Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Commons Reason and Amendments

15:25

Motion A

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38J to 38P.

38J: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 214 insert—
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
214A Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of protecting relevant children from a risk of harm (including harm presented by content), make provision by regulations requiring providers of specified internet services—
(a) to prevent access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services;
(b) to restrict access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) “Relevant child” means a child who is of, or under, a specified age (and different ages may be specified for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)).
(3) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes provision—
(a) about the steps that must or may be taken by a provider for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(b) about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) includes, for example, provision requiring a provider of an internet service to—
(a) limit the amount of time per day, or over the course of a specified period, for which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(b) limit the times of day at which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(c) restrict access by relevant children to a service or to a feature or functionality of a service by virtue of which—
(i) a user of the service could receive unsolicited contact from a person who is not known to the user;
(ii) a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by a person who is not known to the user;
(iii) a person who is not known to a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by the user;
(iv) a person who is not known to a user of the service could identify the actual or approximate location of the user.
(5) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(c) includes provision for a requirement to be an enforceable requirement for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 7.
(6) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a feature or functionality of an internet service, in different ways.
(7) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision applying any provision of this Act (with or without modifications);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions;
(f) make consequential provision.
(8) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(f) may amend or repeal primary legislation.
(9) OFCOM must, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) carry out such research or provide such advice as the Secretary of State may request for the purposes of making regulations under this section, and
(b) do so by such time, or within such period, as the Secretary of State may specify in the request.
(10) As soon as reasonably practicable after providing advice under subsection (9), OFCOM must publish the advice.
(11) In this section—
“primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.”
(3) In section 225 (parliamentary procedure for regulations), in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) regulations under section 214A(1),”.”

38K: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Progress statement
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—
(a) what progress has been made towards making the first regulations under section 214A(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (inserted by section (Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services) of this Act) (“the first regulations”), and
(b) a timeline for making the first regulations.
(2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply where the first regulations have been made before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1).”

38L: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services
(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 8 (child's consent in relation to information society services), after paragraph 2 insert—
“2A. The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) amend paragraph 1 so as to change the age for the time being specified in that paragraph (but not to an age lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years);
(b) make provision in relation to services specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations for a different age to apply for the purposes of paragraph 1 (but not lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years).
2B. Regulations under paragraph 2A are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
(3) After Article 8 insert—
“Article 8ZA
Child’s consent in relation to information society services: age verification
1. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about verifying—
(a) that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being specified in Article 8(1);
(b) in the case of a service specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under Article 8(2A)(b), that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being applicable by virtue of those regulations in relation to that service or description of service.
2. The provision that may be made by regulations under paragraph 1 includes—
(a) provision imposing requirements on persons specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations;
(b) provision about the steps that must or may be taken by such persons for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) provision about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(d) provision about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
3. Regulations under paragraph 1 may—
(a) make provision amending, repealing, revoking or applying (with or without modifications) any provision of the data protection legislation (within the meaning given by section 3(9) of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions.
4. Regulations under this Article are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
5. In paragraph 1, the reference to information society services does not include preventive or counselling services.””

38M: Clause 65, page 123, line 36, leave out “This Part extends” and insert “Section (Progress statement) and this Part extend”

38N: Clause 66, page 124, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) section (Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services);
(ab) section (Progress statement);
(ac) section (Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services);”

38P: Title, line 9, after “schools;” insert “about preventing or restricting access by children to internet services; about the age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data in relation to information society services;”

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall also speak to Motions A1, A2, D and D1. In this group, we will debate amendments on restricting social media for under-16s, digital literacy in the school curriculum and mobile phones.

I turn first to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which disagrees with Amendments 38J and 38P and proposes new Amendments 38Q and 38U. I will also speak to Motion A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Amendment 38Q would require social media services to set their own minimum age of access based on their children’s risk assessment under the Online Safety Act. Amendment 38R would amend UK GDPR, so that the digital age of consent is raised from 13 to 16 for some social networking services. Motion A2 seeks to amend government Amendments 38A to 38C, requiring the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Nash, and other noble Lords for their sustained commitment on these vital issues. Let me be clear that it is a commitment that the Government share; protecting children online is as much a priority for this Government as it is for noble Lords. The question is not whether but how and what action will be taken and who is involved in making sure that that action is right. It is to facilitate this that the Government launched their consultation in March.

I am pleased to see that the noble Lord’s revised amendment considers the variety of measures on which we are seeking views through the consultation. It acknowledges that there are numerous approaches to securing the safety and well-being of our children: a blanket ban for under-16s to access social media; restricting specific “addictive” features or functionalities and risky features; and raising the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR. This is what our consultation is focused on. This shows that the noble Lord agrees with the Government that it is important that we take not only swift action but the correct action. Let me be clear that the government consultation, and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment, is the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes that will last.

The Government’s amendment allows for clear and decisive action. Amendment 38Q, while well intentioned, may give too much discretion to services in setting age restrictions without considering the evidence from the Government’s consultation. Amendment 38R would change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR only for social networking services, whereas the Government’s consultation asks whether this change should also apply to other online services.

15:30

In thinking about how we go about this and who is involved, this is a good opportunity to remind the House that our consultation seeks views from those affected most by the issues we are discussing today: parents and children themselves. We have already received over 50,000 responses, with over 30,000 from parents and more than 7,000 from children. From the organisations that have responded, nearly half are educational organisations. That level of engagement demonstrates that this consultation is, above all, about putting children first and is engaging a broad range of people and organisations in getting it right.

However, we have listened carefully to the strength of feeling expressed in both Houses and have reflected seriously on the concerns raised about pace, scope and scrutiny. That is why the Government have strengthened their approach since coming to this House and made clear changes to the proposed legislative powers.

First, on timing, we are determined to move at pace. That is why we have tabled legislative powers to ensure that we can act quickly, grounded on the evidence of the consultation. We have now also placed a firm commitment in the Bill to report to Parliament within six months. This progress report will set out both our intended course of action and a clear implementation timeline.

Secondly, we have strengthened the scope and clarity of the power. We have been explicit about the purposes for which it can be used, stipulating that it can only be exercised for protecting children from online harms. In addition, we recognise that children of different ages experience the online world in different ways. That is why we have also made an amendment that makes clear that any future regulation must take that into account, ensuring that protections are properly targeted and proportionate.

Finally, to strengthen scrutiny, we have committed to share any future draft regulations with relevant Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople, prior to them being laid before the House.

Regarding the part of Amendment 38X from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, on supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services, proposed new Clause 214C, 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 that they encounter through different media channels and 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. Following recent updates to relationships, sex and health education guidance, it now includes content on AI and deepfakes. It explains how social media works and provides guidance on countering sexual health misinformation. The updated guidance will be used in schools from this September.

We have listened and acted, and we believe that these amendments respond directly to the concerns raised. They strike the right balance between urgency and effectiveness and set out a clear and deliverable route to stronger protections for children online. We have been clear that it is not if we act but how.

I move on to Motion D, relating to Amendment 106, and Motion D1 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which insists on the amendment. The amendment is unnecessary. Our guidance is clear that all schools should be mobile phone-free by default. In making that clear, I acknowledge that we share the same policy intent as the noble Baroness as well as many other Peers in the House today to make sure that schools are mobile phone-free environments. That is why we have published strengthened guidance. We have asked our network of attendance and behaviour hubs to provide support to schools and, from this month, Ofsted will inspect schools’ mobile phone policies. We all want to protect children from the disruption and distraction caused by mobile phones throughout the school day and to create calm, focused school environments that support learning, behaviour and well-being. We are all in agreement on this.

We have listened carefully to Parliament, and we recognise the strong and widespread feeling across the House on this issue. That is why the Government commit to putting forward an amendment in lieu in the other place, which will place this guidance on a statutory footing. In doing that, we will create a clear, legal requirement that the guidance must be followed unless there is a legally justifiable reason for schools not to do so. That amendment in lieu will respond directly to concerns raised by noble Lords, including directly in discussions with me, by placing that guidance on a statutory footing and providing clarity and consistency for schools across the country. In doing that, we will reduce unnecessary burdens on head teachers and send a strong message to parents, giving head teachers clear backing to create and maintain the mobile phone-free school environments that our revised guidance makes clear should exist.

This reflects the intentions of the noble Baroness’s amendments, the concerns that have been expressed directly to me by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and the Government’s concerns. It will allow us to support schools in creating the calm, focused and safe learning environments that we all want to see. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, in calling Motion A1, I must inform the House that, if it 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

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley]

Leave out from “disagreement,” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 38J to 38P, and do propose Amendments 38Q to 38U in lieu—

38Q: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection of children from harmful social media services and features
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision for the purpose of protecting the wellbeing of children in relation to regulated user-to-user services likely to be accessed by children in the United Kingdom.
(2) Regulations under this section must, in particular, make provision requiring providers of such services—
(a) to assess and specify a minimum age of access for the service, or for specified features or functionalities of the service, as part of a children’s risk assessment carried out in accordance with provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023, with the expected minimum age of access for social networking services being 16 years;
(b) to use highly-effective age assurance measures to prevent access by children below the applicable minimum age;
(c) where a user is identified as being under the age of 16, to apply proportionate measures designed to—
(i) limit the supply of addictive design features and design features that are inappropriate for children, and
(ii) prevent access to content that is harmful to children;
(d) to display to users under the age of 16 clear, accessible and age-appropriate health and wellbeing warnings about the risks associated with prolonged or excessive use of the service;
(e) to keep under review the impact of the service’s design, functionalities, algorithms and business practices on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), “addictive design features and design features that are inappropriate for children” include, in particular—
(a) infinite scrolling content feeds,
(b) auto-play of sequential video or audio content,
(c) algorithmic recommendation systems designed to maximise continuous user engagement,
(d) sycophantic or manipulative features, or features that are likely to make a child understand the technology as human,
(e) push notifications and alerts, including at night and during the school day,
(f) the demand for unnecessary data in exchange for services.
(4) Regulations under this section must require OFCOM to publish guidance about—
(a) the criteria for determining an appropriate minimum age of access;
(b) the evidential requirements for children’s risk assessments relating to minimum age determinations;
(c) the identification and regulation of addictive design features in relation to children; and
(d) the form and content of health and wellbeing warnings.
(5) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom,
(b) OFCOM,
(c) the Information Commissioner, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) Regulations under this section shall be treated as imposing enforceable requirements for the purposes of Part 7 of the Online Safety Act 2023.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) In this section—
“child” means a person under the age of 16;
“content that is harmful to children” has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023;
“regulated user-to-user service” has the same meaning as in that Act; “social networking service” means an online service that—
(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and
(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images or videos, with a wider audience.”

38R: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Child consent for harmful social networking services
After paragraph 1 of Article 8 (child’s consent in relation to information society services) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data insert—
“1A. In the case of a social networking service processing personal data for the purpose of delivering personalised content, targeted advertising or algorithmically curated recommendations, references in paragraph 1 to 13 years old are to be read as 16 years old where OFCOM has determined that the service, or a description of service into which it falls, presents a material risk of harm to the wellbeing of children.
1B. For the purposes of paragraph 1A, a “social networking service” means an online service that—
(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and
(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images or videos, with a wider audience.
1C. Paragraph 1A does not apply to—
(a) educational platforms and learning management systems provided in recognised educational settings where personal data processing is solely for educational purposes, or
(b) health and wellbeing services where personal data processing is necessary for the provision of care, counselling or support.””

38S: Clause 65, page 123, line 36, leave out “This Part extends” and insert “Sections (Protection of children from harmful social media services and features) and (Child consent for harmful social networking services) and this Part extend”

38T: Clause 66, page 124, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) section (Protection of children from harmful social media services and features);
(ab) section (Child consent for harmful social networking services);”

38U: Title, line 9, after “schools;” insert “about protecting children from harmful social media services and features; about the age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data in relation to social networking services;””

[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.

15:45

At the heart of my amendment are safety-by-design principles, with the responsibility resting firmly with the companies themselves. Noble Lords may be interested to know that I and my team have agreed a statement of principles with more than 40 charities and other organisations including the NSPCC, 5Rights, the Anti-Bullying Alliance, the Centre for Protecting Women Online, the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition, the National Children’s Bureau, Coram, the Internet Watch Foundation, the Mental Health Foundation, Mumsnet, Parentkind, the NEU, NASUWT, the Centre for Young Lives and many others. Central to these principles is safety by design, with responsibility resting firmly on the services themselves. My amendment also contains a disapplication of the Online Safety Act safe harbour, which would make enforcement easier for Ofcom; the involvement of Ofcom, the Children’s Commissioner and the medical royal colleges as expert advisers; a requirement for digital literacy provision for children; and a transparency provision.

I will say a few words about Australia and whether age verification can work. The Australian eSafety Commissioner said a couple of weeks ago that the reason a number of children still have accounts there is simply because the social media companies are not doing their jobs properly, and it is now moving to enforcement. As the right honourable Liz Kendall said yesterday, in this country we would propose highly effective age verification, as is working for pornography, as opposed to the weaker Australian reasonable steps. Many countries are also moving to a similar approach to this, and the social media companies have admitted that this can be done if they put their minds to it, so this concern is unfounded.

It is essential that we play catch-up with the pace of change online much faster than we are. It would be such a small step for the Government to now accept the principles of my amendment—not to have what some have called a blanket ban but for this merely to be used highly selectively and definitely not to apply to apps for particular vulnerable groups. The consultation can then be about how to effect this and learning over the next 12 months from Australia and the many other countries effecting similar measures. The rest of the consultation can then be about the equally urgent matters of AI companions and chatbots, VPNs and the other matters it covers. The Government have acted swiftly on pornography, nudification, intimate image abuse, cyber flashing, content that promotes self-harm and suicide, the preservation of data after the death of a child, and other areas. But on this, the Government have merely said in their amendment that they will make a statement about progress within six months. This commits them to nothing.

Over a six-month period, the LLMs that drive products such as ChatGPT and Claude will become twice as powerful, have access to twice as much data and run at half the cost. We have to play catch-up much faster. It was clear from the shocking evidence discovered in the American trials that there are people of conscience in social media companies, but they were suppressed. It would be morally irresponsible of us to allow this to happen in this country and I urge noble Lords to vote for my Motion.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, during the short time we have been debating a ban on social media for under-16s, several countries have brought in or are discussing such a ban. Even China is due to bring in restrictions on the use of mobile phones and social media. Those who argue that our children will be at a disadvantage for not accessing social media should realise, that most children will be in the same boat: they will not be at a disadvantage. That is why I am supporting the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think we have all agreed that there are troubling aspects of social media usage among young people, which are taken very seriously. It is very appropriate for parents, teachers and policymakers to be concerned and to discuss how best to help children navigate the digital world. From previous contributions, people will know that I am not sympathetic to the banning approach. I am not going to rehearse that, but I want to make a couple of points.

First, I am still very concerned about the Government’s proposed Henry VIII powers. I appreciate the sunset clause from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but I tend to go along with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, has explained it, because we cannot just keep handing over power to the Executive and saying, “We trust you to get on with it”. I am not convinced that that trust is merited.

In general, however, I appreciate that the Government have been more open about consulting on this difficult issue. I hope that continues and I encourage the Minister, and the Government in general, to consider new evidence as it comes in. The experiment in Australia shows things not just about social media or the big tech companies, but about the way that children have got around the ban and are now using unregulated sites, with some danger to themselves. If the Government are still open, that is very important, because there are enough experts—scientists and other people working in this field—who really are concerned that the pressure for a drastic policy such as this, with social media harms becoming a go-to explanation and bans becoming a go-to solution for a wide range of the cultural and political challenges facing young people, is something we need to be careful of. Oxford psychologist Lucy Foulkes describes it as a “neat explanation”. She says that

“social media makes a nice bogeyman, but the claim is just not backed up by the data”.

Can the Minister clarify, in terms of the consultation and the gathering of information to inform policy, whether there will also be discussions about weighing up the pros and cons of bans and so on, with the unintended consequences for vital democratic freedoms? Could age-gating, for example, lead to a form of digital verification for adults, which would be illiberal? There is also the impact on socialising the young. I know we have heard that, if everyone is banning it, that is okay; I am not convinced that China banning anything is something I want to be excited about, personally. We have to weigh up whether putting an emphasis on safetyism outweighs the potential benefits of teaching young people how to negotiate the digital world, rather than just taking them off it.

On the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, there are a couple of things that I am not sure about and need clarification on. In the phrasing

“are likely to cause, encourage or facilitate compulsive, obsessive, addictive or other unhealthy behaviours”,

“are likely to cause” seems to me to be the opposite of evidence-based. How does that decision get taken on board?

On the use of “addictive” and the allegation that these are addictive apps and so on, should we just uncritically accept that? I know that it is being used in the law courts in America, but accepting the “addiction” label medicalises bad habits and relieves the young of any responsibility for their own behaviour. Is there a danger here of teaching the young that they have no control and peddling a myth of powerlessness in relation to technology and young people’s own desire in just wanting to do things? You can imagine that, “It’s not my fault; it’s the algorithm what done it”—always blaming someone else—is a danger that undermines the lessons that young people should learn about self-discipline in order to grow up as independent moral agents.

Finally, on teaching lessons—maybe I misunderstood this—in Motion A2, under the heading,

“Supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services”,


which sounds very educational, and obviously we are discussing a schools Bill, it seems to me that there is a danger in the curriculum of overintervention. It is one thing teaching business models and implications of online collection of children’s data. The Minister explained the issues around digital literacy well and I am all for that; it is a positive thing. But adding to primary legislation such centralised, specific demands, as they seem to be, that the national curriculum

“should contain 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”

just feels to me like PR for the Bill. I am not entirely sure that it is helpful for children. It sounds far too much like politicising the agenda rather than making it open-minded.

I am involved in a schools sixth-form debating competition called Debating Matters. We have a motion that is for or against the ban on social media for under-16s. There are two sides to this debate and, even if there is law change, I would not want the curriculum to teach only one side of the debate as though it is the truth and the final word, because that would be manipulative and not right.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tabled his amendment at the first stage, when we were battling with the House of Commons on the drafting of the Bill, I gave him my support and voted against the Government. I voted against the Government not because I was against them but because, as I told my noble friend the Minister, I wanted them to have another thought about this issue. They have now had another thought about this issue and proposed legislation that is considerably stronger than the legislation we last looked at. Therefore, I welcome the position that the noble Lord has now taken.

A few years ago, in professional circumstances, I had the duty to look at some of the pornography that is available, and I have to tell your Lordships that it is quite vile. I have no reason to think that it is any better now: it is probably more vile.

The other thing that we should take strongly into account is the access that is required to get into and view the pornography that is available on the internet. It is a much bigger problem than we might perceive.

So, my present position is that I again support the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but in his more sophisticated approach of accepting the government amendments but suggesting that there could be some improvements. I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept the proposed improvements that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has moved.

16:00

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I say at the outset that I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, should she choose to test the opinion of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. What I have already said at great length is recorded in Hansard, so I will just say that the scope, the timing, the lack of scrutiny, the consultation itself and now the idea that a report to Parliament is an effective form of scrutiny are all problematic. I would prefer banning unfit companies’ access to children rather than banning children.

However, even if the amendments in front of us were perfect in all those ways, they still would not be effective. I met Ministers last week, and they freely admitted that neither their plans nor the amendments address the fundamental problem of enforcement. If we pass any one of the amendments in their current form we will simply give Ofcom more duties but no powers, and parents will still have absolutely nowhere to go when their child is in danger. Over the past six weeks, I have put forward measures on an individual redress mechanism, injunctive powers for parents when their child is at immediate risk of harm, individual liability to concentrate the minds of senior executives, and a review of Ofcom’s wider enforcement powers, including its ability effectively to issue a business disruption notice. Each is essential to making this regime work, and each has been rejected by the Government. None is included in the amendments, none is included in the consultation and none, I am told, will be in the King’s Speech.

The Prime Minister said last week that this cannot go on. I agree. It is staggering that, two years into his Government, every promise made to parents has been kicked down the road. The Government are building on top of a regime that they know does not work. In the best-case scenario, we will get regulations with more unenforceable duties that have not been scrutinised in 2027, maybe in 2028—indeed, if we do not pass the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, maybe not at all.

I too heard the Secretary of State yesterday. She announced that she would extend her newly acquired powers over chatbots—put into the Bill only last Thursday—to child online harms, having rejected the very possibility that the House put forward on Thursday. This is not a serious approach. The Government should come back with an amendment that offers a proper prospect of immediate and meaningful change and proper enforcement to tackle this so that our children are safe online.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall briefly add to the eloquent contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I recognise that all parties have moved and that the groups of amendments are much closer than they were when we last debated this topic. However, I worry that the pressure is still on the child, not on the tech companies.

I too will support my noble friend Lord Nash should he choose to divide the House, but I ask the Government to think carefully, when they bring back the next group of amendments—as I suspect they will need to—about what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, just said about setting up a regime that, in technical economist-speak, internalises the risks within the company so that the company has to bear the cost to work out how its products are safe enough for our children to use. That is what we do in the physical world. We do not ban children using toys; we enforce health and safety legislation so that toys cannot be sold to children unless they are safe. Unfortunately, I fear too much of this is banning children and not enough is holding executives and businesses to account to make their products suitable for children.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I largely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who brings all the rigour that you would expect from an MBA from Harvard Business School to the analysis of this problem. Ultimately, it is a business issue. These companies are making a vast amount of money from, basically, monetising the time that these children are spending on what are designed to be addictive products. That is the simple truth. Until and unless we find a way of disrupting the business models of the companies behind those platforms in such a way that it hurts them—the point at which individual directors and senior executives know they will be held personally accountable and may well go to jail, as well as the companies being fined vast amounts of money—there will really not be a tipping point. This often feels like pushing water uphill.

I want to make a point about educational technology. We are focusing very much on smartphones and the terrible effects they are having on so many young people. Simultaneously, the Government have been promoting, quietly but overtly over many years, the increased use of technology in schools, from primary schools onwards, partly as an understandable result of Covid, when your Lordships’ House even managed to embrace technology to a degree that many of us would have thought completely unthinkable. Schools have indeed been embracing technology, and in many cases the effects on the young people in those schools that have done so are not good.

Many countries of the world have recognised this and are doing a complete U-turn on their previous eagerness to get children in front of touchscreens and computer programs. They are trying to reverse the effects because they have been doing it for long enough that they have seen the evidence produced of the effect that it has on children: reduced attention spans and reduced vocabulary. In Scandinavia—surprise, surprise—libraries are doing the unthinkable: they are bringing back books, having largely decided to no longer invest in them five or six years ago.

I appeal to the Government, and particularly to the Department for Education, to look carefully at what is going on in schools. Schools need advice from the Government about how to deal with this issue. The blandishments of these companies, which are large, sophisticated and profitable in selling their products to schools, have all the smoothness of a tobacco or asbestos salesman, but in many cases their terms and conditions mean they are monetising those children and their details, along with the schools’ details, and the educational product they are producing is substandard.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D on the phone ban. The Minister talked about strengthening guidance and Ofsted being able to inspect schools’ mobile phone policies, but I speak as a parent as well as a teacher when I say that parents do not understand statutory footing; they understand a legal ban. If the Government want to reduce unnecessary burdens on head teachers then, from what we have seen over and again, that has to mean an outright ban in the Bill.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley in his Motion A1. We are united across this House and, indeed, across Parliament in our desire to protect children from the significant harms of the online world, but, as we consider these amendments in lieu, we are presented with three rather different legislative strategies.

The Government’s proposal in Motion A asks this House to grant sweeping, enduring Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State, allowing them to amend or repeal primary legislation via secondary regulations. The Government’s amendments remain completely silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government are fighting big tech with one arm tied behind their back, regulating, as we have heard today, the user rather than fixing the product.

I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his tireless and principled campaigning in this area, and I welcome the fact that his Motion A2 attempts to rein in the Government’s executive overreach by applying a two-year sunset clause to these Henry VIII powers. I recognise that his amendments are no longer a blanket ban, but his core proposal remains a blunt instrument. Although well-intentioned, this approach is built entirely on exclusion. It risks creating a dangerous cliff edge for young people: rather than helping children to safely develop digital resilience, it would potentially suddenly expose them to the unfiltered internet the moment they turned 16.

Motion A1, by contrast, offers a far more precise, workable and future-proof alternative. Instead of handing unchecked powers to Ministers or trying to build an impossible wall around the internet, it places direct statutory duties on tech companies to clean up their platforms. As we have heard, that is essential. Under our Amendment 38Q, where any user is identified as being under 16, the platform must apply proportionate measures to limit the supply of addictive design features and prevent access to harmful content. As my honourable friend, Munira Wilson MP, stated in the Commons:

“This needs to be big tech’s seatbelt moment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/26; col. 920.]


Recent US court cases, which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, mentioned, have exposed internal documents showing that tech executives deliberately designed these platforms to keep children hooked. Motion A1 would dismantle this addictive architecture, preserve parliamentary sovereignty and spark a race to the top for safe, enriching online spaces. I urge the House to support that approach.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend’s Motion A2 and my Motion D1. My noble friend has once again laid out the arguments in favour of his Motion A2 most eloquently and elegantly and the Minister in her opening remarks talked about it being

“not whether but how and what action will be taken”

by the Government. Her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today have at different times made a commitment to act. But that is not what we have in the Government’s amendment. Their amendment is not a commitment to act; my noble friend’s amendment is. I hope that the Ministers opposite will forgive me for pointing out that the only charities they ever quote are those which have caution about the approach that my noble friend is advocating. As he said, over 40 charities have signed the principles document that has been developed with them. Of course, that gives those of us on this side of the House reason for real concern as to why no other charities are ever quoted in interviews by the Government.

My noble friend’s amendment has several material advantages over the Government’s current approach. First is the simplicity in that the commitment to act is in the Bill. Your Lordships are very familiar with the risks posed by putting everything in secondary legislation, particularly secondary legislation with an enormous Henry VIII-shaped power. Secondly, it puts into effect the Prime Minister’s commitment but also allows the Government to use the consultation to shape the “how”—including on enforcement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly pointed out, and in relation to breadth and scope—but it sets out very clearly at proposed subsection (4)(a)(i) to (iv) the principles that would be followed in relation to addictive behaviour, serious harm and exploitation, illegal content and loss of privacy; your Lordships, I know, will have read the amendment. Thirdly, with great simplicity, it also sunsets the Henry VIII powers, which I think we can welcome across the House.

16:15

As my noble friend said, the US court cases have changed the evidence and the conversation. There is a simple way forward for the Government to resolve this impasse, which is to accept the principles that underpin my noble friend’s amendment. They may choose to use different words, but the principles should remain. The Minister talked about action that is not just swift but appropriate. However, the government amendment still allows for inaction; it would still allow the Government to do nothing at the end of this. My noble friend’s amendment does not leave that option. That is not an option that Ministers say they want. I think they should close that loophole when, as I hope, we come back to this at a future point.

I turn to my Motion D1 in relation to smartphones and mobile phones in schools. Before I speak to that, I would like to put on record my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on edtech. He will remember the amendments that we had at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I think that is a serious issue for the House to come back to. Unfortunately, I was unaware until the noble Baroness announced it that there was going to be a change in the Government’s position, which I find at the least curious since the amendment has been in my name throughout. Obviously, who they choose to speak to and take advice from is the Government’s prerogative, but, as the Minister knows, I wrote to her office asking for clarification last week by email and I have received absolutely no reply, so I find that unfortunate to say the least.

Even with the statutory guidance announcement that the noble Baroness just made, the current guidance the Government have published, which they now propose to put on a statutory footing, still allows schools to have a “not seen, not heard” policy—the noble Baroness is shaking her head. I asked for confirmation from the department and got none, so in that silence I went to a number of school and trust leaders and asked them. The answer I got was that there is, at best, confusion and, at worst, an assumption, including from schools which currently have a “not seen, not heard” policy, that that can continue unchanged and “will continue to be the norm in schools”.

If the Government agree that that is not what children and teachers need, they need to put it clearly in their guidance that it is unacceptable. I appreciate they have taken out the example of using bags and jackets—whatever it is—to put a phone in. They just need to say, in words of one syllable so that schools understand it, that this is not an acceptable policy. There is much evidence that the presence of a smartphone in one’s bag or pocket is a distraction. The temptation to turn it on when going to the lavatory, when out of sight or when in the playground is almost irresistible—indeed, it happens to adults too. Given that that is the case, putting flawed guidance on a statutory footing achieves nothing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, said, there is no distinction in the Government’s approach between smartphones and brick phones or dumb phones. The Government talk about how keen they are to give headteachers discretion in this area —not something they were very keen on in every other amendment to this Bill—but the distinction is really important, because it has a bearing on when children first get a smartphone. Parents want to be able to contact their children on the journey to and from school, but they do not need a smartphone for that, so there needs to be distinction in the guidance as well. The Government are obviously very resistant to accepting an opposition amendment, even when headteachers are calling for them to do so. I do not know why headteachers, parents and children would not thank them if they saw sense and accepted this amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, on Motions A, A1 and A2, the Government, as I think I made clear in opening this debate, recognise the concerns raised in this House and the strength of feeling among parents about protecting children online. As I and other Ministers have said, we share that commitment. This is a complex issue, with a range of views, expressed once again today during this debate, about how it is best approached.

Points were made by noble Lords about enforcement, the development of the online safety regime, and other issues that my noble friend Lady Lloyd and others in DSIT will continue to think carefully about. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, slightly took us back to discussions that we had earlier on the issue of edtech. I am happy to provide him with further information, expanding on the information that I gave in Committee, about the approach that the Government are taking, particularly to develop the evidence around what is and is not appropriate use of technology in the classroom. Given the strength of feeling, we have been clear in government that it is important that we act not only quickly but in the right way.

The cases in the US, as commented on by noble Lords, have rightly and understandably raised interest. While we do not comment on foreign court judgments, we welcome international efforts to strengthen online safety and will want to learn from what is happening around the world. However, I note that the UK has the most robust online safety framework in the world, with a regulator empowered to issue fines of the same order of magnitude or larger. That is why the Government have announced that we are going to take further action to protect children’s well-being online through our consultation.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others have identified, there is a range of action in different countries; I agree that it is not the same action in different countries. I was fortunate, before I was confined to my bed before recess, to go to New York, to the Commission on the Status of Women, where I attended a useful session with a focus on the action taken by different countries to protect children online. What I thought was notable was the wide range of different approaches being taken in different countries—different ages, different scope and different speeds at which it was happening. We cannot simply look abroad to find a consistent approach. That is why, while watching very closely what other countries are doing, we want to be confident that what we introduce here works and works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why testing options now, taking evidence from families themselves and putting in place the legislative powers to act quickly once the consultation closes is the right thing to do. It means that we can move in months, not years.

As has been said on numerous occasions, the Government’s consultation looks beyond a simple social media ban to a wider range of harms, from addictive design to time spent online, allowing for a more comprehensive and effective response with long-lasting outcomes. It considers at least some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In other developments, as I outlined in my opening speech, the Government are taking action through the curriculum, supporting schools to enable children and young people to be much clearer about media literacy and the nature of what they will encounter online at some point, whenever that may be in their lives, when they have access to it. This is clearly an important development, both in the curriculum and in the way in which our schools are teaching.

We have listened to concerns about pace, which was another important theme of the debate today. The argument is that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would enable faster movement, because we would not need to consult. The Government have laid the groundwork to act swiftly on the outcome of our current consultation without the need for lengthy primary legislation. It is a short, sharp consultation, which we believe is the right thing to do to make sure that we take the right approach. I reiterate that we have been clear that it is not a question of if but how we act. In addition, the government amendment would allow any subsequent regulations to capture a wider range of harmful features and functionalities and to tailor measures to where harms are actually occurring. We are committed to working as quickly as possible to deliver additional protections. We will not wait years, as with the Online Safety Act. We are determined to get it right and we will not compromise on what is best for our children’s future.

There is concern about scope—I think I have responded to some of that concern—and scrutiny. That is why we have tabled legislative powers to act swiftly on the basis of evidence, alongside a clear commitment in the Bill to report to Parliament within six months. We have made it clear that these powers can be used only for the purposes of protecting children. I hear the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Clement-Jones, about Henry VIII powers. To be clear, the power permits the Secretary of State to apply only existing parts of the Online Safety Act, with modification if needed, to ensure that the new regulations are effectively incorporated into the legal framework. The power would not allow this Government, or any future Government, to amend the existing online safety duties. We have been clear that the powers must have due regard to the effects on children of different ages and we have provided, as I outlined in my opening comments, for meaningful scrutiny, through engagement with relevant Select Committees, before any regulations are laid. We have been clear throughout, as demonstrated through these new legislative powers, how we will do this both quickly and effectively.

Moving on to the issue of mobile phones, it is important to reiterate that there has already been progress in the ways in which schools deal with mobile phones. We know that the majority of schools have policies that prohibit mobile phones, which is why we believe that Amendment 106 is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, slightly understated the changes that we have made to the guidance and the range of other measures that we have put in place around the guidance to support head teachers and to enable it to be implemented more quickly.

On the specific issue of whether “not seen, not heard” as an approach is appropriate, she is right—we have now taken that out of the guidance, and we would be willing to consider whether we should be stronger on that. The question that the noble Baroness asked was whether the use of guidance would make this impossible. She knows that the point of guidance, whether statutory or non-statutory, is to provide clarity in the broadest context about how we expect schools to operate in this area. It is a complex area where different schools and different head teachers might have different ways of achieving the outcome—we are all clear that there should not be access to mobile phones for children at any point in the school day—but it is not possible for me to say that it would be impossible, as she knows.

16:30

However, as I have said, we have moved on this. We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, both in this House and beyond. That is why today, to recognise that—notwithstanding the fact that we think the guidance already in place provides head teachers and schools with a range of approaches to be able to deliver the objective that we all share—we are committing to tabling an amendment in lieu, which will place the existing guidance on a statutory footing in the Bill, creating a clear legal requirement for schools.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, knows from his experience in schools that having guidance which is statutory is a clear statement to head teachers, parents and others that what is included in that guidance will be expected to be happening in schools, and it provides the ability for schools, as I have suggested, to be able to deliver that in the way that is most appropriate. It is an important message for head teachers, if they feel they need it, to be able to say, “Look, this guidance and what it expects from schools is statutory”. In doing that, we have listened to concerns about how we support head teachers in delivering on this policy, and we have listened to Parliament.

This approach is robust, proportionate and effective. It ensures clarity and certainty going forward so that all schools can become mobile free. Given those assurances and the progress that the Government have made in both areas of this group, I hope that noble Lords will feel able as soon as possible to bring these issues to a conclusion as part of this Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, both the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I raised the issue of smartphones as distinct from mobile phones. I understood the Minister to say that she would consider improving the guidance to make it clear that “not seen, not heard” was not in line with the spirit of the guidance. Will she also undertake to look at whether there is any refinement that could be considered in relation to smartphones?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I will undertake to do that. I think it is interesting that that type of question is exactly the reason why the use of what will become statutory guidance is a more appropriate way of dealing with the nuances of this issue than the type of legislative ban on the face of the Bill that some people are arguing for. Because of that flexibility, I will undertake to do that.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her comments and response to the points raised. I thank all noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out clearly, alongside myself, our position on social media. I welcome the comments on having better clarity on the smartphones issue. I am not minded to test the opinion of the House on this occasion.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) withdrawn.

Motion A2 (as an amendment to Motion A)

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)”

38W: In subsection (2), at the end of inserted subsection (8) insert “, subject to subsection (8A).
(8A) Regulations made more than two years after the day on which the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is passed may not amend or repeal primary legislation or apply any provision of this Act with modification.”

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.

16:35

Division 1

Motion A2 agreed.

Ayes: 284

Noes: 158

16:46

Motion B

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41C.

41C: Because the Commons do not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of periodic reviews to the statutory guidance about the cost of school uniform and because the Department for Education will continue to monitor the cost of school uniform and review the impact of the provisions about school uniform in the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion B, I shall speak also to Motions B1, C and C1. In this group, we will debate amendments relating to school uniforms and admissions.

Motion B relates to Amendment 41B. Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to review the effectiveness of a numeric limit on branded uniform within 12 months, alongside consideration of a monetary cap. His subsequent Motion would require a review of the effectiveness of measures to control branded item costs within 12 months.

I thank the noble Lord again for his championing of this issue. I know from our conversations how dear this issue is to him and how determined he is to make a difference for the children and families in his home town and up and down the country. I admire his commitment to thinking about the various ways in which we can achieve that. I make it clear that we share the aim of bringing down costs for parents, in particular for those who find it most difficult to afford school uniforms. This Government of course want to understand the impact that our manifesto commitment has made and whether it is meeting our shared objectives. As required with legislation, we will conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the policy and consider any modifications that may be recommended.

Furthermore, the DfE has engaged with parents and school leaders extensively, over many years, on school uniform policies, including conducting detailed cost surveys. We will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence. For this reason, legislation on this is unnecessary.

The priority now is to provide certainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent. We fear that these amendments might risk some uncertainty at a time when schools will be focused on implementing a numeric limit, which was not only a government manifesto commitment but was backed by both parents and the British public. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and enforceable, and we have committed to further strengthening existing statutory guidance to be clear that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided.

Motion C relates to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, insists on this amendment. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number—PAN—following an upheld objection. The Government are committed to ensuring that quality and parental choice are central to PAN decisions. Our amendment in lieu, introduced in the other place, makes this clear by ensuring that regulations will require the adjudicator to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference when specifying a school’s PAN following an upheld objection.

However, the noble Baroness’s amendment would create a blanket exemption for a significant proportion of schools, with no allowance for local circumstances such as the scale of demographic change. It would hinder sensible, community-focused decision-making. For example, in areas such as London, where most schools are performing well, significantly falling pupil numbers are impacting even good schools. Local authorities and schools are already taking tough decisions about closures, amalgamations and PAN reductions. This measure can and should be part of the solution to ensure that all pupils continue to have a choice of high-quality school places close to home.

Our amendment in lieu will be reinforced through new statutory principles that we intend to apply through secondary legislation, as set out in the policy paper we distributed before the recess. These will inform adjudicator decisions and help ensure that the reduction of good school places will only ever occur as a last resort.

As I emphasised, we are committed to ensuring that school quality and parental choice are central to any decisions on PAN, as set out in the published policy paper and reflected in the amendment passed in the other place, which we are considering today. That is why I can confirm that, should this House desire it, the Government will bring forward an amendment in the other place. This will reflect our commitment that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of decisions on PAN by placing in the Bill a requirement on adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objective.

I also commit that we will require the adjudicator, through a mix of primary and secondary legislation, to consult key parties, including the admissions authority, the local authority and the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing the PAN before making a determination.

Collectively, this will ensure that reducing places at great schools is only ever a last resort and deliver a choice of good local school places for communities. We will continue to engage with stakeholders, including the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including proposed changes to secondary legislation and the School Admissions Code. We will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education. The CST has welcomed the amendment made in the other place to the Bill as a step towards achieving that. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 41D in lieu of Amendment 41B—

41D: Clause 29, page 50, line 21, at end insert—
“551ZB School uniforms: review of limits on branded items
(1) The Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of measures intended to limit the cost to parents of branded items of school uniform required by the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use during a school year.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the coming into force of section 551ZA, lay the review under subsection (1) before Parliament.””

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the time she gave last week. It enabled me to better understand where she and the Government are coming from and gave me the opportunity to highlight why I think school uniforms and their cost are important, hence my amendment. As your Lordships may recall, I benefited from a policy that David Blunkett—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—brought in. When my father lost his job in the steel industry in Sheffield, I was on free school meals. We were able to go to the local education authority and get some clothing for school. That lived experience is driving me to try to do the best for young people in Sheffield and across the country.

I absolutely do not doubt that the Government want to reduce the cost of school uniforms. Their measure is to reduce the number of items required, while mine asked for a cap on the cost. As noble Lords may have seen from the amendments we have now tabled, I have stopped asking for that, but I am saying to the Government that, at some point, 12 months from implementation, when they have that review, I hope they will be willing to at least re-look at the possibilities of a cap.

More important for me, going back to that lived experience, I want to keep pushing the Government to say how they will provide help and support. They are going to limit the cost of school uniforms by potentially limiting the numbers, but there is still a cost involved. I want the Government, as and when they can—once the economy picks up, I hope—to support every child who is on free school meals. I hope the Minister can comment on that when she gets up to respond.

On the amendments on the PAN, I will read out information I got this morning from the Confederation of School Trusts. It said: “We are grateful to the Government for the work they have done to bring forward this amendment, which goes some way towards addressing our concerns about the potential impact of this policy on the quality of educational provision in the area. We think the amendments need to go further. Specifically, we believe that schools adjudicators should be under a legal duty to consider”—and this is in bold—“other ways of achieving effective and efficient provision in the area if the local authority is seeking to reduce the PAN for high-performing schools. In order to make a good decision, the school adjudicator should therefore be required in law to consult the relevant DfE regional directors”.

Therefore, we still have concerns, given that the CST has been in touch with us and our colleagues down the Corridor to ask the Government to go further. I hope that, when the Minister gets up, she can give us the confidence that the CST wants.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, in relation to school uniform and the focus that he has brought to this in the later stages of the Bill.

I will speak to my Motion C1. I recognise that the Government have moved on prioritising quality and parental preference—and it sounds as though they are going to move a bit further, if I followed what the Minister just said. However, we do not believe that the amendment as drafted resolves the issue at the heart of this. On this side of the House, we of course recognise the pressure on schools and local authorities from falling rolls in certain parts of the country. Our concern is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for local authorities. The easiest thing for them to do is cut the published admission numbers of the larger and more popular schools, particularly if those schools are academies, as a way of addressing that problem.

The Minister described my amendment as a blanket exemption. There are an awful lot of blankets in the Chamber this afternoon, and I do not see how one could interpret it as such. My amendment covers both academies and maintained schools, and its starting point is that consideration must be given to effective and efficient provision in an area. I am not entirely clear why that is a blanket exemption. It would require the school adjudicator to consider the shape of local provision and to explicitly consider mergers and closures.

17:00

The presumption is that we must prioritise what is best for children. That often translates into the most popular schools and how well they support children with special educational needs and disabilities—something that the Government do not want to damage. The principles of prioritising the quality of education and protecting parental choice need more than the Government have set out, given the conflict of interest that local authorities face.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I support Motion C1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I emphasise to the Minister that schools with falling rolls receive enormous support at the moment through lagged funding. They receive payment for pupils whom they no longer have, for at least a year.

On the other side of the coin, for those of us who are trying to improve previously failing schools, the opposite applies. We are part of something called estimated funding. Under the current Government—I respect the difficult financial position—estimated funding is zero funding. To add to that, they are proposing a new system, with an adjudicator who can make the decision to go to an improving school—as happened to us before this legislation was proposed—to reduce the size of the PAN. It was administratively convenient for the local authority to do that, because it would have suffered no financial harm itself.

The noble Baroness’s Motion strengthens the protection. We are still left with uncertainty in how the adjudicator process would work and how long it would take, and whether we should budget for increasing roles or not, pending some decision which will take I have no idea how long. I urge your Lordships to support the noble Baroness’s Motion to bring some common sense to this.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I support the points made by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. We are approaching the end of our consideration of this legislation, which comes as we all reflect on the huge gains that have been made by English schools in the last two decades. Improvements in schools in England have not been matched by schools in Scotland or Wales. This is not because students in Scotland and Wales are less intelligent or teachers less motivated but because the reforms that were introduced under Tony Blair and sustained during the coalition years and thereafter had two principles at their heart: greater autonomy for the front line and support for good schools to expand, so that their practice could be adopted by schools that were performing less well and so more students could benefit.

Of the two final elements that we are considering here, a government cap on the number of labelled items of school uniform that a school can require of its students is a preposterous piece of micromanagement, driven by the worst sort of virtue signalling. It is designed to convey that the Government are on the side of the poor, even as the measures on planned pupil admission numbers restrict the access of poor students to the very best schools.

When it comes to school uniform, we know from the voices of head teachers on the front line the benefits that an effective school uniform policy can have in contributing to ethos, discipline and a sense of inclusivity when our society is increasingly tribalised and polarised. Rather than listen to the testimony of head teachers—including the country’s very best head teacher, Katharine Birbalsingh, who has pointed out the folly of this policy—the Government insist that the best way of helping the poor is price capping and telling head teachers that they know better. All the evidence of history flies in the face of the course that the Government are setting. The fact that we have an absurd question about whether or not there should be an overall price cap or a price cap on particular items just shows the folly of going down this micro-interventionist line.

The second element that we are debating is pupil admissions numbers. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that there are reasons why we should take account of quality and of the wishes of pupils and parents, but the most effective way of doing so is by not capping the growth of good schools. This legislation allows the Government and their agencies to cap the growth of those good schools to keep less-good schools open and provide a less-good education in the name of bureaucratic and local government convenience.

The purpose of school reform is to give pupils a better education, not to make life easier for bureaucrats or head teachers who are not performing their responsibility. Once again, I wonder what the point of the last two decades of education reform was if the current Government are going to look at those two decades, when politicians across parties were united in increasing autonomy at the front line and helping good schools to expand, and diminish the force of both those changes. It is not too late for the Minister, who played a very distinguished role in the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, to say to the current Prime Minister and the current Education Secretary that it is time to learn the lesson from those who went before, rather than repeating the mistakes of a socialist and interventionist past.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken in this small debate. I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gove, to the consideration of the Bill. I am not sure that he contributed in the very many sessions we have had up until this point, but better late than never. As always, he had something interesting to say, even if I think he is wrong and disagree with him.

Let us focus, as this group does, on Motion B and Motion B1 on Lords Amendment 41D, which seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. As I said in my opening speech, we believe that these amendments are necessary, and I commit to the noble Lord that we will monitor the impact as we implement the limit. That does not need to be in legislation, and the amendment risks creating some uncertainty for schools and parents at a time when schools will be implementing the limit.

For noble Lords’ information, the limit was included in the Government’s manifesto, is widely welcomed by parents and others, and is focused on what we believe is the simplest way to deliver this, which is a limit on branded items in school uniforms. We have been clear about our concerns with a cost cap, which is not the proposal here, and do not believe it would be the most effective way to reduce costs for parents. Our proposal for a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, will deliver savings more quickly and is overwhelmingly backed by parents.

On the discussion about admissions, several noble Lords have spoken to Motion C, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, which insists on it. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number. This proposition in this legislation is very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in. If we were in a position where the number of children in our schools was growing then all of us—as was the case with the previous Labour Government—would be very relaxed about allowing good schools to expand with no control or very little limitation, but that is not the situation we find ourselves in.

As I suggested in my opening speech, the fall in the number of children coming through the system will create difficult decisions to be made in some areas. They will make the local authority responsibility to ensure a sufficiency of places more complex and risk a situation where good schools are forced to close because of a failure to be able to consider the impact of falling numbers across a range of schools. That is the context in which we are introducing this measure.

This Government support good schools expanding where that is right for the local area. In fact, this measure may help to secure more places in high-performing schools in areas where they are needed, but the noble Baroness’s Motion does not allow sufficient nuance to ensure that local circumstances can be taken into account, especially in this time of changing demographics. Our amendments in lieu will ensure that an independent decision can be taken by the adjudicator, in the local context, and with school quality and parental preference at its heart.

I will respond to a few of the charges made by noble Lords opposite. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is understandably concerned that local authorities might misuse this power to reduce the number of places at academies. To be clear, and I know that the noble Baroness knows this, local authorities will not be able to set an academy’s PAN. The schools adjudicator, not the local authority, will be the final decision-maker. The adjudicator is independent and impartial, and will come to their own independent conclusion on whether to uphold an objection to the PAN.

The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggested—given his experience, including his ministerial experience, I am not sure that he meant this—that we were inventing a new set of bureaucrats, in his and others’ words. That is not true. The school adjudicator system has existed and played a very similar role throughout the whole period of the previous Government and the period of the previous Labour Government. This is not something new. What is more, of course, the statutory School Admissions Code and the new regulations that we have committed to will set out what the adjudicator must consider where they uphold an objection and subsequently set the PAN for the school.

As reflected in our amendment, school quality and parental choice will be central considerations and ensure that this power is not used to prop up failing schools. School adjudicators, as I have said, have existed for some time and are independent. They have significant experience of considering objection cases and already consider both objections to PAN reductions and requests by maintained schools to vary their PAN downwards, in the light of a major change in circumstances. They possess considerable, extensive and comprehensive knowledge of the education system and they include MAT CEOs, head teachers, education lawyers and local authority directors, so the characterisation of them as bureaucrats is both factually inaccurate and unfair.

Our amendments would ensure, as I have said, that the independent, expert adjudicator—the system which has existed for very many years throughout several Governments—will be required, in making this decision, to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference. They also enable the Government to make regulations on other matters which the adjudicator must or must not take account of when deciding on a PAN.

I just reiterate the point that I made in opening. We recognise the point made by the Confederation of School Trusts about the requirement for the adjudicator to consider, in addition to quality and parental preference, the effectiveness and efficiency of the provision in an area and to consult key parties, including the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing a PAN before making a determination. It is clear that alternatives must have been considered as part of that process.

17:15

As I reiterated in my opening comments, collectively, this will ensure that reducing places is only ever a last resort and will be done only to deliver a choice of good local school places for communities and, in some cases, to protect good schools in the light of the demographic challenges with which we are currently grappling and which will only become more severe in the coming years. We will continue to engage with stakeholders on this, but I hope that noble Lords are reassured about our commitment to quality and parental preference and to safeguarding those things at a time of change and challenge, given the demographic position.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response to the issue of the cost of school uniforms in particular. I am partly reassured by her commitment. I wish her and her Government well in trying to help with dealing with the cost of school uniforms. She can rest assured that it is not a topic that I will let go of in the next 12 months. I will be constantly snapping at her heels to make sure that the commitments she has given from the Dispatch Box are fulfilled. With that, I am not minded to test the opinion of the House.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) withdrawn.

Motion B agreed.

Motion C

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

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 102C to 102G.

102C: Clause 56, page 118, line 33, leave out “may make provision”

102D: Clause 56, page 118, line 34, at beginning insert “must make provision”

102E: Clause 56, page 118, line 37, at beginning insert “may make provision”

102F: Clause 56, page 118, line 38, at end insert—
“(6A) The provision made by virtue of subsection (6)(a) must include provision requiring the adjudicator to have regard to 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.”

102G: 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).”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 102 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 102C to 102G.”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

They should have known better. What we have heard this afternoon is that, at the 11th hour, the Government are focusing on trying to get an amendment right on published admission numbers. We have not seen that work yet and it is the 11th hour. As a result, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

17:18

Division 2

Motion C1 agreed.

Ayes: 259

Noes: 180

17:30

Motion D

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

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 106C to 106E.

106C: Page 50, line 25, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
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 Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions relating 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) The “appropriate person” is—
(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.

106D: Clause 66, page 124, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) section (Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England);”

106E: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about guidance relating to use of mobile phones and other interactive communication devices in schools;”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D, and I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 106 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 106C to 106E.”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would like to test the opinion of the House.

17:31

Division 3

Motion D1 agreed.

Ayes: 276

Noes: 169