Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 27 Apr 2026 · 81 speeches · Official Report
Commons Reasons and Amendments
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do propose Amendments 38Z1 to 38Z9 to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of Amendments 38V to 38X-
38Z1: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (1)(a), leave out “features or functionalities” and insert “functionalities or other features”
38Z2: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (1)(b), leave out “features or functionalities” and insert “functionalities or other features”
38Z3: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (4)(a), leave out “feature or functionality” and insert “functionality or other feature”
38Z4: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (4)(b), leave out “feature or functionality” and insert “functionality or other feature”
38Z5: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (4)(c), leave out “feature or functionality” and insert “functionality or other feature”
38Z6: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (6), leave out from “to” to the end and insert “- (a) the different ways in which an internet service of a particular kind is used, including functionalities or other features of the service that affect how much children use the service, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children, and (b) the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a functionality or other feature of an internet service, in different ways.”
38Z7: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), after inserted subsection (8) insert- “(8A) The Secretary of State- (a) must exercise the power under subsection (1) so as to make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate following the conclusion of the consultation entitled “Growing up in the online world: a national consultation” launched on 2 March 2026 (command paper numbered CP 1528), and (b) must, in exercising that power, have regard to the responses to the consultation.”
38Z8: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38K, after subsection (1) insert- “(1A) The timeline must provide for the first regulations to be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the statement is laid under subsection (1).”
38Z9: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38K, after subsection (2) insert- “(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)- (a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and (b) before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament. (4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions A1, A2, B, C and C1. With this group, we are debating amendments made in this House and the other place relating to a social media ban for under-16s, mobile phones in schools, and school admissions. Before getting into the details of the Motions and amendments before us, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with us, ministerial colleagues and departmental officials throughout the Bill’s passage, and particularly during this rather fast-paced bit of ping-pong that we are now engaged in. We are, hopefully, at the very end of this parliamentary Session and today brings us to the third round of ping-pong on this important Bill. That is beyond the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord True, has generally seen as the juncture at which the unelected House should give way to the House of Commons. Noble Lords will be familiar with my history as a Member of and ministerial officeholder in the other place. That House has now spoken clearly on the matters before us on multiple occasions, endorsing the Government’s alternative proposals. I recognise, however, now that I am a Member of this place, that perhaps one advantage of noble Lords is their ability to scrutinise in detail and to push successfully for revision of government proposals. We have seen that throughout the course of consideration of this Bill. For example, for each of the...
The noble Lord’s amendment would therefore limit the scope of the protection we can deliver on. That said, there is now significant common ground: we agree on the direction of travel; we agree on the need for urgent and responsible action to protect children online; and we agree that it is something we must get right. Let me reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government’s amendment provides the most effective way to secure robust and lasting protection.
As for the part of the noble Lord’s amendment on supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services, proposed new Section 214C, as I emphasised the last time we discussed this, the Government’s response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review sets out how the revised curriculum will take forward recommendations to strengthen media literacy, to enable young people to critically engage with the messages they encounter through different media channels and to ensure that they can identify and challenge misinformation and disinformation. Media literacy will be embedded in the new primary citizenship curriculum and strengthened across relevant subjects. Recent updates to relationship, sex and health education guidance also include content on AI and deepfakes. It explains how social media works and provides guidance on countering sexual health misinformation, for example. The updated guidance will be used in schools from September 2026.
Motion A2, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would amend the Government’s power to require age restrictions to be placed on all providers of internet services if a number of specific requirements are not adhered to. It also proposes changes to the national curriculum; new criminal offences for non-compliant services; a new legal right for a child to not be subject to harm; and a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness for her continued commitment to children’s safety and rights; the Government share her desire to ensure that children can have safe and age-appropriate experiences online.
The noble Baroness’s amendment highlights many of the areas on which the Government have sought views through their consultation, including features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and communication with strangers. The cumulative effect of the factors requiring restriction and the heavy penalties for failure to comply mean that, in effect, children under the appropriate age would be taken off the internet entirely. As I have already explained, the Government cannot accept proposals that would pre-empt the consultation’s outcomes. While supporting the noble Baroness’s aim to support children’s understanding of how to be safe online, the Government already have a programme of work on this through media literacy and the curriculum. Moreover, her proposals to create new criminal offences for failure to comply risk creating unnecessary legal complexity that overlaps with the existing regime under the Online Safety Act, which already includes criminal offences for senior managers in specific circumstances.
The Government also consider that the enforcement of any new regulatory requirements should be for a regulator, rather than for parents and guardians to seek through the courts. Placing responsibility for enforcement will be complex, cumbersome and expensive, and it will also benefit only the few children who have parents or guardians willing to spend the significant resources required to pursue these claims. When potential criminal activity is being threatened and there are imminent risks, that is also a matter for the police.
Finally, the noble Baroness proposes a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers within six months of Royal Assent. The Online Safety Act already includes a statutory review of Ofcom’s powers, and it would be unnecessary and duplicative for a new review to be introduced at this stage.
Motion C relates to Amendment 106 and Motion C1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would amend government Amendments 106G to 106J and seeks to prohibit the use of and access to smartphones during the school day. I start by thanking the noble Baroness for meeting with the Minister in the DfE this afternoon. The Minister, Liv Bailey, made it clear that we all have the same ambition here: children should not have access to mobile phones at any point in the school day.
The noble Baroness rightly raises the point of schools which have “never seen, never heard” policies, which can in practice allow children to access their phones during the school day. We share this concern, which is why we updated the soon-to-be statutory guidance to be explicit that pupils should
“not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day including during lessons, the time between lessons, breaktimes and lunchtime”.
This new guidance was launched earlier this year and is from this month being underpinned by Ofsted inspections, with schools struggling to meet the expectations being supported by our attendance and behaviour hubs.
I am also happy to confirm that we will continue to push this new guidance through our RISE teams and regional directors to ensure that all schools and trusts understand what our expectations of them are. We will monitor the impact of this guidance through a range of surveys and data collection, including our national behaviour survey and our omnibus surveys. We will keep the guidance under close review and update it as needed as we review the impact, for example, on the national behaviour survey, because we have the same ambition that pupils should not have access to their phones at any point in the day.
We must trust head teachers, who know their schools, their pupils and their context better than any of us in this House or the other place, to choose a way of delivering the outcome that works for them. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness about our shared objective and the ways in which we have already made much clearer to schools what the clear expectation of the Government is and the range of support and accountability that we will put in place.
Finally, Motion B relates to Amendment 102, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number, or PAN, following an upheld objection. I know-we have heard this during the debate and, again, this is an objective we share-that we want to ensure that all children can access a great local school. We have been clear that we want good schools to offer more places where this is right for the local area, and that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of any decisions on PAN.
The amendments in lieu tabled in the other place reflect this. They place a requirement in the Bill for adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference. They will also require the adjudicator, before making a decision to reduce a school’s PAN, to consult key parties about alternatives to lowering the school’s admissions number. This includes the admission authority, the local authority and now the Secretary of State, which in practice will mean consulting the relevant DfE regional director.
Our proposed framework is clear that reducing places at good schools should always be a last resort. But it is right that the adjudicator can make decisions that are right for the local context, such as reflecting the significant challenges placed on schools in this period of falling rolls. Our measure helps to ensure that all children can access a great local school. We will ensure a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education and we will continue to engage with stakeholders, including the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including proposed changes to regulation and the School Admissions Code.
To conclude, this is now the third round of ping-pong. I hope that noble Lords who may have been frustrated at a lack of progress previously can now see that the Government are attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. I hope that noble Lords and colleagues will recognise and welcome this and, in so doing, endorse the positions of the elected House and allow this Bill to be concluded as soon as possible.
My Lords, I must inform the House that, if Motion A1 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Motion A2 by reason of pre-emption. Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J.”
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...
As I said, I have spoken with the Government, and I am here later today and tomorrow to do a deal. I have told them that if they include in the Bill raising the age to a minimum of 16 for only those particular aspects of social media-harmful algorithmic addictive features, or features that could expose children to serious loss of privacy or contact from strangers-then I will accept that. These are two features that the Prime Minister, Liz Kendall and the Government have already said they will deal with; they are features that I do not believe anybody could have an issue with. I would understand an additional conditional force majeure period to cater for, for instance, a war or a pandemic. I would also accept a condition that the Government would not have to put this into effect if, following their consultation, the CMOs and medical royal colleges advised the Secretary of State that these measures would be likely to do more harm than good for children under the age of 16.
It would be such a small step for the Government to say, following these dreadful, game-changing US social media cases and the very recent increased awareness of the potentially even worse dangers of AI chatbots and companions, that they are now going to focus their consultation on how to raise the age to 16 for just those features of social media-not whether, but how-and what to do about the other features of social media, and to continue to explore the very worrying areas of AI chatbots and companions, gaming and VPNs, and any other areas that their very broad consultation covers. The consultation would still have a role to confirm that the proposals I am putting forward would be effective.
I have heard from lawyers that if we were to lose another child to features which facilitate predatory extortionists or to grotesque algorithmic bombardment, which I am afraid can be only a matter of time, then legal action against Government Ministers for their negligence in failing to act on the evidence could well be successful under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, following the Molly Rose Foundation report, which was not fully recommended on, and following the US social media cases. I am sure that is not something the Government want.
The Government have acted decisively on pornography, nudification, intimate image abuse, cyber flashing, preservation of data after the death of a child and a number of other areas. They should be applauded for that, and I now implore them to act on this matter. It is one small step. In the meantime, however, I urge noble Lords to vote for my amendment once again today.
My Lords, I will speak to my Motion A2. Before I do, however, I wish to say that if the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, decides to divide the House on Motion C1, I will support her. I hope, though, that some other accommodation has been made. Motion A2 is deliberately drafted so that a successful vote for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, will automatically pre-empt it. That is intentional, and I wish to be clear at the outset that I will vote for Motion A1 alongside the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Indeed, we can be seen as a bit of a double act, with the noble Lord’s Motion capturing the urgent need for action, and my Motion providing a more comprehensive outline of what action should look like. We are at something of an endgame this week. I have in front of me a chart that compares Motions A, A1 and A2; I would be very happy to send it to any noble Lord who wishes to see it. It shows clearly that government Motion A fails to address key risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks and does not totally tackle additional risks identified by the companies themselves. It shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the fundamental issue of enforcement, without which none of this really matters, because Ofcom will get more duties without having the power to enforce them. The chart shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the need for parents to have somewhere to go when their child is at imminent risk of harm. I was very disappointed to...
My Lords, I speak in strong support of Motion A2 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As I said the last time we debated the Bill, we are united in this House in our objective to protect children online, yet we still differ on how to achieve it. The noble Baroness’s amendment represents the precise, workable and robust framework that our children so desperately need. We on these Benches welcome recent concessions-and I thank the Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Lloyd of Effra, for their engagement-such as the “must” rather than “may” duty, but the Government’s core approach remains flawed. The Government continue to cling to sweeping Henry VIII powers that will allow them to amend primary legislation via secondary regulations, bypassing full parliamentary debate. We need a sunset clause to ensure that this power is not abused in the future. The current proposal of up to three years, possibly, to implement regulations is simply unacceptable. We on these Benches believe that the timeline is the critical issue. Our aspiration is a six plus six model-six months for a progress statement and six months for regulations-rather than the protracted window currently offered. The Government are focusing on regulating user access, rather than addressing the toxic nature of the platforms themselves. We recognise the new references to “features or functionalities” in the Government’s amendments, but they avoid referring to addiction and do not include a...
While the Government propose a framework for monitoring addictive features, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to whom I pay tribute for her persistence in this campaign, proposes a framework for dismantling them, backed by direct legal recourse for families harmed by addictive design. However, we recognise the political reality that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, commands significant support in the House. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches prefer the proportionate approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but to ensure that the Government make the necessary concessions, we will vote for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, as a means of maintaining leverage until the Government agree to a tighter, more effective framework.
We will not accept a timeline that gives platforms years to comply. If the Government want to avoid further deadlock, they must return with a package that incorporates a tight timeline, constraints on Henry VIII powers, the vital safety by design mechanisms proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and much greater assurance on enforcement by Ofcom. We must regulate the product, not the child. We must send a clear message to the Government today about the standard of legislation we expect.
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment C1, but I will start with Amendments A1 and A2. The House may be relieved to hear that I am pretty much lost for words in responding to the Government’s position. In the face of overwhelming evidence of a need for urgency to act, most recently from court cases in the US, the Government have chosen the following route. First is to act within three years, which in practice could mean never, given the timing of a general election within that timeframe and another Government taking a different view. Secondly is to avoid putting, as my noble friend Lord Nash stressed, a clear age limit in the Bill in relation to accessing harmful social media. This is essential and entirely possible in relation to gambling and pornography, so I am unclear why the Minister says it is impossible in this case. Thirdly and finally is to omit reference to highly effective age assurance, which we know is the key element for effective implementation and is already working in relation to pornography and gambling. Our confidence is also rattled because, as I said in an earlier round of ping-pong, the Government almost always quote the one notable charity in this area which has not signed up to the joint statement of principles for online safety signed by more than 40 other charities, and they rarely quote the evidence of health professionals, police and law enforcement bodies, and parents-including, sadly, the growing number of bereaved parents. The Minister talked...
My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister but have the greatest difficulty in understanding why you need a consultation period when dealing with those aged 16 and under. The restraint that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, seeks is to prevent them having access to pornography, which I have described in this House as vile pornography. He is proposing that from the moment the Bill comes into force, there will be a ban for under-16s. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can understand that I speak as a matter of conscience. It is why I support the noble Lord’s Motion. I speak as a departing hereditary Peer. Regrettably, no time has been allocated for hereditary Peers to say farewell to this House. I am very sad about that, but that is the position. Would your Lordships be kind enough to listen to me, a departing hereditary Peer, saying a brief goodbye to this House? I first entered this House 54 years ago, in 1972. The House then was very different. There were very few Peeresses-fewer than 10%-and those who were in the House nearly all wore hats. I had the very scary experience, when I was giving my maiden speech, of being attacked by the hatted Baroness Summerskill, who wrongfully attacked my maiden speech. It took me a long time to recover from that attack by the hatted Peeress. The House in those days was much less proactive. I give a comparison. If you wanted to table an Oral...
Can my noble friend come to a close? This is not an appropriate moment.
Noble Lords
Oh!
My Lords, I insist on continuing to speak and am very glad to have support from the Benches over there. I was comparing the House with the less proactive House 54 years ago and saying how you would go to the Table Office and quickly get an opportunity to table your Question. Look at it now. There is a ballot held almost daily. I do not know the number of Questions in the ballot, but it is probably 30 or 40. This is a great difference. It has been a great honour to serve this House for over 30 years. I will miss the House and your Lordships very much indeed, but I most sincerely wish your Lordships well. In the new constitution for the House, I do hope that there is a large elected element. That is needed to get a proper constitutional balance between us and the other House. About 40 years ago, Lord Hailsham-Quintin Hailsham-gave a lecture about the “elected dictatorship”. That is prevailing even more seriously now than it was 40 years ago, with incoming Governments with large majorities completely taking over the legislature-not only in the other House but in this House. We are seeing that during the ping-pong period that we are in now. I leave your Lordships to the ping-ponging that has to be done in the next few days and say farewell, as a hereditary Peer.
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I am sure many noble Lords will have the same sentiment as I do in thanking him for his extraordinary service to his country. I would like to associate myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said, and particularly add my support to Motion A2 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will not repeat those arguments, but I want to make two particular points. It is of great sadness to me that, on this topic, we appear no longer to be working as a collaborative group. Those of us who worked on the Online Safety Act, across all sides of this House and the other place, spent quite a lot of time together discussing how to find common ground. That seems to have been absent in the last couple of weeks. Although I really recognise the effort that both Ministers on the Front Bench today have put into this personally, we have really missed out on trying to find that common ground that I think all of us here want to find to protect children. As a result, I find myself again supporting my noble friend Lord Nash on an amendment that I really do not like in order to try to get to the amendment that I really do like in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I think that is because we have lost the ability to collaborate on this topic, which is a great shame and something that none of us should feel very proud of. I think there is a path; it is about time, as everyone has been saying. I...
My Lords, the Government are arguing that they need much more time to consider the evidence because of the given challenges of enforcement. But the bereaved parents who have lost their children through online harms do not agree. They want action now, not some time in the future. Last week, I met again the bereaved parents who have written a letter to the Prime Minister. They desperately wanted to meet the Prime Minister personally to show their strength of feeling for having a social media ban for under-16s. To hear their harrowing, heartbreaking stories would make any morally minded person weep. The Prime Minister has met the tech companies: why not also with those who have suffered the tragic losses of their children? The bereaved parents felt so hurt by that. They are seeking change so that other families do not have to go through what they had to endure and still do every day since their loss. Right now, as we debate at this moment, a child is being affected negatively by social media harms. How many more children will be harmed every day by the dangerous, addictive effects of social media before something is done to stop it as soon as possible? I urge the Prime Minister to meet the bereaved parents to give them hope and security; for the Government to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for the sake of our children’s future happiness and mental well-being; and to give the nation’s thanks to all the bereaved parents who are fighting and campaigning for...
My Lords, I am sure that it will be source of huge disappointment to all noble Lords that I do not intend to give a valedictory speech.
Noble Lords
Shame, shame.
Indeed. I thank the Minister for responding to the points I raised on educational technology at the last round of ping-pong. It has an awful lot of consultation in it, rather than action, which is emblematic of the situation we find ourselves in. We went through only one round of ping-pong on the Online Safety Act, the reason being, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, that there was a degree of cross-party accord, which went to the nub of the problems, along with genuine interaction between the key parties and a willingness to listen to one another. I am sorry that we do not seem to be in quite the same place today. I support Motion A1, from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and particularly Motion A2, in the name of my noble friend Lady Kidron, for exactly the same reasons as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I am not sure that a social media ban is the perfect solution-I am not sure there is one-but the intent is to concentrate the Government’s mind. If noble Lords want to see what leadership in this area looks like, I draw attention to a column in the Financial Times of 17 April by no less a person than the Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez. He is doing two things simultaneously: he is standing up to our occasional friend across the Atlantic, who is currently probably testing His Majesty’s patience somewhat, but I am sure will be fuelling his sense of humour, probably unintentionally. Secondly, what the Prime Minister of Spain wrote was clear and unequivocal: on...
My Lords, it is a source of great regret to me that I will be following the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Nash, into the Lobbies, because I think the Government are making a mistake here. We should have been much more courageous in addressing these problems. I am mindful of the fact that the United States of America is making life rather difficult for us at the moment, because taking any kind of independent stance seems to be a reason to be roundly scorned by the United States President, but there has to be a moment when we take a stand. We have done it with the war in Iran and it would be right to do it here, for the very reasons that have been expounded by others already, which is that this is about protecting our children. We are making a grievous mistake by not listening to those voices about the need for us to work in coalition on this and not to make it something that we worry about. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, just said, we have to be prepared to stand up to the technology oligarchs who basically do not want any regulation at all. We have to be brave and courageous, in this area, in empowering Ofcom to do its job properly and in protecting those whose lives are made so difficult in trying to restrain their children from using these phones in the ways that we have heard about. I really regret it, because I do not want to disagree with the Government at the moment, but we should see that there are principles that must be adhered to...
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for all the service that he has given over many years. It was an absolute pleasure to join him at the dining table before this debate to exchange views about his long history here and his guidance to me as one of the younger Members of your Lordships’ House. We will miss him dearly.
Thank you very much.
I was intending basically to agree with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I therefore had not intended to speak on issues around social media. However, I have to say that I agree with not only my noble friend but the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. This is a plea to the Government Ministers-both the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Lloyd, have engaged with all of us and we thank them for the time that they have taken to speak to us-that we are not that far apart. As your Lordships can clearly tell from opinions right across the Chamber, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, whom I also thank for her contributions, we all want the same thing. Here is a radical plan: why do we not all get together once, in a single room, to see if we can thrash something out, because we know that the clock is ticking. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, there are people out there awaiting our actions, so we clearly need to move at pace. I hope that, when the Minister gets up, she reflects on what has been said. I will concentrate on smartphones in schools and share the comments of Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. He said: “School leaders are as concerned as everyone about the impact of social media and phones on children and young people. NAHT has supported calls for a ban on pupils using smartphones during the school day”. These Benches agree with...
I was also heartened to read the comments of the Conservative shadow Secretary of State, Laura Trott, who was quoted by the BBC as having said on social media:
“After a year of resisting our calls to ban smartphones in schools Labour have finally listened & u-turned. They were wrong to dismiss it as an unnecessary gimmick. This will give teachers the backing they need and it is a huge win for behaviour & attainment in schools”.
I agree with Laura. That is why, having read the guidance, and more importantly, having just listened to the Minister at the Dispatch Box, I can say that the assurances she has given, in particular the guidance that the Department for Education expects schools to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to mobile phones throughout the day, including during lessons, the times between lessons, break times and lunchtimes, are the reassurances that the campaigners who came to your Lordships’ House and those outside were seeking.
If the noble Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House on her Motion C1, we on these Benches are not minded to support it. If the Minister can get up and give us the reassurance that she has, I think we have it.
My Lords, in starting, I too recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hacking. But I have to say, as a former Chief Whip in the other place, I am not quite of the same view that rebelling against your party is a sign of conscience. Nevertheless, I thank him for his service and comradeship to me since I have been in this House.
Thank you very much.
I am sure the noble Lord will remain busy even if he is not here. I look forward to hearing his views from afar, as I have heard them from behind me over recent years. I turn now to Lords Amendments 38V and 38X. This Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses and acted decisively to directly address them. I understand from today’s debate that there is a view among noble Lords that the Government may not yet have gone far enough. But it is of course important to remember that it is the passing of this Bill that will ensure that the progress that has been made will be on the statute book. We are absolutely committed to protecting children online and doing it the right way. Throughout the whole Bill, that has involved discussion, consultation and engagement, including, earlier in its passage, with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on a range of issues, which we then looked at in detail in Committee. Noble Lords have told us that the progress we need to make on this cannot be optional. We agree-that is why we have now put in the Bill the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the outcomes of the consultation. Please be reassured that, due to that change, action will follow. It must follow. Your Lordships’ House also told us that this must happen at pace. That is why we have committed in legislation to a clear timeline. The...
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...
My Lords, I should remind the House that, if Motion A1 is agreed, it will pre-empt Motion A2.
Motion B
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102J to 102M.
102J: Clause 56, page 118, line 29, at end insert- “(4A) In making a determination under subsection (3) or (4), the adjudicator must take into account the potential impact of the determination on- (a) the quality of education provided at- (i) the school in question, and (ii) other schools within the relevant area, and (b) the ability to give effect to parental preference for- (i) the school in question, and (ii) other schools within the relevant area. (4B) Before determining an admission number under subsection (3) or (4) that is lower than the admission number specified in the admission arrangements to which the objection or reference relates, the adjudicator must consult and have regard to the views of the following persons about alternatives to lowering the admission number- (a) the local authority for each school within the relevant area, (b) the admission authority for the school in question, if different from the local authority for the school, and (c) the Secretary of State.”
102K: Clause 56, page 118, line 33, at end insert- “(za) specifying persons whom the adjudicator must consult before making a determination under subsection (3) or (4);”
102L: Clause 56, page 118, line 34, after “specifying” insert “further”
102M: Clause 56, page 118, line 41, at end insert- ““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B agreed.
Motion C
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106G to 106J.
106G: 106G After Clause 29, insert the following new Clause- “Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England (1) In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert- “CHAPTER 2A GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND 550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England (1) The appropriate person for a school in England must have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions in relation to the conduct of the school. (2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them- (a) during school hours, and (b) on school premises. (3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section. (4) “Appropriate person” means- (a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher- (i) a community, foundation or voluntary school; (ii) a community or foundation special school; (iii) a maintained nursery school; (iv) a pupil referral unit; (v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools); (b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor. (5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day. (6) References to mobile phones and other personal...
106H: Clause 66, page 124, line 11, at end insert- “(ca) section (Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England);”
106J: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about guidance relating to use of mobile phones and other interactive communication devices in schools;”
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move. Motion C1 not moved. Motion C agreed.