Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

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

After Clause 26

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its amendment 38J and disagrees with Lords amendments 38V to 38X to amendment 38J.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 102, but does not insist on its amendments 102C to 102G and proposes amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 106, but does not insist on amendments 106C to 106E and proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

I am pleased to speak on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for our third consideration of Lords amendments. The Bill is the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and it will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care system, so that every child can achieve and thrive. Today, I ask the House to again reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation.

I turn first to Lords amendment 102 on the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number following an upheld objection. In this age of declining roles, it is important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place. But the Government have been clear throughout this process that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of PAN decisions. As committed to by my noble Friend Lady Smith in the other place, we have tabled amendments in lieu reflecting this. These amendments place a requirement on the face of the Bill for adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objection. They will also require the adjudicator, before making a decision to reduce the school’s PAN, to consult key parties about alternatives to lowering the school’s admissions number. Those parties are the admissions authority, the local authority and the Secretary of State, which in practice means consulting the relevant Department for Education regional director.

We are also taking a power to make it clear that we can require the adjudicator to consult additional parties in line with commitments in our policy paper. Through the Bill, we will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education and parental choice, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders, such as the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including on proposed changes to regulations and the school admissions code.

Can I thank my hon. Friend for the Government’s work on this important matter, which is much appreciated by many parents—in particular the work of looking ahead at what further measures might be taken to tackle online harms?

I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention and for all his work for his constituents in Reading Central.

To underline the fact that we will act quickly, we have committed to responding to the consultation by the summer and have made a legislative commitment to report to Parliament within six months.

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time, as always. I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee. I hope that I do not steal the thunder of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is sitting next to me. Yesterday we received evidence from representatives of social media companies and from academics, although we were all hugely disappointed that one social media company did not provide representation. Does the Minister agree that whatever the Government decide when it comes to social media—whether it is restricted, banned or an age restriction is put in place—it is hugely important that young people learn about the dangers? We must ensure that goes into the expanded school curriculum, as discussed in the White Paper.

I thank my hon. Friend for his work. I do agree with him; this is an important point. The issue is a part of our revised national curriculum and also the relationships, sex and health education curriculum.

I am grateful for the engagement of peers and Members across the House on this vital topic. As a result, we have made a number of other changes that strengthen our position, including clarifying that this power can only be exercised to protect children from online harm and that we will share draft regulations with Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople. I welcome the constructive engagement from Lord Nash and the Conservatives as we come to a solution on our small areas of difference. I can assure the House that we intend to return to these matters on Monday in the other place and put beyond doubt the Government’s plans to act and to do so swiftly.

It seems to me as though the Government are just kicking the can down the road. We have an opportunity in the legislation before us, and particularly in Lord Nash’s amendment—which we are not being allowed to vote on as I understand it—to limit the use of social media outlets to those who are over 16. We also have the opportunity to tighten very seriously the regulations relating to the use of mobile phones in schools, but again, there is a loophole. Why are we being so wishy-washy?

I reject the right hon. Member’s characterisation that we are kicking the can down the road. In fact, we are having a wide-ranging consultation—much wider than the amendments before us—that enables us to act swiftly and decisively. We guarantee that we will protect our children from harm.

Will the Minister give way?

I am going to make progress.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 106 on our shared objective on banning phones in schools. As the House knows, at the start of the year the Government took decisive action to ban phones in schools. We strengthened the Conservatives’ weak guidance, including making it clear—to directly quote the guidance—that we expect schools

“to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day including during lessons, the time between lessons, breaktimes and lunchtime.”

We wrote to every headteacher in the country to make it clear that the Government have their back when it comes to banning phones in schools. We asked Ofsted to enforce the ban, which it started doing this month, and we have rolled out a targeted programme of support to ensure that any struggling school gets the help it needs so that this ban is fully in place.

Will the Minister give way?

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

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

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

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

I call the shadow Secretary of State.