said today and what I said in the purpose clause debate, but I hope that when he checks Hansard he will see that there was quite a lot of new material there.

Concerning my Amendment 177 on banning social media before 16, there are clearly very strong feelings about this across the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said. This is becoming a real issue for working families across the country, and I have no doubt that if it is not dealt with before the next election, it will be a big issue on the doorstep, as my noble friend Lord Bethell said. It is no secret that there is support for this not only in this House but across the Benches in the other place, including from a number of honourable Labour Members demonstrated by, for instance, Josh MacAlister’s Bill and other interventions. I urge the Minister to convene a meeting across the political spectrum to discuss how we can take this matter forward, and I ask her now, as a first step, whether she will kindly meet me very soon to discuss how we can take this forward. We may—indeed, we almost certainly will—look to bring this back on Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 177 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I am taking a slightly different approach with my Amendment 200, which relates to school uniform policy.

It is important to recognise that a tiny minority of schools use the cost of uniforms as an unpleasant instrument to screen out children in poor families—I am not in denial of that. However, that relates to perhaps 1% or 2% of the 20,000 or more state schools. Nor am I in denial that we should do something about it. A lot has been done, which I will come to in a moment.

Nevertheless, the solution proposed in this clause is heavy-handed and bureaucratic. It is a classic example of the dead hand of the state intervening in an entirely impractical way to cause more harm than good. Does Whitehall really know how many branded items a school would like to use? Where does the magic number of “three” come from? For example, schools encouraging sport and competing with others are trying to foster an identity, and branded sportswear is a basic part of that. Have the bureaucrats found out how much a branded iron-on logo costs? A quick search of the internet suggests that you can buy them, custom designed, for £1.16 each.

How can we do this? I refer to my interest as the chairman of Inspiration Trust. Let me quote some of the bullet points from our uniform policy:

“We will make sure our school uniforms … are available at a reasonable cost … Provide the best value for money for parents/carers. We will do this by … Carefully considering whether any items with distinctive characteristics are necessary … Limiting any items with distinctive characteristics where possible. For example, by only asking that the blazer, worn over the jumper, features the school logo … Limiting items with distinctive characteristics to low-cost or long-lasting items, such as ties … Considering cheaper alternatives to school-branded items, such as logos that can be ironed on, as long as this doesn’t compromise quality and durability … Avoiding specific requirements for items pupils could wear on non-school days, such as coats, bags and shoes … Keeping the number of optional branded items to a minimum, so that the school’s uniform can act as a social leveller … Avoiding different uniform requirements for different year/class/house groups … Avoiding different uniform requirements for extra-curricular activities … Considering alternative methods for signalling differences in groups for interschool competitions, such as creating posters or labels … Making sure that arrangements are in place for parents to acquire second-hand uniform items … Avoiding frequent changes to uniform specifications and minimising the financial impact on parents of any changes … Consulting with parents and pupils on any proposed significant changes to the uniform policy and carefully considering any complaints about the policy”.


It is all there—I am sure, in large part, just following the DfE guidance. Your Lordships will see a similar approach on most of the larger academy trusts’ websites. The bit missing is the cost, but, according to the Schoolwear Association, uniform costs have undershot inflation by 34% in the last three years. According to the House of Commons Library, the cost of a secondary school uniform in 2014-15 was £232 for a boy, while today it is around £94. Great progress has been made—that has been driven by guidance, which is a good thing.

However, does this really need a central government mandate? In the last three years, my chief executive has not had a single complaint about uniform costs—that is for over 11,000 pupils in 18 schools. Let us say that something has to be done, but, rather than a top-down Whitehall diktat, we suggest that the members mechanism that the Labour Government themselves originally conceived be given the task. The extraordinary power of this structure and the protection of stakeholders’ interests is not well understood by many DfE officials. For noble Lords not familiar with it, I should explain that, in essence, members of an academy trust act as the proxy shareholders—a trust, of course, does not have shareholders, as it is a charitable entity—but they sit above the trust board and have certain enshrined rights and responsibilities. The problem at the DfE was that officials had allowed the two groups—members and trustees—to become intermingled. This undermined the whole point of a separate body being able to step in when governance failures by the trustees occurred.

It is reasonable that the chair of the trustees and one or two others are members, as long as the members who are not trustees are in a majority, which is now the case. At the moment, members have several key powers. These vary slightly depending on the time of the creation of an academy trust. The original trusts set up by the Labour Government gave more protection to “sponsors”, as they were putting in £2 million of their own money to take on the school. However, the following key responsibilities apply to the vast majority: appointing and removing trustees; appointing and removing members; amending the articles of association, subject to legal and regulatory restrictions; directing trustees by special resolution; appointing auditors; and safeguarding governance, which I stress. Members must assure themselves that governance is effective and intervene if it is failing. These powers ensure that members can intervene if the trust governance or performance is inadequate, but their involvement is otherwise minimal. Members must always act to further the academy trust’s charitable objectives.

The solution would be to add a specific requirement for members to monitor costs of school uniforms and report on it in the annually audited accounts. The members are already answerable to the DfE. Noble Lords will see from those six key responsibilities that I listed that it would be logical and straightforward, if prescribed, to add something specific—such as overpriced uniforms. “Directing trustees” and “safeguarding governance” are there to protect children if a trust is badly run. Overpriced uniforms are part of bad management; it is as simple as that. Noble Lords will have seen from the statement on its website that the Inspiration Trust already deals with most of this. However, adding something simple such as, “The members of the trust have scrutinised and approved our uniform policy and its cost”, would close the loop.

It is important to mirror the governance oversight in local authority schools, as nearly half of primary schools are not academised. This can be done by requiring directors of children’s services, or DCSs, to assume the same responsibility as that set out for members of academy trusts. There is separation between local authority governing bodies and DCSs. This would give consistency across the English state system.

When the Prime Minister was elected last year, he said that he wanted to lead a Government who would “tread more lightly” on people’s lives, but here we have primary legislation that seeks to do exactly the opposite and control lives from Whitehall in a rigid, top-down way.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I fully understand the Government’s desire to limit the cost here, but I support the principle behind most of these amendments, particularly those of my noble friend Lord Agnew and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made an excellent point, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that if uniform is not standardised, parents with students who can afford it may well “show off” through the clothes which their children wear. That is why we ban trainers in the schools in the multi-academy trusts that I chair, and why they are banned in most schools. We want all our children to feel equal.

As the Minister previously responsible for the school cadet programme, and as for the point that my noble friend Lord Young made, if the clause works as he says it does, this would seem to me an obvious and easy give by the Government. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on this point. As for the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett, I thought they made an excellent case for more, rather than less, uniform, because that would be the easiest way to regulate and monitor what it is made from.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for being a minute or two late arriving in the Chamber. I support Amendments 196 to 199 proposed, respectively, by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 201, from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. If these are not accepted, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and Amendment 195 from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, also have considerable merit.

Every autumn, there is a rash of stories about children being sent home for not being in the correct uniform. However, most often, these disputes are about not branded items but a child’s reluctance to wear something in the style that has been approved for all pupils. It is encouraging to note that household expenditure on clothing and footwear as a proportion of household spending has fallen substantially over the past 50 years. In historical terms, it has probably never been cheaper to clothe a family, though I note the concerns that have been expressed about cheap synthetic fabrics and finishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What I said was that this measure does not prevent schools providing or loaning branded uniform items, such as competition kit, but, if that were to be compulsory, that of course would need to be included in the three branded items. As long as those items are optional, I do not think it is too difficult to envisage that schools might be able to make that work.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

So if the shirt provided by the school is blue and the opposition plays in red, and this has all been arranged in advance, and some pupils decide to be difficult and turn up in red, which will create chaos, that is okay, but if you say “You’ve all got to turn up in blue”, that is breaking the rules. It does not sound very practical. I ask the Minister to take a bit of time with people who run schools and officials to see whether we can work our way through this in a practical way, while at the same time trying to make sure that all children are treated equally and that we limit the costs as far as we can.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am certainly willing to continue thinking about the issue of school sports, because it is very much not the intention of the Government to prevent the loaning of branded items for school sports. On the example that the noble Lord mentioned, in my day, when I played hockey, if we ended up playing against a school with a similarly coloured kit, we wore bibs to distinguish ourselves. My point is that I do not think it is impossible to overcome this. Let us come back to it. I take the point that noble Lords have made here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 279 would allow local authorities to inspect the materials being used in the child’s home education and to see the child’s work. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I strongly support the Government’s measures in relation to home education in this Bill, and in this respect I find myself in disagreement with a number of noble friends on these Benches with whom I generally share a common view of life. I was delighted to hear the Minister’s opening remarks on this group. I thought she put the situation exceptionally well.

As we have heard, the home education lobby is very concerned about these provisions, and I am sure it will be concerned about my amendment. However, the number of children apparently being educated at home has grown exponentially over the past 10 to 15 years, probably from 20,000 to 30,000 to somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000, and that is without allowing for the 300,000 children estimated by the Education Policy Institute to be missing from education. My noble friend Lord Frost says that only 1.4% of home-educated children get a school attendance order, which is unsurprising as without a register local authorities just do not know who these children are. As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, about the majority of home-schoolers being university-educated people, that may well be the case for those home-educated children who are being suitably educated, but I believe there are many more children who are apparently being home-educated but who do not have that benefit.

Of course, many children are educated exceptionally well by their parents at home or in other settings, and I respect parents’ right to do that. These are not the parents who concern me, and nor should these parents be concerned about the provisions in the Bill or my amendment. If they are providing a suitable education, why should they be? But those of us who work in schools know that many children apparently being educated at home are not receiving a suitable education, or indeed any education at all. Many are active in gangs. Surely, we must be concerned about these children. Children have a right to be educated, and I invite the home education lobby to reflect on whether its objections to the Bill, and no doubt to my amendment, are a little selfish and lacking in public spirit in some respects. I understand what my noble friend Lord Lucas was saying about the importance of children being seen. I assume, therefore, that he supports going further than my amendment, because the whole point is that too many children are unseen.

England is an outlier in relation to home education. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, talked about the relatively low number of children being home-educated. We have the highest proportion of children in home education and the lowest amount of regulation. No other European country has a higher rate of home education. The next highest is France, which mandates yearly inspections. The 2018 European Commission report into home education concluded that students’ progress is monitored and assessed everywhere in Europe except in the UK and in the Netherlands. I refer noble Lords to an excellent report by the Centre for Social Justice dated November 2022, entitled Out of Sight and Out of Mind. That report made a number of recommendations, including that local authorities need powers to conduct visits and see the child in person at least every six months, and that home-educated children should complete an annual light-touch progress assessment in English and maths. My amendment goes nowhere near as far as that.

The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has uncovered incidents of harm involving children reported to be in home education, including a number of children who have died. The panel concluded that such children were often invisible, were not in school and did not receive home visits. A 2021 report by FFT Education Datalab found that children with additional vulnerabilities are disproportionately likely to be out of the school system by the end of key stage 4, and it is estimated that about half these children are in home education. It found that a child who has been persistently absent from school is more than three times more likely to end up with no final destination than a child who has never been persistently absent, and a permanently excluded child is two and a half times more likely than the child who has never been permanently excluded.

Local authorities do not like serving school attendance orders because by the time the matter gets to court, the parents are lawyered up and, even when they are not providing a suitable education, may well be pretending to be doing so by producing documentation that they have only recently obtained. My proposal would cut through this dance. Unless a child who is home-educated is known to social services, how is a local authority to know whether they are receiving a suitable education?

While Sara Sharif had previously been under a CPP, she does not appear to have been at the time of moving into home education. On my noble friend Lord Wei’s point about scaremongering, we should certainly be concerned about children who are home-educated and suffer abuse or are murdered. I believe there are many more children, not in this category, who are apparently being educated at home but are actually not receiving any education at all. Sadly, in the last decade or so, the world has moved rapidly to this appalling state of affairs.

My amendment is consistent with the recommendations made by the Education Select Committee in its report Strengthening Home Education, although it does not go anywhere near as far as its recommendations of annual contact with the family and a minimum annual assessment of a child’s progress, particularly in relation to literacy and numeracy.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 202C from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and Amendment 226 from my noble friend Lord Meston. As this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I would like to make two preliminary remarks. The first is to declare a personal interest, as I have a relative who is home-educating, and therefore I have learned at second hand some of the issues involved here. Secondly, that has also caused me to want to investigate more and to thank the many people both inside and outside this House who have provided me with information about the whole field of home education and how it relates to local authorities.

I am very grateful to the Minister for having a meeting with me early on in this process and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for also having meetings with me to discuss these issues. I very much appreciate it, and I very much appreciate the fact that the Minister has offered to meet Peers. I am available in August, so we look forward to having further discussions and perhaps saving some time in Committee around some of the relatively minor details that need to be cleared up in the Bill.

I do not want to take up too much time; I will simply make three or four points and then speak to the amendments. If noble Lords want to see a real approach to personalised education, they can find that in some of the successful examples of elective home education perfectly attuned to the needs, capabilities and aspirations of the child. That happens at all levels of achievement.

However, and equally, I am concerned about the 39,000 missing children mentioned who may be at risk of abuse, may be running wild or are being brainwashed and separated from society in some form. There are a whole range of different sets of issues that we must think about here.

In characterising home education, I just want to pick up one other point that I do not think has been made by anyone: some parents choose to home-educate one of their children because of that child’s particular needs but have their other children in school. Indeed, many parents will home-educate their children for a period and then bring them back into school later on when they perhaps have moved up or managed to develop in a way that allows them to take advantage of whatever the provision is locally.

We must really recognise the poor state of some of our schools and some of the stories I have heard about what has been described to me as “in-school excluded”. These are children who perhaps have difficult behaviours or whatever, have an educational assistant and end up spending the time in the corridor with that assistant rather than being educated.

There is a whole range of issues that we need to tackle here. My approach to it is, like others—I am delighted to see this spirit in your Lordships’ Committee on this—to try to find practical ways forward to balance all the different issues. Central to that, in whatever we do, is to help to frame a positive relationship between home-educating parents and local authorities. In some cases, this is excellent but, in others, this is very fraught indeed. I will have a bit more to say on that later.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, on education, which I find more problematic. What will it achieve if you are asking for home-educating parents to show you the materials that they are using? Those materials may be different depending on their philosophy of education and whether they are following a more traditional school academic approach, or, as they are entitled to, a more child-led approach.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My amendment also says

“to see the child’s work”.

As those of us in schools know, seeing a child’s books is one of the best ways of finding out whether they are being properly taught. It may be that the home educators are educating their children in a particular way and you can see the materials that they are using to teach, but one needs to know whether the children are actually learning. The only way to know that is to see their work.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and I very much understand the point that he is making. However, the issue is what happens to that material once it is inspected. How does the home education officer make a judgment on it? Most of them are not teachers—in fact, I suspect very few are. Do they go to an outside source, or do we set up some great panoply of mechanisms to decide whether those materials are appropriate?

At the moment, we have a different situation. The current position, as I understand it, is that, where authorities have cause for concern, Sections 437 to 443 of the Education Act 1996 provide for steps to be taken if it appears that there is very little or no education in place for a child, or if the local authority has no information about any education arrangements. I understand that in most, possibly all, local authority areas home-educating parents provide an annual report to the local authorities, rather than providing materials that will be judged in isolation.

I think that we should leave the law where it is. As I understand it, the attitude of the best local authority home education officers is that they build relationships; they are happy with most of the people, but can then concentrate on the problem areas—because there are problem areas—within the home education sphere. Imposing new duties such as this would add burden, bureaucracy and frustration to authorities and parents alike. We should concentrate on improving that relationship, not making it more burdensome.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for taking this issue on and for being aware of the problems that we face. I also recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was on to this in her role as Minister as well.

I have met hundreds of home educators and considerably more have contacted me, and most of them do an amazing job. Noble Lords ought to know that some of the home educators who have contacted me by email have been concerned about what has been going on and given practical examples of that. We need to get a balanced picture sometimes.

If we really want to understand this issue, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, makes the point in his amendment that 39,000 children are missing—we have no idea where they are. The Government want to tackle that head-on. Imagine a society that says to those who want to remove their children from the education system that that is fine—just do it—but we will not keep any records and we will have no idea what you are doing at home, and will leave you to get on with it. Can you imagine that?

Can you imagine a situation where fundamentalist religious groups set up unregistered schools and we have no idea what is happening in them, except occasionally when some of the teachers working in them report to the authorities the appalling behaviour of staff? Ofsted has on many occasions tried to close those schools down, but they re-emerge as home education settings—

[Lord Nash (Con)]

On the figure of 30,000, the Education Policy Institute, of which I was a trustee until relatively recently, estimated by comparing GP registrations with school registration and home education data that in 2023 there was a gap of 300,000 children—and that was not accounting for home-educated children.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for that.

Clearly, there are different groups of home educators and we cannot just use the blanket term “home education”. First, there are the traditional home educators. Let us be honest, the most important educators in a child’s life are the parents, and some parents have the time, opportunity, money and desire to teach their children at home. They do a fantastic job. As I said earlier, I have met many of them. They organise summer camps, celebrate together, et cetera. In the main, they are probably the people who have the resources and time to do that. The second group are those whom my noble friend mentioned: parents who feel that the education system is not working for their children who have special educational needs. I think we can understand that.

Then there is a third type, which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, mentioned. After Covid, children, mainly from poorer families or disadvantaged backgrounds, returned to school and could not cope. They went back to their parents and said, “I don’t want to be in school”. They nagged their mum and dad who, in the end, said, “Okay, we’ll home educate you”, despite having no experience of home education at all. Sadly, those parents did a major disservice to their children, who of course were not being home educated—they were just doing nothing at home and getting further and further behind in their learning. Some have gone on to criminal activities as well.

Finally, there is the group I mentioned before: those in unregistered schools. If noble Lords knew some of the practices that went on in those schools, they would be appalled. In fundamentalist religious schools, eight year-old boys spend all their time just learning holy scriptures and have no proper education, which is not acceptable at all.

I understand some parents’ concerns that they do not want to see bureaucratic procedures getting in the way of their home education, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, rightly mentioned. It is not beyond our wit to look very closely between Committee and Report at what we require. It is important that we know where children are. Any system we bring in has to work; we have been down this route before. In my first headship—some teachers here will remember this—there was the unique pupil number which every child had and which went on with them to whichever school they went to. The school had a duty to inform the next school that the child was moving to, et cetera.

That, for some reason, has broken down; I do not understand why. Therefore, the system that we adopt here has to work—and not just between schools; in cases where children do not go to school, we have to know where they are, so that we can keep them safe and ensure that they are learning.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

I will make a quick intervention, if I may, just to counter the claim that the troubled families programme achieved nothing. The evidence does not tell us that, so it is important not to allow us to think that.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I support the point that has just been made, which is perfectly valid. Some of the elements of the troubled families programme could be used for school home support for children persistently absent from school. I invite the Minister to look at that, because some of the issues with children who are persistently absent are wider family issues. They need a relationship with one partner of government rather than many, which they do not trust. The noble Baroness makes a very good point.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I shall speak to my Amendment 331. This is quite simple, really. It is good practice from time to time to review how things have gone so you are able to adjust it slightly, leave it alone or trumpet the fact that it has worked well. Given this is an issue which has caused such a degree of concern among home educators, this is one small way to say that, whatever is finally agreed, we are going to review it in 12 months, two years or whenever. I think that would make them feel a lot more satisfied with the way we have dealt with this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 306 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Given that this country has the joint lightest-touch approach in Europe in relation to the oversight of home education, I would have thought this is a no-brainer to enable us to understand more about the performance of these children. I also hope that those in the home education lobby will welcome and support the amendment, as it would give them the opportunity to show their paces.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 317 in this group, which would rather expand the range of reporting to other groups of children who are under the care of the state and not in a specific school. It is really important for the governance of education in this country that we understand how all our children are performing. I would expect a local authority to take an interest in the examinations of home-educated children and these other groups of children in Amendment 317 in their local area. I would expect the Department for Education also to be interested, not for year-to-year panicking but in a determination to understand what the difficulties and differences are and how, over time, to drive the results up. The basic starting point of that is to get the data out.

Particularly if you are reporting at a national level, you are not reporting anything that has any element of personal or identifiable data to it, but you are putting a bit of data down on the table to draw people’s attention to what the state of affairs is. That is a very important part of the way in which the state should have responsibility for what it is providing to our children.

Equally, I agree with those who are saying, particularly as we are bringing home education within the scope of the state so much more, that we should take responsibility for making sure that home-educated children find it easy to take crucial examinations. At the moment, it is extraordinarily difficult. They may have to travel hundreds of miles to find an examination centre and pay thousands of pounds to have access to an exam. The Prime Minister is borrowing a flat so that his child may have a quiet environment in which to study for his examinations, so one would hope that the Government realise that making it easy to take exams within a reasonable distance from home and without undue stress on the family’s finances is an objective we should have—particularly when, as my noble friend says, home-educated children are saving us so much money.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendment 452, which has just been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, which would limit local authorities’ interventions in admissions to situations where the admissions authority had failed to meet its admissions obligations or had behaved improperly.

Local authorities have a statutory responsibility under Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 to ensure that enough school places are available in their area for every child of compulsory school age. The provision in the Bill to create a duty on schools to co-operate with local authorities to enable them to carry out their place-planning duties as required by law and to co-operate on SEND inclusion and school admissions is entirely necessary and reasonable. It ends the nonsense of academies being allowed to set their own pupil numbers without regard to the number of pupils in the catchment area.

Multi-academy trusts are no longer outliers; they run over 46% of primary schools and 83% of secondary schools. The Government have a duty to ensure that local authorities, on which the legal requirement to provide school places falls, are able to do so. This must require local authorities and multi-academy trusts to work together to ensure that place planning is done effectively and cost-effectively. That is particularly important now, as we are experiencing a decline in the birth rate which is affecting primary places and will affect secondary places. The sustained rise we have seen in pupil numbers since the early 2010s has now been reversed. The number of pupils in England’s school system overall decreased in January, dropping by more than 59,000. Primary numbers have been falling for several years now, but secondary numbers are due to peak in 2027 before falling as the population bulge moves out of compulsory education.

These pupil demographics require co-ordinated place planning. We cannot have a situation where local authorities are legally responsible for providing places for pupils but have no powers to direct the majority of schools in their area, which are academies, to co-operate on place planning, admissions and exclusions. We cannot leave local authorities with the responsibility, but without the authority, to require co-operation on these legal duties.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. She may be pleased to hear that I have advised my noble friend on the correct pronunciation of her name.

I did not hear very well when we were here last week, but the word “devil” was mentioned. Having checked Hansard, I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, seemed to think that when we had some dealings in the Department for Education, I thought she was doing the devil’s work in working for unions. I could not possibly think that—I always found her the most charming person to deal with—and, as opposed to the devil’s work, I commend the unions on doing what seems to me the Lord’s work in their campaign on smartphones. I look forward to talking to them about that. I welcome the noble Baroness back from her sojourn in the Arctic this summer, and I hope she is finding the atmosphere in the Labour Party at the moment somewhat less glacial than she found it there—although in the current circumstances, maybe not very much so.

I rise to support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. Life in the real world teaches one that the benefits of competition are that strong organisations survive and expand, and weak ones demise. While I accept that there may be remote communities where the availability of these schools is essential, as an overriding policy in schools, allowing competition has been proven to be a good thing. Take for instance the London Academy of Excellence in Stratford, which resulted in a rising tide lifting all boats. Apart from its own excellent performance, it has had a dramatic effect on the performance of the other sixth forms in the area. Good schools must be allowed to expand. To not allow this is to deprive children of their benefits, and they certainly should not be forced to shrink.

Turning to my noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment, local authorities clearly have a conflict of interest under the proposed admission provisions. Surely there must be a right of appeal, as set out in his amendment. I also support my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendment 502YC, as highly performing schools should be given the freedom her amendment asks for.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to speak to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has done. However, on managed moves, these are good things when done well, as they can prevent permanent exclusions. At their best they are in the best interests of the child.

I know Birmingham very well, and the size of Birmingham. Sometimes the managed moves are made on a consulting basis. I ask my noble friend Lady Longfield, who moved the amendment, to reflect that if you make that more bureaucratic in terms of the local authorities’ overall role, it will put too much of an administrative burden on what is working very well in some parts of the city. I am not saying that it is working well everywhere, but where it is working well on a consulting basis, it would be a shame to add layers of bureaucracy. However, on the whole, managed moves based on the framework she suggests are very good.

On admissions, my starting point is the same as that of the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Nash. Why would you want to prevent a good school expanding? Also, if something is good, why would you not want more children to go to it? That is at the centre of what this is about, because it is true. However, life is not as simple as that. It is not only the interests of the school and the children who might go to it that are affected by the amendments.

I was reflecting back on both noble Lords. One of the best things they did as Ministers was to recognise the early mistakes made by the coalition Government in having stand-alone academies and not encouraging schools to work together. The work they did on multi-academy trusts was a very good step forward from what we had at the start of the coalition Government. Inherent in that is the understanding that schools do not stand alone. At their best, they work with each other, help each other, depend on each other—and the key point is that they do no harm to each other. They do not make life more difficult for the school down the road.

This goes further than multi-academy trusts. Take geographical areas such as Birmingham, Camden or Coventry, which I know reasonably well. There is something about those places that every school in the area has in common. For example, it does not matter whether they are an academy, a maintained school, a faith school, a free school or an independent school—they teach the children of Birmingham. What they hold in common is that they teach the children who go to school in that area. They owe the same obligation to each other that I have just praised in multi-academy trusts—do no harm, support each other, help each other, and compete. You want to get to the top of the table, but not at the expense of the school down the road, because we want all schools to thrive. The problem with the amendments is admissions. If they were to follow these amendments, it would harm other schools serving the same group of children. That is a problem, and that is why I oppose these amendments.

If numbers are rising and there must be an expansion of places, then I take the point: why not expand the good schools? I have often thought that that is not as simple as it is claimed to be, because sometimes the success of the school is the size of the school. You cannot put in two, three, five or six more children—it does not work. You end up putting in 30 more children per school year. You raise it by one form of entry, and over seven years you have more than 200 pupils. The change in the size of the school sometimes makes it different in nature and different in culture. It might damage its academic performance and its pastoral work. Expanding good schools is not done at no cost at all. There is something to pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I too speak in support of the free schools programme, Amendment 480 and the clause stand part notice in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran.

As we have just heard so powerfully, free schools have been a significant driver of education improvement in this country over the past decade and a half, and their impact has been felt most powerfully in the communities that needed the benefits they have brought the most. Today there are 741 free schools educating hundreds of thousands of children and their results speak for themselves. Of those free schools that have been inspected, 93% are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. As my noble friend Lord Harris just said, this summer’s exam results have confirmed their impact. Free schools once again outperformed other non-selective state schools in both GCSEs and A-levels, helping to drive up standards, particularly in areas of high deprivation and traditionally poor educational achievement.

Some 31.3% of A-levels taken by pupils at free schools achieved grade A or A*, compared with 25.2% of pupils in all state-funded schools; 23.7% of GCSEs taken by pupils at free schools were graded 7 or above, compared with 20.6% studied by pupils in all state-funded schools; and provisional results for 2025 key stage 2 showed that 70% of pupils at free schools met the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with 63% of pupils at all mainstream primary schools.

These are not isolated success stories. They are systemic proof that autonomy, innovation and freedom work. The success of free schools has been especially striking in disadvantaged communities. The New Schools Network report on the impact of free schools highlights that they have been disproportionately located in the most deprived parts of the country and played a key role in improving access to high-quality places where they are most needed. Many of the strongest performers, such as Reach Academy Feltham, Dixons Trinity Academy, Newham Collegiate Sixth Form and the Star Academies, all serve communities that have historically struggled with low attainment.

Giving school leaders the freedom to innovate, as we have heard, whether through a longer school day, a more stretching curriculum or developing closer links with businesses and universities, has a measurable impact on pupil outcomes, helping to close the disadvantage gap. Given this record, it is disappointing that the Government now seek, through Clause 57, to weaken the very mechanism that has allowed free schools to flourish by removing the requirement on local authorities to seek academy proposals first when a new school is needed. As Sir David Carter, a former National Schools Commissioner, observed:

“Free schools are an excellent way of filling gaps in provision that aren’t always obvious in Whitehall or in Local Authorities, and we should back school leaders and others to decide what their area needs”.


Finally, Amendment 480 tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of the 44 mainstream-approved free school projects that were paused in October 2024. As we have heard, many of these proposed new schools will offer incredible opportunities for the young people in the areas where they are due to be set up, from ensuring that every English region has a 16 to 19 university-backed maths school to proposals for new state sixth forms to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds through a collaboration between a leading private school and a multi-academy trust in Oldham, Middlesbrough and Dudley.

Since the pause, however, there has been a lack of information and progress. The 44 schools under review have not been publicly named and there has been a lack of transparency from the department about the review process being followed or indeed when it is due to conclude, with officials saying only that updates will be sent to trusts and local authorities in due course. Projects provided information to the department before Christmas but have heard little since. Can the Minister please update the House on when the review will conclude to provide certainty to these projects? She will know they will have put a huge amount of work and effort into submitting their applications but have been in limbo for almost a year.

Furthermore, at Education Oral Questions in the other place on 21 July in response to a question on capital resources to help expand Exeter Maths School, the former DfE Minister Stephen Morgan said that the department hopes

“to replicate the success of these settings across the country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/25; col. 534.]

There are two maths free schools in the pipeline—Nottingham and Durham—and a number of other 16 to 19 projects proposed for outside London by trusts with a track record of exceptional results. The Government have at their fingertips the means to replicate the previous success we have seen across the country, so why not approve the two maths free schools and all the 44 schools in the pipeline?

Free schools have delivered exceptional outcomes, expanded opportunity and brought high-quality education to communities that for too long were left behind. Clause 57 risks turning back the clock while Amendment 480 would give certainty to 44 much-needed projects and ensure that the next generation of free schools can continue this record of success. I hope the Minister will reflect on the positive contribution the free school programme has made and is making to hundreds of thousands of pupils’ lives and ensure it is able to continue to grow to further improve our education system, particularly in areas that need it the most.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to speak after the last two speakers and I will speak in support of the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. The speech from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the passion with which he spoke were a tribute to him and his team, who have done a most remarkable job. It is also a tribute to the previous Labour Government, who had the foresight to bring in people such as him to help turn around failing schools. That is why it is such a shame, as I have said before, to see this Labour Government appearing to row back on many of those proposals; I hope that is not really the case.

I will not begin to try to compete with my noble friend Lady Evans, who so ably ran the free schools programme and understands so much more about it than I do. My own experience of free schools is limited to my group opening one primary school in the grounds of Pimlico Academy because we believe strongly in an all-through education, a broad education and a subject-specific education even for primary school pupils where that can be delivered efficiently. We teach Latin in our primary schools, a subject which some believe is too exclusive for children in state schools.

The noble Baroness will be aware that my group, Future Academies, was appointed by the previous Government to run the Latin excellence programme, a £4 million contract to bring Latin to 40 state schools across the country which were not previously teaching it, something we were doing. Sadly, this Government binned that programme, which was a great pity, because the students love Latin; it helps them greatly with their grammar, their vocabulary and their thinking skills. I offer just one statistic. Noble Lords may be interested to know that this summer 48% of pupils at Pimlico Academy who took Latin GCSE, a subject which is thought to be very difficult, got a grade 9.

I understand that there are over 50 special and AP free schools in pre-opening, or which were approved prior to October last year. We desperately need more special schools and AP schools in this country. I ask the Minister kindly to tell me how many of those are now planned to open and how many are not. If she cannot do that today, and I understand why she may not be able to do so, perhaps she would write to me with the answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 501 by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and will speak to Amendment 464 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for all of whose support I am most grateful. The amendment implements and supplements an excellent recommendation of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It is difficult to understand why it has been left on the table when racism has been acknowledged as a problem in schools for so long.

Gypsy, Traveller and Roma parents have reported racist incidents as a reason for opting for home education for as long as I have been concerned about these communities. One of the problems in their case is that, because the children are usually white, they are often not recognised as members of a legally defined minority ethnic group. But they are ill-treated, ostracised and bullied for that membership just the same. Now, we also have seen religious prejudice, incidents and taunts demoralising children and undermining their motivation. This totally belies the right to freedom of religion and belief. It really is time to put this right and record and report such incidents. They should have no place in the conduct of the school day. Unless the data is captured, the position will not be understood and improved. This is an amendment, surely, whose time has definitely come.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 502YF in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Bailey, to require an assessment under the Children Act when a child is permanently excluded. The reason for this amendment is that, in my experience, when a pupil is permanently excluded without an adequate handover or adequate liaison between the school and the local authority, there is a risk that the pupil disappears into a black hole. I have sat on, thankfully, few PEx panels—we really do not like excluding pupils in my trust. I have always hated having to exclude a pupil, not just in its own right but because they just disappear from view.

In my view, schools should continue to have some involvement, if not responsibility, for PEx students to ensure that they receive adequate provision. As things stand, they have no say in where children go when PExed, often because the local authority has an arrangement or a contract with one or two AP providers such that there are no other options—and, of course, in some areas, the AP providers have no capacity. As I have said, that is why we desperately need more such provision. I would like to see schools with greater involvement in this. I understand that, in Milton Keynes, there is a model where about a dozen secondary schools—11, I think—co-operate well with the local authority on this. That could perhaps be a model for the future.

I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran in this group. Poor behaviour by a few students has a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of a school. Teachers spend a disproportionate amount of time dealing with a few pupils who exhibit very poor behaviour, and they are increasingly acting as social workers. We must protect the other pupils in the school, and we must support our teachers. There comes a time when the disruption this causes to other pupils and to teachers means it is necessary to exclude certain pupils.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 464 knowing that, had my right reverend friend the Bishop of Lincoln been in his place, he would very much have wanted to contribute to the debate. If passed, this amendment would introduce a duty on schools to record and report any incidents of racism or faith-based bullying on school premises. It would also help diocesan boards of education in collating and monitoring such cases and better assisting those church schools which might benefit from support.

In preparing for this speech, I spoke to our own director of education in Chelmsford diocese, whose team oversees 139 church schools. She told me that this proposed amendment had the potential to help the board of education strengthen anti-bullying and inclusive practices in partnership with schools.

Every child deserves to feel safe at school, yet we know that racist and faith-based bullying is a significant driver behind school exclusions. A report published last year by The Difference and the IPPR revealed that black Caribbean children are 1.5 times more likely to find themselves permanently excluded from schools than the national population. Irish Traveller children are three times more likely, and Romani, or Gypsy, and Roma children are four times more likely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. I felt much happier listening to that reply than to her earlier one. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, it is important that head teachers know the Government have got their back in terms of managing very difficult situations with such dedication day in, day out. The Minister’s comments about the importance of safe, calm classrooms, her focus on the guidance that already exists in relation to suspensions and exclusions and her reassurance about the discretion that head teachers have on behaviour and permanent exclusions when they are necessary—and that the Government protect the rights of head teachers to do that—are important for them to hear, and I am grateful to her for making that very clear.

I am sure everyone in this Committee would echo her sentiment about early intervention strategies. That was picked up by my noble friend Lady Spielman. I warmed very much to the contrast she drew between the current focus on following process versus the opportunity to think about a plan for the future for each child who sadly finds himself in that position.

On Amendment 502YF in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Nash, I think I heard the Minister say that those children already qualify under Section 17 as children in need, and I agree with her. I wonder whether it would be helpful if, where that is not happening in practice, we bring those examples to the department for it to consider because clearly that is both the letter and the spirit of the law, and we all want to see that happening in practice.

I will skate over my minor fallout with my noble friend, as I hope I can call him, Lord Hampton. Things have been going so well and to fall over at 7 pm on Day 11 seems unfortunate, but there we go. I hope we can recover before Day 12 is out.

Briefly on the amendments regarding bullying in schools raised quite rightly by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Storey, I very much share their concern about the impact of bullying, but I argue that this is all about having a strong school culture where bullying and other forms of poor behaviour are not accepted. I worry that if you make an individual person responsible for it, rather than it being something that every member of staff upholds, that might not work as effectively as noble Lords would wish.

On information and data on bullying, I was relieved to hear that the behaviour survey will continue to be published. I am hoping that means it will have the same questions as in previous years, to allow for comparability. The noble Baroness might want to put that as a “PS” on one of the many letters she is going to write to me. The survey gives detailed information, and we also know from the response of the charity Parentkind that, in parental complaints, bullying peer behaviour, safety, safeguarding, behaviour and discipline —it is all very overlapping—are the top areas.

I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is happy with and reassured by the Minister’s comments on seclusion rooms. Of course, we are able to offer the Minister the simplest way to reduce bullying in schools, which is for the Government to accept our ban on smartphones in schools. I say this with a smile, but in all seriousness, we know that this is the source of much bullying nowadays and it continues not just in school but out of school. [Interruption.] I am not sure what the noble Baroness is muttering, but if the Government do not want to listen to me then maybe they will listen to Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey, who has recently bravely launched a campaign against smartphones in schools, highlighting the terrible bullying and impact they had on Brianna. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

May I just refer to my Amendment 502YF? I heard what the Minister said about the general duty under the Children Act, but I am still concerned about the black hole I spoke about. This is all part of improving the liaising between schools and local authorities on how we provide for these children. I will reflect on that, but I am still concerned. As far as my noble friend’s point about smartphones in schools and bullying goes, of course, bullying does happen outside school, when they still have those smartphones. It happens on social media, and that is why I am pleased to see the National Education Union and others pushing for increasing the age restriction in respect of social media to 16. As I say, I commend them in that endeavour.

Amendment 459 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 92, 93 and 94A, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Cass, Lady Benjamin and Lady Berger. As this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I should draw attention to my registered interests, particularly the fact that I am chair of a multi- academy trust and an investor in a number of companies, including tech and software companies.

I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 94A would raise the age limit for access to social media to 16. In fact, this amendment would do rather more than that; it would do five things. First, it would raise the age limit. Secondly, it would require social media companies to put in place highly effective age assurance—currently, many, if not most, social media companies have no really effective age assurance at 13. Thirdly, the amendment would direct the Chief Medical Officer to prepare and publish advice to parents and carers on the use of social media by children—so, if you like, the start of a public awareness campaign. Fourthly, the amendment would send a message that draws a line in the sand for parents, carers and others to use when discussing social media with children, which they are crying out for. Fifthly, it would allow 12 months for implementation.

We have reached an inflection point. We face nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media. Many teenagers are spending long hours—five, six, seven or more a day—on social media. The evidence of the damage this is causing is now overwhelming. We have long passed the point of correlation or causation. There is now so much evidence from across the world that it is clear that, by every metric—health, cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime and economic productivity—children are being harmed. I have sent noble Lords an evidence document prepared by health professionals which sets out over 50 studies from around the world showing a clear link between excessive use of social media and harm to our children. Jonathan Haidt now calls this a “mountain of evidence”.

We are facing a health emergency confronting our children. Since 2016, there has been a 477% increase in children’s contact with mental health services, and eating disorders among 17 to 19 year-olds have risen sixteenfold. There has been a sevenfold rise in young girls admitted to hospital with eating disorders, and the evidence is clear that there is a strong link between this and the substantial increase in rates of ADHD, suicide, depression, anxiety and self-harm among teenagers with overexposure to social media.

Our teachers say that it is the number one cause of disruptive behaviour, and, in their view, it will be the biggest source of pressure for students in the future. Our children are turning up at school sleep deprived. It is clear that many are going to sleep in the small hours on many nights of the week. The NEU and NASUWT are in favour of raising the age limit to 16, as is the chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver.

Social media is at the centre of county lines and radicalisation, so much so that, in 2025, the heads of MI5, Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Crime Agency issued a summer holiday warning urging parents to keep their children safe online. More young people than ever have been arrested in recent years for terrorism offences. Children are increasingly seeing real-life violent content, which only 6% of them initially look for. The evidence is clear that people who watch or discuss violent images are, unsurprisingly, much more likely to commit crime, including knife crime.

I know that some are concerned that a 16 age limit would be to the detriment of particular groups of often vulnerable children, but it is the most vulnerable children who are the most susceptible to influence by social media. The police who specialise in child sexual abuse material and radicalisation say that it is precisely the help forums for groups such as LGBTQ+, those with eating disorders, those with ADHD, et cetera, where the worst abusers hang out and target children.

Social media is being used extensively for sextortion. There are even widespread cases of children hosting live sex shows for payment from their bedrooms on social media. So-called com groups are using social media to trap vulnerable children in games such as cutting games, where the person who cuts the deepest wins; choking games, which have proved fatal; or even games which encourage rape or suicide. One survivor attested to having seen multiple suicides.

Polling demonstrates overwhelming support. The vast majority of parents—75% of adults, including 75% of Labour voters—support raising the minimum age to 16. Most strikingly, young people themselves recognise the harm: 78% of Gen Z say they would try to delay their child using social media for as long as possible. Polling published today shows that 60% of 16 to 24 year-olds—those who have most recently had the experience of social media as teenagers—support a 16 age limit. Over half of 13 to 24 year-olds say that social media is fairly or completely responsible for increasing misogyny or violence against women and girls.

There is global momentum for this. Australia has raised the age limit to 16 and Malaysia is doing so. Many other countries, including Denmark, France, Norway and New Zealand, are considering restrictions. In November, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly for 16. Why 16? Because the teenage years between 13 and 15 are when teenagers are the most vulnerable to influence and have a very high risk profile. Some people call this a cliff edge. I do not see that. The amendment seeks merely to give teenagers a few more years to mature so that they can deal more effectively with social media, distinguish fact from fiction and exercise better judgment.

I know that some charities, including those involving bereaved parents, would like to see an approach which favours using the Online Safety Act and Ofcom more effectively. While we must try to improve Ofcom’s approach, the OSA catches harmful content only once it has been seen, often by children. With 70 million child sexual abuse images out there—and more being created every minute—beheading videos, et cetera, there is no way, even with the best will in the world, that all this content can be taken down and taken down fast enough. Our children will see it. We just want them to see it at a later age.

Nine bereaved families, many of whom are here today, wrote to the Prime Minister on Monday in support of my amendment. Of course, this approach would not deal with the grooming of children on social media channels. Others have proposed that we wait to see what happens in Australia, but what are we waiting for? We know our children are being harmed. We know that tech companies can put in place highly effective age assurance. That is what they are doing in Australia, with a high degree of accuracy—well above 90% at the initial age gate. By tracking the traffic and activity on social media, which they do for all of us, they can tell when a child has slipped through the net. There is a myth that children will get round age assurance, but that has grown up because hitherto there has been no generally effective age assurance at 13. There is concern that children will move to other sites. My Amendment 94A allows for these to be brought into scope. It also allows 12 months for implementation —plenty of time to learn from Australia.

This is going to happen. The only question is when. We have the opportunity to do it now, in this Bill. With every day that passes, more damage is being done to children. We must act now.

I turn to the Liberal Democrat amendments: Amendments 108, 94B and 94C. Well intentioned though they may be, they have been rushed out at the last minute. Surprisingly, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, has just said, they bring into scope Wikipedia, WhatsApp, Tripadvisor, all gaming apps, and many special interest and health forums, with no ability to exclude them; whereas my Amendment 94A has that facility, which would almost certainly be used. Amendment 108 has no enforcement mechanism if social media companies do not comply with the 16 year- old age limit.

Amendments 108, 94B and 94C seek to avoid scrutiny by your Lordships’ House and the other place on which apps are in or out and seek to delegate this function to Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner, apparently sometimes acting jointly—I do not quite know how that would work—and acting on the basis of vague criteria, creating a huge amount of work for an already overworked body and massive scope for litigation. My Amendment 94A leaves that scrutiny firmly with Parliament. As well intentioned as these amendments might be, they are fundamentally flawed and, therefore, if they are sent back to the other place, as opposed to my Amendment 94A, it will be easy for the Government to knock them out on those grounds. My Amendment 94A has been well thought through and subject to scrutiny in Committee.

I turn to the Government’s proposal for a consultation, which they tell me will last for three months or so. First, the announcement of it on the eve of the vote is unfortunate. When will the actions arising from this consultation be published? We are still waiting for those in relation to the consultation on gender identity in schools nearly two years after the consultation closed —and that issue, complicated though it is, does not involve technology or multibillion-pound tech companies with all the lobbying at their disposal. The consultation talks about exploring ways to improve assessing age assurance. As I have already said, highly effective age assurance already exists. The Government are well behind the A ball. They want to assess the current age of digital consent. This is in fact only one means, and not the most usual means, by which social media companies lawfully collect personal data. Again, the Government are behind the A ball. They want to explore further intervention to support parents. Parents are arguing with their children daily about screen and social media time. They want a line in the sand now. The Government’s consultation is, in my view, unnecessary, misconceived and clearly a last-minute attempt to kick the can down the road.

My Amendment 92 seeks to raise the age of access to VPNs to 18, as it is clear that some children are using VPNs to get round age restrictions for gambling and pornography and might well use them for social media, so it is closely linked to Amendment 94A. On Amendment 93, I have had a constructive discussion with Ministers on this issue and more discussions are in progress, so I will not push that to a vote today. I urge noble Lords to vote for my Amendment 94A on social media and Amendment 92 on VPNs.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. When I was president of the paediatric college, an important part of my job was urging Government Ministers that protecting and investing in children is the only way to protect the future of our country because, as I believe I have said before in this House, children are 25% of our population and 100% of our future. If we fail to protect them, it is not just a moral issue but a financial disaster.

There are two questions we need to ask ourselves when we think about how social media is impacting our youth. First, are they at risk? Secondly, how do we eliminate, or at least minimise, that risk? With regard to younger children, I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and I too welcome the planned guidance. I ask the Government to give careful thought to that guidance particularly in relation to vulnerable and disabled children. They may be more limited in their abilities for alternative physical activities so screen time is, understandably, an easier default, and advice for those families is particularly important. It is also important to think about how to reach those harder to reach families or marginalised families who may not easily access the guidance. A final thing I would say, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about who will be in the group, is that the input of speech and language therapists will be particularly important, given their obvious involvement in early language development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I have followed these issues closely through my work on the Online Safety Act, first as a member of the Joint Committee, then on the Opposition Front Bench and now on your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee. I added my name to Amendment 91 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and I am delighted that that Government are listening and hope that Ministers can give the noble Baroness the reassurances that she seeks.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, I first thank him for raising these important issues and detailing the harms so compellingly. The harms caused by social media are clear, both in terms of the harmful content and that they are addictive by design. The algorithms operate in a moral vacuum; platforms’ algorithms do whatever it takes to keep us on screen. I am attracted to the Government’s proposal in the consultation around banning addictive design rather than a blanket age ban. That could see a huge reduction in harm for all of us, as today’s University of Sussex research about doomscrolling demonstrates.

However, it is our children whom we most want to protect. My 14 year-old at home is time-limited on her phone; she is not allowed her phone in her room overnight and is limited to two social media accounts. This is difficult to parent, but it is our responsibility as parents to navigate it with our children. Incidentally, the two social media accounts she chooses are WhatsApp and Pinterest. Both are allowed under the Australian social media ban. One keeps her connected to family and friends, and the other she needs for her GCSE art. Under Amendment 94A, on my reading of it, it seems pretty categorical that it would include all social media platforms and she would be banned from both.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I am interested to hear from a Labour politician, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that there are parents who can control their kids, but it is the most vulnerable kids and the least advantaged kids who live in households in which there is no discipline who are the most exposed.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I debate with great respect and friendship. My reading of

“regulations made by statutory instruments require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly effective age-assurance measure to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users”

is that this is categorical.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, is that it would be up to the Government, approved by this House and the other place, which apps are in and out. Clearly, it would be possible for those apps suitable for children to be excluded, as would WhatsApp and Wikipedia. The Lib Dems have drafted their amendment in such a way that it would include everybody, and it would be up to this very complicated procedure with Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner to work this out—which, frankly, would be a nightmare.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I will move on. I will try harder to read further to get to the same place as the noble Lord, Lord Nash—but I doubt it.

Pinterest was implicated in the suicide completed by Molly Russell. Molly’s father, Ian, is thoughtful, brave and inspiring. I listened to him talk on the BBC this week about why he and countless other expert children’s charities are against a blanket ban on social media for under-16s. They worry about the unintended consequences for children’s safety. A blanket ban is likely to lead to under-16s finding less regulated platforms to connect to online, such as gaming platforms or the dark web. It is worth noting that according to recent Internet Matters research, boys spend significantly more time on gaming platforms than on social media platforms.

Children may also turn to VPNs, which would then undermine the child safety gains of the Online Safety Act. The VPN amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tries to address this, but age-gating VPNs may be extremely problematic. My phone uses a VPN, following a personal device cyber consultation offered by this Parliament. VPNs can make us more secure, and we should not rush to deprive children of that safety. A blunt, blanket ban—it is a struggle not to call it a Blunkett ban—would also deny young people the positives of some of the less addictive social media.

Young people will continue to want to connect with each other. They will want to share music, their photos and videos, and their creative content. I was of the mixtape generation, now replaced by the shareable playlist. Young entrepreneurs will want to market their products: will they have to use an adults account on an adult’s phone, and be exposed to the risks of adult content as a result?

When I speak to young people in my capacity as president of Young Citizens, I am struck by how well informed they are. They find out what is going on in the world through social media. Is it right that we lower the voting age to 16 and simultaneously prevent access to news for 15 year-olds when we want them to become well informed?

The arguments for doing something urgent and meaningful about the dangers to children of social media are compelling, but so are the arguments for doing it in a more sophisticated way. For that reason, we should back the Government’s consultation. I note that this is a three-month consultation. Can the Minister please reassure us that action will follow within the 12-month timeline suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash?

We should at the same time urgently review how the Online Safety Act is working. We need to retain the risk-based approach to regulation in the Act. But Ofcom’s current stance of treating all children, all the way to 18, as the same is flawed. We need age-appropriate design, and we should give Ofcom the unambiguous requirement to ensure that age restrictions and guidance about social media access are rigorously enforced. This in turn requires mandated, robust age assurance. We must develop this, sensitive to the digital rights of children and mindful that we do not want unwittingly to require big tech to hold sensitive data about our children. I also echo Ian Russell’s call for us to listen to children and young people as we make these changes. That is one of the really good reasons why we should go ahead with a consultation.

I conclude by urging Ministers to act swiftly and to listen to parliamentarians, but also to experts and young people, and then to act robustly, platform by platform, to deliver the ambition of the Online Safety Act to make this country the safest place in the world for children to grow up.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 108 offers a framework that commands broad support from numerous child safety experts. It is evidence-based and built to last, to keep our children safe online. The technology will continue to evolve and new platforms will emerge, but the principles at the heart of this amendment will endure: that we assess risk based on evidence of harm; that we hold platforms to account; and that we protect our children, while preserving their access to the beneficial aspects of the digital world. Amendment 108 would provide a solution that I believe would be more effective. A blanket ban may be the simple option and—to use an understandable phrase—a call to action. I understand that, but the evidence is clear: it can be improved. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been trying to work with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to reach consensus, highlighting the flaws in Amendment 94A and working together to ensure that our children are protected by the best possible legislation.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I must take objection to that. We had a meeting on Monday. I made some proposals, and then the noble Lords went away and I heard nothing. They came back with their amendment. I think that is slightly glossing over the facts.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

92: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Action to prohibit the provision of VPN services to children in the United Kingdom(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must, for the purpose of furthering the protection and wellbeing of children, make regulations which prohibit the provision to UK children of a relevant VPN service (the “child VPN prohibition”).(2) Regulations under subsection (1)—(a) may make provision for the provider of a relevant VPN service to apply to any person seeking to access its service in or from the UK age assurance which is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not that person is a child;(b) must apply the child VPN prohibition to the provider of any relevant VPN service which is, or is likely to be—(i) offered or marketed to persons in the United Kingdom;(ii) provided to a significant number of persons;(c) must make provision for the monitoring and effective enforcement of the child VPN prohibition.(3) OFCOM may produce guidance for providers of relevant VPN services to assist them in complying with the child VPN prohibition.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (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.(5) For the purposes of this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18;“consumer” means a person acting otherwise than in the course of a business;“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet;“UK child” means any child who is in the United Kingdom.” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote and protect children’s wellbeing, and to further support child protective measures in the Online Safety Act, by prohibiting the provision to children in the United Kingdom of VPN services which can facilitate evasion of OSA age-gating processes.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

94A: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Action to promote the wellbeing of children in relation to social media(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, for the purposes of promoting the wellbeing of children— (a) direct the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom (“the UK CMOs”) to prepare and publish advice for parents and carers on the use of social media by children at different ages and developmental stages, and(b) by regulations made by statutory instrument require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly- effective age assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users.(2) Any advice published under subsection (1)(a) must have regard to—(a) the paper published on 7 February 2019 entitled “United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on 'Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews'”, and(b) any scientific or other developments since the publication of that paper which appear to the UK CMOs to be relevant.(3) Any regulations under subsection (1)(b) must be treated as an enforceable requirement within the meaning of section 131 (and for the purposes of Part 7) of the Online Safety Act 2023.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)(b) or subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) For the purposes of this section—“the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom” means the Chief Medical Officers for—(a) England,(b) Wales,(c) Scotland, and(d) Northern Ireland;“regulated user-to-user services” shall have the meaning given to it in the Online Safety Act 2023, subject to any modification, addition or exclusion as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations made by statutory instrument under this subsection.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to their use of social media by commissioning advice from the Chief Medical Officers and introducing regulations to prevent under 16s from accessing social media.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust, a multi-academy trust that I co-founded, which now has nine schools in it.

When I tabled this amendment in Committee, there was some confusion as to whether the cap on the number of branded items of school uniform proposed in the Bill applied to extracurricular activities. Are mandatory branded items for an activity that is not itself mandatory, such as being in a school sports team, outwith the cap or included in it, even if they have been lent or donated to the school free of charge? The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, believed that they were outwith the cap—and therefore Amendment 117, which would exempt items loaned or gifted to a school, would be unnecessary.

The Department for Education has now published draft statutory guidance on how schools should interpret the uniform clauses in the Bill, making it clear that branded items that are mandatory for extracurricular activities, even if they are provided to children free of charge, are included in the cap. It says:

“All loaned or gifted branded items will be captured within the limit if they are required to be worn. However, schools can continue to lend, give out or make available for sale additional branded items, as long as wearing those items is optional”.


That could not be clearer: if a school insists that children playing for a school team are required to wear a branded item so that their fellow team members can distinguish them from members of the opposing team, for instance, those items are included in the cap, which I remind noble Lords is three items for primary schools and four for secondary schools, including a school tie. That includes items loaned or gifted to the school.

At this point, I acknowledge that the Government have allowed some exceptions to this rule. When I spoke in Committee, I pointed out that the cap would make it impossible for schools to maintain a Combined Cadet Force, even though the uniform for those troops is provided free of charge by the Ministry of Defence.

The draft DfE guidance says:

“The uniform items for scouts or cadet forces are not captured by the limit”.


I am grateful to the Minister for that concession, but why not extend the exemption to all items lent or gifted to a school, given that they will not cost parents or carers anything? I understand why the Government want to reduce the financial burden on parents and carers by limiting the number of items of school uniform they are required to buy—although, in truth, I think that schools can be trusted to manage that themselves, and do manage it themselves, with due regard for the needs of low-income families.

For some reason, the Government believe that this is an area in which state intervention is required, but what possible reason do they have for including loaned or donated items in the cap? The only explanation I can think of is that it is a residue of the hostility to school uniforms that used to be fashionable among the left-wing intelligentsia in the 1960s and 1970s. I thought that this hostility was a thing of the past and that the argument for school uniforms had been comprehensively won. In case the Minister is unfamiliar with this argument, I refer her to the current DfE guidance, published on her department’s website, which eloquently makes the case for school uniforms:

“We strongly encourage schools to have a uniform, as it can play a key role in … promoting the ethos of a school … providing a sense of belonging and identity … setting an appropriate tone for education. By creating a common identity among all pupils regardless of background, a uniform can … act as a social leveller … reduce bullying and peer pressure to wear the latest fashions or other expensive clothes”.


All those arguments apply as much to branded items for team sports and other extra-curricular activities as they do to branded items of school uniform. I hope the Minister will recognise the wisdom of her own department on this matter and, if she does not trust schools to manage these issues fairly themselves, at least remove lent and gifted items from the cap.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 117. It is clearly a better solution to have a monetary limit than a number—that just seems obvious. As for gifted items, I could not agree more with my noble friend. Are we really saying that if I manage to secure for my multi-academy trust some free gifted strip from a football club, I have to say to those people, as a charity, “I’m sorry, I know I’m a charity, but the Government have passed a law which requires me to say no, I can’t take your benefit in kind. I’m sorry”? It is potty, because I am clearly going to have at least three other items apart from a tie. It is clearly daft, and I very much look forward to the noble Baroness’s explanation as to why they are so insistent on this point.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, to which I have added my name. Although it may seem a small point, it matters. The draft guidance perfectly illustrates the consequences of poor policy-making: the cart was put before the horse and an announcement was made about reducing the number of branded items but without the clarity about the policy goal that should have informed the drafting of the legislation.

I will not repeat the examples given by others, but it is unfortunate that the draft guidance is so unequivocal. It is the kind of Kafkaesque rule that brings officialdom into ill repute, and it probably will not save parents a single penny. I add that if the policy goal is narrowly to save all parents money on school uniforms, this could be better achieved through Amendment 114, which would give schools more flexibility and avoid the problem that Amendment 117 is intended to address—although I believe that an automatic inflation adjustment should be incorporated to avoid the messiness of an annual review.

If this limit is enacted, will the Minister ensure that two particular impacts are fully evaluated. First, what is the social impact on children? In demonising branded clothing, the Government have lost sight of part of the value of uniforms. Uniforms are not only about badging and encouraging identification with an institution but about having all children wear clothing that is genuinely identical in quality and cut, not just broadly similar in appearance. We all know how sensitive the young are to status markers, such as having the right—usually expensive—trainers, even when the differences are all but invisible to the adult eye. Fewer school-branded items may mean more pressure on children to have the highest-status version of the unbranded items, which will inevitably bear hardest on the poorest children, so this should be evaluated.

The evaluation should also consider whether parents spend less money not only on school uniforms but on children’s clothing overall. If the change reduces spend on branded items but leads to poorer families being pressured into spending more rather than less overall on children’s clothes, it should be counted as a failure. I hope the Minister can reassure me on those points.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 230 in this group is on off-rolling. Whatever the good points of academisation, there has been a strong suspicion—a fact, in some cases—that certain schools are off-rolling pupils who are seen to be a problem. The best of the academies are probably dealing with this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, being impassioned as a Minister in saying that we must stop this. There is a strong suspicion that it goes on, possibly underneath, at a school level, when a teacher or headmaster is worried about personal development. Whether we like it or not, that strong suspicion exists, and there has been a rise in the number of exclusions going on.

When the Minister answers, I hope that she will tell us how this is being dealt with. If it is not being dealt with, it is a problem that we will have to get to grips with. I hope that there will be a coherent look at this, so we know exactly what the case is. There is a strong suspicion that special educational needs is a factor pushing this. I have known people going through this, where it has been assumed that every pupil in a pupil referral unit has at least one special educational need. The Minister has been engaged in these types of areas, and I hope that, when she comes to answer for the Government, she can tell us what the Government are going to do. If there is even a suspicion, we should find out the truth and look at it coherently.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I will talk to Amendments 198 and 199, to which I have added my name. Inclusion is very important but, at the moment, some children—too many, frankly—who should not be in maintained education are being admitted to maintained schools because of their parents’ wishes. Those parents are making decisions that are not in the best interests of their children. These are often inappropriate settings and it affects the education and resources available to other children in those settings. We need more special schools that are better located, so that children are not spending hours in taxis, and we need better alternative provision. I very much hope that the Government are seized of this issue and that they will allow more special and AP free schools.

On Amendment 199, I find it hard to think of circumstances where it would be a good idea to limit the size of a school that provides high-quality education. I can, however, think of many examples of where it would be a very bad idea. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, we are heading towards overcapacity in schools, and the best way for that situation to resolve itself is by letting the market and parents decide.

Local authorities are understandably reluctant to close schools and there are often many local, political or ward issues in play. We certainly do not want local authorities to reduce the PAN of schools on the basis of political issues overriding the interests of children or parents. I am aware of boroughs that have tried to resist the creation of new free schools based on a lack of demand in their location when, on further investigation, it became clear that many local pupils were actually going to schools in neighbouring boroughs or local authorities, because their local schools were performing so poorly. It is a complicated issue.

My academy trust specialises in taking on failing schools. We have just taken on another secondary school, thanks to terrific co-operation from the Department for Education and a certain amount of money, for which I am very grateful. This is another failing secondary school in Hertfordshire, with only 400 pupils on the roll but with a much higher PAN and substantial local demand. The school had previously had three required improvements in 15 years. As we have taken on a further four failing schools in Hertfordshire and turned them around, and have a very good relationship with the Hertfordshire local authority, I do not think this would be an issue in this location. But if we were in the future asked to take on a similarly failing school in an authority we did not know, the ability of the local authority to reduce the PAN might well deter us, and no doubt others. Reducing the PAN of a successful school to protect a school whose roll is falling is no answer. Students do best in schools which are full or nearly full, and have the resources to provide an adequate education.

Finally, in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, while I do not think off-rolling is as frequent as perhaps some people think, it would be better to know the answer and get the facts.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, for precisely the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, I have great suspicions about this amendment. It underestimates the operational difficulties of what is proposed, not least because the catchment age of this Chamber does not really allow us fully to experience or understand them. Therefore, I agree with the Government’s contention not to go straight to a statutory measure. However, it would help us if the Government made it plain, in the light of the experience in Australia—which we will be able to estimate in the next few months—Spain and so on, and of the experience of non-statutory guidance, whether they are open to considering statutory legislation somewhere down the line. It would be helpful if we understood that we have an open mind on this.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I rise to support this amendment. The Government have, as I understand it, proposed non-statutory guidance that all schools should prohibit smartphone use by pupils in schools. This is indeed a move from their previous position, that most schools are already doing this and thus a firm rule is unnecessary. However, those of us who actually work in schools know that some schools do have a strict, clear smartphone policy which is actually effective. For instance, in my patch, students either cannot bring them with them, or they are taken off them when they arrive and locked away, or they have to go into a locked pouch. We are experimenting with all three to see which is the most effective, but I can say that they have all been highly effective in improving the behaviour and focus of students.

On the point about enforcement, if a smartphone is seen, it is confiscated for a long time. This is a firm and clear policy, and it is working. However, many schools, possibly most, have much a looser policy, rather along the lines of the Government’s now proposed non-statutory guidance: a weak and ineffective policy allowing children to use them in the loos and in the corridors, out of sight. I do wish sometimes that the Government would just admit they got it wrong.

When I was taking legislation through your Lordships’ House—five Acts as a Schools Minister—I took many amendments from Opposition Benches because they were sensible and I agreed with them. Clearly, the Government have moved on this; they accept they were wrong, but they will not admit it. They should go the whole way, and rather than producing some wishy-washy non-statutory “should” guidance, they should accept a clear rule or duty, as in Amendment 215. Teachers want it: they want a clear, firm rule consistently applied across all schools, as do parents, particularly those with children in different schools, who can find different policies very confusing.

I support this amendment because it is clear, strong and effective.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, will you allow me to introduce another voice—a voice that is not of this House? On 18 January 2016, Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, who took her own life aged 14, said on BBC television that a total ban of smartphones would be wrong. Why? Because he saw that the greatest danger is not mobile phones or smartphones, but social media. You can ban phones from school, but then the children go home and log on to social media.

Social media causes far greater damage because of the algorithms used. Ian Russell was clearly of the view that what is needed is careful thought and for those who know the dangers of both, and the complications involved, to make recommendations to the Government on how to tackle the use of smartphones in schools and the use of social media because of the damage it is causing all our children. I do not think banning mobile phones on its own will deal with the real danger of social media algorithms.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

Leave out from “its” to end and insert “Amendment 37, do insist on its Amendment 38 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A, 38B, 38C and 38D in lieu.”

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion G1, concerning my social media amendment, as an amendment to Motion G, I will support the spirit of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

I believe we need a dual-track approach. I pay tribute to those noble tech Lords, many of whom are here tonight, who worked so tirelessly on the Online Safety Act, but now it clearly needs updating and strengthening. Nobody could have foreseen the pace of technological change that has taken place in recent years. I believe that, in relation to children, we should have a dual-track approach to social media, which puts the onus squarely on the companies to make their products safe for children, as we would with any other product, using safety-by-design principles.

I have been a director of tech companies in California. The Californian techies are some of the most able, innovative, entrepreneurial, wealth-creating and job-creating people in the world. However, in the cavalier approach that they have taken to harmful content online for our children, they have gone way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts. We need to act now in a way that is truly effective—and of course we know that many of these techies do not let their own children anywhere near social media.

I do not need to spend much time talking about the clear evidence and causal link between social media and harm to our children, but I was horrified to hear the right honourable Liz Kendall say on the radio a few weeks ago that there is no proven causal link. Where has she been? This shows just how far behind the A ball the Government are in their thinking and why we can have no faith in the outcome of the consultation.

I provided noble Lords with an evidence document compiled by health professionals and others, showing the harmful effects of social media from 50 examples. Every day, I receive more research from around the world from experienced academics, health professionals and others to the same effect. This includes evidence from whistleblowers at social media companies about their company’s own internal research, showing clearly, based on the very extensive data available to them, the harms to children of social media. In recent days, the chief executive of Pinterest, a social media company with 600 million customers, has said that we are living through the largest social experiment in history and that social media, as it is configured today, is not safe for children under 16. As the Prime Minister of Greece said recently, when announcing measures similar to those dealt with in my Motion, as so many other countries have done, “The evidence is unambiguous”.

Only minutes ago, a court in Los Angeles found that Meta and Google were negligent and intentionally built addictive social media platforms, after a 20 year-old woman said that her early use of social media was addictive and made her depression worse. This comes after a court yesterday in New Mexico found that Meta is harmful to children’s mental health and fined it $375 million. These cases will likely influence the hundreds of similar cases now winding their way through the US courts.

There has been some comment in the press and by honourable Members in the other place that children’s charities are not united in their approach to protecting children online. I am delighted to be able to tell noble Lords that I have had extensive discussions with charitable and civil society organisations across the sector and there is broad agreement that an age-based restriction on harmful platforms should operate alongside full-throated enforcement of and increased potency of the Online Safety Act.

I turn to the consultation, and it is a shocker. It does not even satisfy the Government’s own consultation principles that such exercises should be clear and accessible—it has 62 questions, which I understand many parents have given up on after answering just a few—or that it should be targeted at appropriate stakeholders, as opposed to severely prejudicing parents’ ability to contribute. It has no structured engagement for front-line professionals such as clinicians, social workers and police, with no transparency as to how evidence would be used. The Government may have 30,000 responses but, given the length of the consultation document, I very much doubt that that represents a cross-section of society or the national conversation that they want. Market research professionals tell me that this would not begin to pass muster in a market research study. Some questions require technical or specialist knowledge, there is little information on how responses will be weighted between different groups, and it goes out of its way to emphasise, in square boxes, the benefits of social media without balancing sufficiently the disbenefits.

I turn to Commons Amendments 38A to 38D, and in particular Amendment 38A, which contains a very broad power enabling the Government to make changes to any Act of Parliament. There are many noble Lords here who are far more capable of pronouncing on this than I am.

This consultation and the amendments that the Government have tabled represent a blank cheque, with no definite timescale for action and no obligation to do anything. I have no doubt that no action has happened with the gender identity in schools consultation results—when they eventually came—and that they will require further lengthy consultation. I strongly suspect that this cheque will come back marked “insufficient action”.

Lastly, I pay tribute to the 21 bereaved parents who support my amendment, many of whom are here in the Public Gallery. I thank them for their hard work, their commitment and the fact that they are here—but I wish they were not, because I wish they did not have to be. I do not want to stand here in six or 12 months’ time, banging the same old drum, with even more bereaved parents in the Public Gallery. I urge noble Lords to support my amendment by agreeing to my Motion G1. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Baroness is perfectly reasonable to raise that. It is certainly contested in academic studies, even if it is, like, “Never mind the evidence, the product should be safe anyway”. I am suggesting that evidence-based policy requires evidence and that, when the evidence is at least contested and there is no direct correlation between screen use and mental health, we should pause. I am saying that because I think that teenagers and young people using the online world can be both virtuous and full of vice. Therefore, I do not want a ban on all 16 year-olds going on the internet. It is as straightforward as that. I have explained that before, so I am not going to—

[Lord Nash (Con)]

It is a long way from a ban on all teenagers going on the internet. It is highly selective for those apps that are clearly harmful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive and heartfelt contributions made in the House today. We have heard a wide range of views, and I reiterate my thanks to noble Lords who have engaged so closely with Ministers in recent weeks as we work through these complex questions. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not only for the expertise that she brings but for her comment that all in this House share a commitment to children’s well-being online. It is this that motivates us all.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has set out the reasons behind Amendments 37 and 38 and why he wants to see swift action. I fully understand those intentions. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I said that it is not if we act, but how. It is the intention of the Government to act. The question is how.

The noble Lord’s amendments would require us to act before the consultation is concluded and would commit the Government to a specific set of measures that may not ultimately represent the most effective or proportionate way to protect our children. That is why the Government cannot accept Amendments 37 and 38; it is not because we do not agree with the objectives but because legislating could risk unintended consequences. It would mean acting before listening to what the consultation tells us and to what parents and children need.

Some 20,000 parents have responded to the parent-specific survey. We are extremely keen to assess and hear what parents and children say. Additionally, these amendments are restricted to user-to-user services under the Online Safety Act. It is hugely important that we seek views across other services. We know that children use other mechanisms, such as AI chatbots and gaming, which are not consistently caught by the definition of user-to-user services.

I just want to say that we are taking the consultation extremely seriously, as we are the national conversation. Alongside the publication of the consultation, we announced that a parallel academic panel will be formed, and this panel of experts will assist in assessing the development of the evidence base, drawing on the international expertise that many noble Lords have mentioned today, for example from Australia, to advise us as we take these matters forward.

Many noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—have rightly pressed the question of pace and swiftness of action. The reason for the Government’s amendment in lieu is exactly that: to provide a clear and deliverable route to take forward what we want to do, informed by the results of the consultation. The consultation closes in May and we will respond by the summer to set out next steps. That means we can act within months, not years.

The use of those powers and the parliamentary scrutiny of them were mentioned by many noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Carter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we absolutely recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the expertise that parliamentarians in both Houses provide. Each of these powers will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which will ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny before we enact policy changes. We feel that the delegated powers the Bill proposes are justified and proportionate, and we have sought to provide as much detail as we can to support their scrutiny.

Lastly, on Amendment 106, on mobile phones in schools, our position is clear: mobile phones have no place in schools. We believe this is primarily an issue of enforcement, and that is why we have set out the strengthened guidance and why we are supporting with our network of attendance and behaviour hubs. We are backing head teachers to take the necessary action.

In closing, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment, which gives us power to take effective, evidence-based action, and to resist Amendments 37, 38 and 106. We share a goal: the question is simply how best to achieve it. Our amendment is the right one and I hope that noble Lords will join us in supporting it.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister has to say, but I have also read the consultation very carefully and listened to the statements made publicly by the DSIT Secretary of State. I can only conclude from those that the Government have no real commitment to do anything serious about the harms that our children are experiencing on social media, and I ask the House to agree to my Motion G1. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my social media amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)]

I must inform your Lordships that, if Motion G1 is agreed, it pre-empts Motion G2.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I personally welcome the noble Baroness back to her place after a short period of illness and thank her for taking the time last week to engage with us to better understand where we are coming from and give us the opportunity to understand where she is coming from. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, for her engagement over the Easter period. Both engagements have been very helpful for us.

My reason for tabling this group of amendments is that we have some concerns around the Henry VIII powers that the Government are seeking. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, may not hold as strong a view as I do on the Henry VIII powers, but noble Lords across this House have issues whenever a Government want to take on lots of powers, and I note that the noble Lord proposes a sunset clause. I have concerns about how the Government intend to make changes once the consultation happens. My view is always that, if these are powers that are required for a set period, so be it; however, I still have concerns around what may happen in future if another Government come in and want to use them. I am sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has proposed but, through my amendments, we hope that the Government may take the opportunity to support our quest and bring in their own primary legislation.

There is also the issue of whether we have a ban or regulate addictive features. We have always been clear in the amendments we have proposed previously that we did not favour an outright ban for under-16s, but wanted an age rating so that the duty fell upon the social media providers to deal with those features that young people get addicted to, such as constantly scrolling and so on. That is where we stand, and I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House, if they were able to vote on our amendment, might well be there as well. That is what we need, rather than an outright ban.

I get that your Lordships’ House has previously voted for the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to make sure that this issue stays live. It will be interesting to see what happens later today when some of those amendments will no doubt be proposed.

Secondly, as the Minister mentioned, we have issues around the collection of data and GDPR, particularly around the age of consent. Currently it is 13 and we want it to be 16. I hope the Government address that.

On enforcement and additional harms, while empowering Ofcom on the issue of guidance on addictive features, it will also introduce specific requirements for platforms used to access services to mitigate the risks of them being used to create and distribute child sexual abuse materials. This includes mandating human moderators and co-operating for law enforcement. In all our efforts, we have tried to do the best for our young people. We have tried to help and assist the Government and nudge them in the right direction, and that is what we will endeavour to do today.

Ultimately, from speaking to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and others in your Lordships’ House, I do not think we are too far away from where we should be. It is just a matter of the speed and pace of implementation. I note that the Government keep saying, “It will come out after our consultation”, but we have been debating this since last year. I will put on record again—I have said it in meetings before—that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was the first to have flagged this, to his credit. To be honest, I do not care which political party someone belongs to if they are here to safeguard our young people: credit where credit is due. We have tried to work across parties, with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and with the Cross Benches to ensure that we get to where we are.

I will briefly move to smartphones in schools, rather than mobile phones, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, because we have always been clear that it is with smartphones that we have a problem. At the meetings that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and others have been to, parents and head teachers have said that the issue of concern is with smartphones, social media, WhatsApp groups and others.

We have noted some parents’ concerns around being able to access or get in touch with their children and young people, particularly in rural areas. That is why we often talk about being able to have the more old-fashioned phones that many of us had 20 years ago, which basically allowed you to make phone calls and not much else. Therefore, we have been clear that it is smartphones that are the issue for us.

I know that my noble friend Lord Addington was very clear about supporting what he often refers to as the “devices” that enable people who need extra support in school and how to deal with that, but that issue clearly fell in your Lordships’ House when we tried to propose it. I take reassurance from the Minister’s commitment about enhancing that guidance, because head teachers have been looking for that. They have been saying that there is a small but very vocal group of parents who, whenever we bring in a policy like this, stop them managing those schools and supporting the teaching of young people, as they constantly have to fend off those parents.

In that sense, the Government are heading in the right direction. They might not be quite where some of us want them to be, but I thank the Minister for that and look forward to hearing other contributions from your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister back to her place, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for his remarks. I will speak to my Motion A2. For anyone who has studied them, the verdicts in the two US cases are clearly game-changers. The evidence from the social media companies themselves is damning. I have a treasure-trove of these documents, if any noble Lord would like them.

Immediately following these cases, the Prime Minister made some very strong statements about protecting children from the harm of social media, and the right honourable Liz Kendall spoke only yesterday about the importance of highly effective age verification to ensure that children cannot access the harmful features of social media. This is exactly what my proposal does. I listened very carefully to what she said yesterday and, if you can get a fag paper between us, it is a pretty thin one indeed—so I have decided to take the Prime Minister at his word and, instead of batting my amendment back again, to lay an amendment to the Government’s amendments to the effect that they must, rather than just may, raise the age for access to those harmful social media sites to 16 within 12 months. Those sites would be chosen very selectively and, I am sure, would be very few in number—definitely not an outright or blanket ban—and this would be stated in the Bill. I have also proposed in the amendment a sunset clause of two years on the Henry VIII element of the powers that the Government are proposing to take.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 38V, 38W and 38X as amendments to Commons Amendment 38J—

38V: In subsection (2), in inserted subsection (7)(a), after “modifications” insert “, subject to subsection (8A)”

38X: At the end of subsection (2) insert—
“214B Use of section 214A powers in relation to regulated user-to-user services
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 214A(1)(a) requiring providers of specified regulated user-to-user services to use highly-effective age assurance measures and reasonable anti-circumvention measures to prevent access by children in the United Kingdom under the age of 16 to those services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) A draft of the first such regulations must be laid before each House of Parliament within eight months of the day on which the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is passed.
(3) Subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the first such regulations must be brought into effect within one year of the day on which the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is passed.
(4) When making the regulations described at subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—
(a) seek to protect children under the age of 16 from any general or specific characteristics of those services, features or functionalities which it is reasonable to believe, having regard to any advice provided for that purpose by relevant experts—
(i) are likely to cause, encourage or facilitate compulsive, obsessive, addictive or other unhealthy behaviours among children,
(ii) could expose children to risks of serious harm, manipulation or exploitation,
(iii) could expose children to illegal content or primary priority content, or
(iv) could expose children to serious loss of privacy or to contact from strangers;
(b) have regard to the desirability of facilitating studies by charities and independent researchers of the safety and appropriateness for children of the characteristics of regulated user-to-user services;
(c) make any necessary provisions or consequential amendments to ensure that—
(i) the duties on the providers of regulated user-to-user services under those regulations are enforceable requirements for the purposes of section 131 and Part 7 of this Act, and
(ii) section 49 (relationship between duties and codes of practice) of this Act does not apply to those duties.
(5) In this section, a “relevant expert” means OFCOM, the Children’s Commissioner, any of the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom, the Medical Royal Colleges, and any other persons from whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to seek relevant expert advice or input.
214C Supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services
The Secretary of State must take action to ensure that, effective for the academic year commencing in September 2027, the national curriculum contains age-appropriate material to explain the reasons for children under the age of 16 being prevented from accessing different kinds of regulated user-to-user services, or features or functionalities of such services, including—
(a) the implications for children’s wellbeing of their use of or exposure to services with characteristics of the kind described in subsection 214B(4)(a), and
(b) the range of business models, methods and motivations for and the implications of the online collection and processing of children’s data.””

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the temperature of the House.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J.”

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion A1 and my amendment on social media. Discussions have taken place with the Government and I thank them for their engagement, but we have not yet reached an agreement and I will put this matter to a vote today.

I note the change from “may” to “must”, but it is not a “must” to do anything very specific. However, based on statements that the Prime Minister has made, I believe we are at one on the features of social media that should not be available to children. He said the

“algorithms, clearly to my mind, shouldn’t be permitted”

and that “they must go”. He has said:

“Things can’t go on like this, they must change because right now social media is putting our children at risk”; “I don’t think the next generation would forgive us if we didn’t act now”; “My government will not leave parents to face this battle alone”; “There’s an overwhelming case and that’s why we have to act”; “We’ve taken the powers to make sure we can act within months, not years”.


However, the Government’s new amendment gives them 36 months to lay the first regulations. I understand that Ministers are arguing in the other place that they need three years to lay the first regulations because they fear the possibility of a judicial review, though they have not explained by whom or why. The reality is that a judicial review would not be brought until the Government have announced their plans and published draft regulations. There is always a risk of judicial review when making regulations, but if the Government specify in the Bill in clear terms what they intend to do, there would be a much-reduced risk of JR. If an Act of Parliament requires the Government to act in a particular way, the courts cannot and will not intervene. Parliament is sovereign. Were they to accept my proposals, which would put greater detail in the Bill about matters on which we appear to agree—how and when Ministers must raise the age of access to certain social media features—they would substantially reduce the chance of judicial review. Insisting on their vague discretionary powers would only increase the risk for Ministers.

I will share some evidence that I have come across from recent social media cases. Meta staff discussed how Instagram, a Meta platform, is a drug and said: “We’re basically pushers”. Meta’s own testing found that its algorithms were recommending nearly four times as many children to suspected groomers as to ordinary adults—close to 2 million minors in three months, with 22% of those recommendations resulting in a follow-up request. A Meta safety manager put the number of child victims of inappropriate interactions at 500,000 per day in English-speaking markets alone. One can now buy online an AI agent which enables a male adult to pretend to be a girl, contact a young boy through social media, persuade him to send nude images of himself and then blackmail him. This is sextortion, which has resulted in a number of suicides by young boys. One social media site is particularly well known as the medium for this.

Concerning the Government’s proposals on “must”, not “may”, curfews or time limits cannot be used to tackle harmful, precision-engineered algorithms and addictive features. If they are harmful, they are harmful. As the Prime Minister said, you cannot expect parents to deal with this on their own. If they focus on parental controls, it will only exacerbate the conflicts that we know already take place every night in households across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who really does know what she is talking about. I remember that, during the debates on the now Online Safety Act, it was she who first drew the attention of your Lordships’ House to the dangers of the algorithm, and here we are, so many years later. However, it is the algorithm that must go—the Prime Minister has said it—for children. All that I am asking today is that we focus on that and on stranger contact, which has led to so much child abuse and deaths. That is all.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, including the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, whom I wish well in the future, the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Russell of Liverpool. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his comments about other countries; I would add Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world, Brazil, the seventh most populous, and many others. Frankly, at the rate we are going, 50% of the world population will have acted on social media before we do anything, which will put our children at a massive economic disadvantage.

The Minister said that my proposals pre-empt the outcome of the consultation but, with the way that I have outlined them today, I do not believe that that is the case. They would allow the experts, including the Chief Medical Officer and the medical royal colleges, to consider the outcome of the consultation in relation to the very limited and focused proposals that I have suggested today. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but, on the basis of what she has said here on the Floor of the House today, I do not sense much movement yet. I must therefore ask the House to agree to Motion A1, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

My Lords, I should remind the House that, if Motion A1 is agreed, it will pre-empt Motion A2.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thought that I was walking into a kind of kumbaya, with peace breaking out, but, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, perhaps I got that wrong.

I was going to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nash, with whom I profoundly disagree, on having achieved something of a victory. I was also going to congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Smith, on reaching some kind of compromise—at this point in ping-pong, we might all be relieved about that—but I do not understand the Government’s position. So I want to ask the Minister a genuine question in good faith.

We have heard a lot about the fact that this measure could not be implemented because we had to wait until the consultation was over. What if those who were consulted on the Government’s plans for a social media ban for under-16s—experts, NGOs, parents—do not agree that age functionality restrictions for under-16s represent the best approach to keeping teens safe? What if they raise worries about the anonymity and privacy of over-16s and adults, as well as a fear of digital ID? Some of the 55,000 people who responded certainly raised the problem of censorship mission creep.

I ask that because, does this not pre-empt the outcome of a consultation that the Minister assured us the Government could not do? Is there not therefore a danger of undermining evidence-based policy in general, to be so pragmatic? Might it imply that public consultations are just going through the motions and that politicians are not really listening to the public at all? What do those of us who have concerns about this under-16 ban do if some of our warnings are ignored before it has even happened, never mind afterwards, when I am sure we will see that some of our fears are actually true? If, by the way, this was only about keeping children safe, or if I thought it was the best way to keep children safe, then fine—but not everybody thinks it is.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind words and for the statement. I thank the Government for their active engagement in the matter of social media, albeit rather last-minute, and for making a binding commitment to impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16, to be focused on addictive features, harmful, algorithmic-driven content, and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy and have led to so much harm and a number of deaths.

This is very welcome to the millions of parents, voters, teachers, health professionals and others who have been asking for it, and it is exactly what my amendment would have achieved. I would just ask the Government to get these lines to all Ministers, so that when they are on the airwaves, they stick to them, rather than giving long and rather confusing answers—because it is to this statement that we will be holding the Government to account to deliver on as soon as possible.

I thank all noble Peers from across the House who supported my amendment, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger, Lady Benjamin and Lady Cass, who put their names to it originally. I also very much thank my team, Ben and Molly Kingsley of Safe Screens, Bella Skinner and Becky Foljambe of Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Simon Bailey and Ed Oldfield. I also thank Annabelle Eyre and Henry Mitson, who have advised me on the process. Having taken five Acts through your Lordships’ House as a Minister, I have discovered how different the gamekeeper-turned-poacher process is. I also thank Susannah Street and Connie Walsh in the Public Bill Office for being so available to help me navigate the intricacies of the amendment process.

Above all, I thank the 27 bereaved parents who have campaigned so tirelessly alongside me, particularly Ellen Roome. They did not have to do this; they did it so that no other family would have to live through what they have lived through, and they have ensured that, as a result, every child in the country will be safer because of their work, and I thank them for it. I do hope that the Prime Minister will meet with them, as they have requested, very soon.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I share the noble Lord’s concern about timescale. I see no reason why the Government cannot act faster than the longstop they have allowed for, and I understand and have heard their statement that they intend to do so. I also share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about Ofcom. Having met recently with Ofcom and heard the long-winded and convoluted process it has to go through before it can stick anything on the social media companies, I was confirmed—if I needed any confirmation—in my view that we have to put the onus on the companies to get their houses in order by restricting children’s access to harmful features, rather than hoping we can regulate our way out of this problem.

However, we need to improve substantially the Online Safety Act and to strengthen Ofcom’s ability—and, if I might say so, its capacity and boldness. It is disappointing that the rumour is there will be nothing in the King’s Speech which would enable us to do this. I hope we can live together to fight this battle another time, but so far as this Bill is concerned, I feel the moment has passed.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for listening to the voices of concern, including those of the bereaved parents, for our children’s safety to be at the forefront of all our minds.

As we move forward to the next steps, it might be a bit late in the day to make this suggestion, but I have an idea to throw into the mix. It may sound radical, but it is for the tech companies and IT platforms to require a licence from Ofcom to operate in this country. It may sound like a crazy idea, but radio and TV companies need a licence, so why not tech companies and social media platforms? If they do not comply then their licence will be taken away from them or they will be fined huge sums. This is one way to get them to be focused. Are we bold or intrepid enough to do this? It could be the answer to keeping them focused and to keeping our children safe. Age assurance is the key which they need to operate to keep our children safe. As we move forward, I hope that everyone will make it their responsibility to do just that, in every way possible. Ofcom is vital to all this. I look forward to working with the Government on this important issue and to us keeping the focus of our minds on our children’s safety, happiness and contentment for the future.