Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 38 and 105 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

After Clause 9

Sibling contact with children in care

17:17

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 17B.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 38, but does not insist on its Amendments 38A to 38D and proposes Amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 41B.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 102, but proposes Amendments (a) to (e) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 106, but proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

That this House agrees with Lords amendment 105B.

[Olivia Bailey]

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will cut the cost of sending children to school, drive high and rising standards in our schools, and is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation. This Labour Government are ambitious for every single child in this country. This Bill will lift over 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals, deliver breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, and make our children safer, both in and out of school, online and offline.

Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, both in the Commons and the Lords. In response, we are offering, where appropriate, amendments in lieu. I will speak first to the two Government amendments made in the House of Lords.

Government amendment 17B, on sibling contact, strengthens the right of children in care to maintain contact with their siblings. It is a travesty that children in care can end up losing contact with their brothers and sisters, and we want that to change. I particularly acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who has been campaigning for this measure for a long time and deserves huge credit. I also thank others who have campaigned on the issue, including Baroness Tyler of Enfield, for their continued championing of this hugely important topic.

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

I warmly welcome Government amendment 17B, which strengthens obligations to support sibling contact for children who are looked after. As the Minister knows, this is often the most important relationship that those children have. I pay tribute to the Family Rights Group and Become, as well as the campaigners she mentioned, for their important work in this area. The Education Committee recommended that the Government collect data on sibling separation in the care system in order to drive improvements in this area. As part of the implementation of amendment 17B, will the Minister commit to data collection, so that we can be certain that this measure is having the intended effect?

[Olivia Bailey]

I echo my hon. Friend’s congratulations to other campaigners, including Become. On her point about data collection, my the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is sitting next to me, is happy to meet her to discuss the issue further.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As well as being a member of the Education Committee, which has done sterling work on this point, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is undertaking an inquiry on human rights in the care system. We held a powerful roundtable with care-experienced young people, and that point was powerfully made to us. We have not yet reached the end of our inquiry and do not yet have recommendations, but I want to put on record my gratitude to those young people for sharing their experiences, and to the Government for making this really important change; I know that it will make so many lives better.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important work, both on the Education Committee and for his constituents. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will meet the Chair of the Committee soon, and we commit to working with it.

Let me turn to Government amendment 105B, on allergies in schools. I thank everybody who has worked so hard campaigning on this issue. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), and other Members from both Houses. I particularly thank the fantastic Helen Blythe, the Benedict Blythe Foundation, and the wide range of allergy safety charities that have engaged with the Government on this matter.

As I promised when the Bill was last before this House, we have introduced a Government amendment to place allergy safety on a statutory footing for all schools. It requires all schools to have allergy safety policies, to review them regularly, and to publicise and publish them. Schools must have regard to the statutory guidance, which we have co-produced with expert stakeholders. Through regulations, we will put in place duties covering the content of allergy safety policies, stocking adrenalin devices, securing allergy awareness training, and incident reporting. Benedict’s law, named in memory of Helen Blythe’s son Benedict, is intended to ensure that every child with allergies can attend school safely.

Let me turn to Lords amendments 38 and 106, which relate to social media and phones in schools. Protecting children online is a priority for this Government, and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology have made it clear that it is a matter of how, not if, the Government will act to deliver further protections for children and young people.

Whereas the amendment proposed in the House of Lords is narrow, our consultation will allow us to address a much wider range of services and features. It will also allow us to consider different views on the way forward. It is crucial that we do not pre-empt the Government’s consultation, which will close next month.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the consultation that the Minister is holding on this important issue. I declare an interest, as I am a member of the Education Committee—that seems to be something we should mention—and I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Will she ensure that as this consultation progresses, the voices of young carers are heard? That is really important.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work supporting young carers. I can give him that promise, and I am happy to arrange any meetings that he would like with my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

The Government amendments to the Bill will allow us to act quickly and respond directly to the consultation. There will not be endless rounds of consultation; the Government will act. We have listened to the concerns raised in both Houses regarding a desire for swift action, a more specific power and appropriate scrutiny.

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

Will the Minister confirm that the consultation is targeted at young people, parents and consumers of social media, and that the Government will not take input from social media companies?

[Olivia Bailey]

I can confirm that the consultation is targeted widely, at everybody with an interest in, or affected by, this issue. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail, setting out how the consultation is taking place.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Olivia Bailey]

I will make some progress, if hon. Members do not mind. I am happy to come back to them in a bit.

We have tabled an amendment in lieu that commits the Secretary of State to reporting to Parliament on progress within six months of the Bill passing. We will also share future draft regulations under the Online Safety Act 2023 with relevant Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople prior to laying those regulations before the House. Finally, we have made several amendments to our power, which specify how it will be used; for example, they stipulate that it can be exercised only to protect children from harms. The Government are committed to taking swift action to protect children online.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

Very briefly, and then I will make progress.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Minister has said that she wishes to take swift action. Surely the swiftest action she could take is to use this Bill to ban smartphones from schools, and to ban children under 16 from using social media. What extra information does she need to take those steps?

[Olivia Bailey]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will address smartphones in schools in a moment. Our consultation allows us to act at real speed. Through the additions we are making to the Bill today, we are committing to report back to the House within six months, if we have not acted before then. The range of options that we are considering in the consultation is significantly wider than the options in the amendments from the other place that we are debating. The consultation will allow us to address a much wider range of issues, including critical ones, such as addictive design.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I apologise, but I am going to make some progress.

I turn to Lords amendment 106, which deals with phones in schools. The amendment is unnecessary, as this Government are already crystal clear that mobile phones have no place in schools at any point during the school day. We have strengthened the weak guidance provided by the Conservative party to make it absolutely clear that schools should be mobile-free environments by default. We have written to every headteacher in the country to tell them that phones should not be in their schools. We have asked Ofsted to ensure that phone bans are properly enforced, and we have rolled out targeted support, through our attendance and behaviour hubs, for every school that is struggling to make that ban a reality. The Conservative party seems to be deliberately ignoring those facts. Of course, if the consultation tells me that making the guidance statutory will make a difference, we will do it—our amendment in lieu makes that possible—but my honest opinion is that the issue is not whether or not the ban is on the statute book. Rather, the problem is with the clarity of the guidance, and the quality and enforcement of policies, and we have already acted to fix all three.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm for the record that the ban on mobile phones in schools will not extend to alternative and augmentative communication devices? Laura in Taunton has put those devices to use for her son. That has transformed his life; it provides an autistic child with an alternative means of communication in school. I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Laura on her work.

[Olivia Bailey]

I do congratulate the hon. Member’s constituent on her work, and can confirm that there is provision in the guidance—which he can show her—for schools to make exceptions for such exceptional cases.

I turn to amendments dealing with school uniforms and admissions. On Lords amendment 41B, I welcome their lordships’ support for tackling school uniform costs. However, the amendment is unnecessary, and risks creating uncertainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent and the direction of policy at a time when they will be implementing the limit. The Department for Education has surveyed parents and school leaders extensively over many years on school uniform policies, and we will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

We have also already committed to strengthening statutory guidance to clarify that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided, and will keep that guidance under review. As the legislation requires, we will also conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the implemented policy and assess any modifications recommended as a result of that review.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am just concluding this section of my remarks, but the right hon. Member is very persistent.

I have previously been clear on our concerns about a cost cap. A numerical limit is simpler, transparent, enforceable and overwhelmingly backed by parents. It was also explicitly in the manifesto on which this Government were elected.

[Graham Stuart]

I think anyone outside this place watching would think that the reason why the Minister will not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment on this subject is a sort of pride and an inability to change on behalf of Government. There is no real argument against the amendment, and she has not made such an argument. Neither is there an argument against having an immediate statutory ban on social media. Her earlier argument about the addictive design of social media being included in the consultation made no sense either, because if no children under 16 can access social media, it does not matter how it is designed, because it will not be having the noxious effect it currently has on them.

17:29

[Olivia Bailey]

The right hon. Gentleman’s opinion on the quality of the argument I have made is his opinion, and I happen to disagree with it.

Turning to Lords amendment 102, we have already committed to tighter regulations to make it clear that school quality and parental choice will be central to decisions on published admission numbers. Our amendment in lieu reflects that and will help ensure that decisions on PAN give parents a choice of high-quality school places close to home. In this age of declining rolls, it is important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I know the Minister wants the best for children and is working hard to achieve that goal, but the Government’s guidance makes it clear that non-statutory guidance is not to be

“taken as a complete or definitive statement of the law nor as a substitute for the relevant legislation.”

The fact is that the evidence is damning about smartphone usage and children. Why will she therefore not take the step now and support a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools?

[Olivia Bailey]

I say to the right hon. and learned Lady that on this point our objectives are the same. Phones should not be in schools at any point during the day from start to finish. I say in all good faith that I have looked at this issue—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Olivia Bailey]

I am in the middle of responding to the previous intervention; Members might just want to wait one moment. In all good faith, I have looked in great detail at the problem with why these policies in schools were not being enforced properly. It was a question of weak guidance, and the schools therefore not enforcing that guidance properly. Ofsted is now enforcing that, and teams of people are supporting schools to implement it. I have been clear that if the consultation says that a statutory ban is the silver bullet that will solve the problem, then of course we will do it, but in my honest view, we have already solved the problem of banning phones in schools.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I will make some progress.

This Bill is something that only a Labour Government—[Interruption.] I will give way because the right hon. Gentleman is looking so aggrieved.

[Damian Hinds]

I think I just heard the Minister say, “We have already solved this problem.” I do not know if any other colleagues heard that. She said that she has written to every headteacher in the country, and it is absolutely the right thing to be in contact with them. Has she heard back from any headteachers or headteacher representative bodies, who say that this ban would be so much more straightforward if it were written into law, because of the difficulties that arise with a minority of parents? Headteachers say how much easier it would be for their school and their authority in their school if this ban were written into law.

[Olivia Bailey]

It seems to me that the Conservatives have just had their fingers in their ears and have been ignoring the wide range of steps that this Government have taken to address this issue. [Interruption.] We have recently changed your weak guidance—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers have made it clear that not only Back Benchers but Ministers perhaps need to raise their game when they are thinking about the courtesies of this Chamber.

[Olivia Bailey]

I sincerely apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Opposition. I was simply trying to point out that we have taken every step necessary to solve the problem of why phone bans were not being enforced properly in schools. I have been clear that should the consultation tell us that this guidance must be on a statutory footing, we will proceed on that basis, because our objective is the same: there should be no phones in schools from the start until the end of the day. I share that objective.

This Bill is something that only a Labour Government could deliver—a Bill that will break the link between background and success, a Bill that will provide opportunity for every child in this country and a Bill that will lift thousands of children out of poverty. I urge Members across the House to support Labour’s vision for our children and get this vital Bill on to the statute book.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Since I last stood at this Dispatch Box to argue, again, that we should stop ignoring the evidence and act to ban social media for under-16s, 12 individuals in California have done something remarkable. They have begun to turn the tide against the use of social media by children. On 25 March, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a landmark verdict: they found two social media giants responsible for injuries suffered by a young woman over the course of her childhood. The conclusion was stark. These companies knew that their platforms were addictive. They knew the risks to young people and they chose not to act, and children have paid the price. The jury did not ignore the evidence, and nor should this House.

That is not an isolated case. It is the beginning of something much larger. Eight further trials are already scheduled in California alone, and federal cases brought by states and school districts will follow this summer. Behind them stand thousands of claimants waiting to be heard. Here in the United Kingdom, however, we are still watching rather than acting. This ruling should have made the Government stop dragging their feet. It confirms what parents, teachers and health professionals have been saying for years. Aggressive, addictive algorithms are damaging children’s mental health, and, in the worst cases, costing them their lives.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my right hon. Friend share with me a certain sympathy for the Minister, who has obviously been ordered by the Secretary of State to come and make the preposterous case that on the one hand the whole problem has been solved and on the other—in a complete logical contradistinction—if the consultation concludes that this does need to be put in statute, the Government will then go about doing it? Well, which is it? Have they solved the problem, as the Minister claimed, or could the consultation yet tell us that it needs to be legislated for? Clearly it needs to be legislated for, and clearly the Minister—who is smart, likeable and decent, and committed to the welfare of children—has been put in an impossible position, arguing a ridiculous case. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Laura Trott]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The evidence is irrefutable, and the Government need to get on with it.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The evidence is still more profound, is it not? Screen time is now a profound problem across the board. This is not just about phones; it is about all kinds of devices. We now know not only that it affects children’s confidence in communicating, but that their cerebral capacity is being altered over time.

I hope that during the consultation the Government will look more broadly at the issue of screen time, because, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), many parents are yet to understand this as clearly as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State most certainly does—and the Minister is gradually coming to terms with it. I hope that the Government will seize the initiative, and send the very clear message from this place that children and screen time are not happy bedfellows and we really must return to a more traditional way of bringing up the next generation.

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is correct. We are involved in a profound battle for childhood and against the screens. The Government have taken some steps in the right direction—their recent guidance on under-fives and screens was very good—but they need to finish the job. They need to get smartphones out of schools, and they need to ban children from social media. It is the right thing to do, it is what the evidence shows, and it really will make a difference.

Many senior figures in technology companies do not allow their own children access to the very platforms from which they profit. They know what we know: it is not safe. The children will always try to be on the sites for longer, and the social media companies will give them more and more addictive content to look at. Nothing will change unless we act here in the House. A jury has examined the evidence and reached its verdict. The question before us today is whether the Labour party will have the courage to do the same, and vote to protect our children.

If Labour Members will not listen to me, I ask them to listen to the families who are here today—parents who have lost their children because of social media. They show unimaginable courage every single day. They are not fighting for their own children—tragically, it is too late for that—but they are fighting so that this does not happen to anyone else’s children. I am in awe of their strength. Their bravery is why I will keep fighting for change. I wish that they did not have to be here, but they are, and I am here for them.

I am here for Ellen. This week marks four years since she lost her son Jools, and she continues her brave campaign so that no other family has to endure what she has endured. She believes that he died after attempting a TikTok blackout challenge. I am here for Lisa, whose son Isaac died at the age of just 13. She believes that he, too, was attempting a TikTok challenge. I am here for Mariano, whose daughter Mia took her own life at 14 after sustained online bullying. And I am here for George, whose son Christopher was 15 when he died, just 50 days after he began receiving disturbing messages online. He was groomed by individuals posing as children.

Those are just some of the dozen or so parents in the Gallery today. Every one of them has lost a child prematurely due to social media. Every month, the group grows. This does not just happen to other people’s children; it can happen to any of our children. It must stop, and we have the power to stop it today. I urge Labour Members to ask themselves why they are still refusing to act.

Yesterday I was briefed by a former senior police officer about the scale of abuse taking place on platforms such as TikTok. He described the sheer volume of exploitation affecting UK schoolchildren. Young girls are being encouraged to commercialise their bodies and are receiving digital gifts through features such as TikTok rewards. These rewards allow viewers to send virtual items during livestreams that can later be converted into real money. In practice, this creates a financial incentive for children to post increasingly provocative material in order to attract attention and income. 

In 2024, a global study by Protect Children found that 32% of sex offenders reported using social media platforms to search for, view or share child sexual abuse material. A separate 2026 study, commissioned by Ofcom, found that nearly half of perpetrators first encountered such material unintentionally, often through social media or messaging platforms. That is why the Government’s consultation is so wrong-headed. I am not even joking when I say that their consultation cites TikTok as a benefit for children simply because they can post dance videos. What I have stated today obviously renders that absurd, given the harm caused, but even posting a dance video is very dangerous. Let me explain why, as the Government clearly do not understand.

When young girls post dance videos, they learn that the way they get approval is not internally, but externally. Children quickly learn that “likes” equal approval. They learn that attention brings status. And too often, they discover that sexualised content attracts the most attention of all. That reshapes how young people see themselves and their value. If children spend significant time posting dance videos on social media, especially from a young age, they begin to depend too heavily on the opinions of others, rather than their own judgment. Their confidence declines, and seeking approval becomes habitual.

Yesterday I spoke to the brilliant Dr Davies, who leads the charity Papaya Talks. She explained how, over time, seeking external approval can reduce self-esteem and distort how young people understand themselves and their worth. It is not just about posting dance videos, and to casually put that as a benefit in the consultation means that the Government do not understand what they are dealing with. 

I welcome Lords amendment 17B and the Government providing some movement through their amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 102 and 106. The introduction of PAN is a welcome step, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. However, I remain concerned that the adjudicator may only be required to have regard to parental preference and the quality of education provided, which does not guarantee that local authorities will not shrink good schools. The Government need to strengthen this provision and put the matter beyond doubt. 

Turning to phones in schools, Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106B states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance”.

The Minister outlined the plethora of actions the Government are taking, but I ask them, for the love of God, to put the guidance on to a statutory footing. They really are taking all possible steps not to agree with us, but the answer is right in front of them.

17:45

On Lords amendment 41B on uniform, all that is now being asked for is a review of effectiveness. Is that really so hard? The Minister said she will do a review, or that the Government will keep the matter under review, so why not do a review, and then we can all agree and we can be in a great place?

The Prime Minister has said that we will “have a fight” in taking on technology companies, but, sadly, that fight is going to have to start with him. The only person standing in the way of a social media ban is him. He has already asked Labour Members to vote against it once, but tonight he is going to march them through the Lobby against it again. I will keep fighting until the Government offer a ban on social media in the Bill.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way. She is making the profound point—and this should concern every Member of this House across the normal party divides—that the abnormal is becoming routine. Growing up has never been easy and moving from childhood to adulthood is always a challenge, but when someone’s sense of what is normal is altered beyond recognition, it becomes impossible to navigate the vicissitudes that are an inevitable part of maturing, and that is where we are. This House took 25 years to regulate the internet at all—far too long—over successive Governments, but now the whole House can come together to protect our children from this menace.

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I have said, we are in a fight for childhood, and I will keep fighting until the Government offer a ban on social media in this Bill and give us a timeframe by which they are going to do it.

I am not giving up, and the parents in the Gallery will not give up either. In the immortal words of Taylor Swift:

“You want a fight? You found it”.

Labour MPs will find that, with parents, teachers and doctors, we have the place surrounded, and we will not give up, because children deserve better.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

A decade ago, I raised the heartbreak that siblings in the care system suffer when they are separated and have no contact with each other. My aim was simply to create parity in legislation, by extending the requirement for a looked-after child’s reasonable contact with their parents to contact with their siblings or half-siblings. What followed were amendments, debates, early-day motions, articles, questions, ministerial meetings and letters—so many letters. Every single time, I was advised that there was sympathy for my request, but nothing ever changed—until now. Under this Labour Government, we are finally putting an end to the cruelty in our care system that separates siblings and denies them contact with each other.

When I heard my noble Friends in the other place carry unopposed Lords amendment 17B—the same amendment that I moved in 2016—I was for once completely lost for words. This may seem like a very small change to legislation, but it is not. It will make a profound difference to the lives of so many children, including children whose lives are already more difficult than many of us in this place can even begin to comprehend.

Like everything that happens in this place, it was not a solo endeavour. If the Chamber would please indulge me for a moment, I want to thank all the MPs across the House who over the years have supported this change; my right hon. and hon. Friends in our Education team; Cathy Ashley and the team at the Family Rights Group who, way back, helped me craft the amendment; and my friend the broadcaster and journalist Ashley John-Baptiste, who powerfully used his experience of the care system, in which he grew up never knowing that he had siblings, to help press for this change.

That leads me to who I want to thank most of all: the children I worked with in my former career. I promised them that if I ever made it into this place, I would do absolutely everything in my power to change legislation that causes them further pain and distress.

[Graham Stuart]

I just want to say thank you to the hon. Lady for persisting, and showing what a Back Bencher can do by persisting, keeping going, winning the argument, bringing it around and making a material difference to the lives of people who, as she said, already suffer enough.

[Emma Lewell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention—possibly one of the nicest interventions I have ever had in this place.

I hope that if those children I worked with are listening now, they will know that I have honoured my word to them. It may have taken me a decade and they will now be adults, but I sincerely hope they know that this is for them and it is they who have made sure that other little ones will never ever have to go through what they had to go through.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I am very pleased that we have proper time for debate today. I record my dismay that our last debate on this Bill was cut so short, when we had so many important amendments to consider. We spent more time walking through the voting Lobby than scrutinising the provisions of law that we are sent here to make.

I want to start by talking about children in care. As we have just heard, their relationships with siblings can be the most important connections they have. Too often, those relationships are being strained or damaged by a system that just does not support them effectively. To that end, I would also like to commend the work of the charities Become and the Family Rights Group, who have sought to keep siblings connected. It is for this reason that I warmly welcome the Government’s acceptance of Lords amendment 17.

The Minister said that it is a travesty that siblings have been separated. I gently say that it was her and her colleagues who made Labour MPs oppose the Lords amendment from my noble Friend Baroness Tyler in the last round of ping-pong. I am glad the Government have had a change of heart, accepted her approach and put forward their amendment in lieu. I congratulate and thank my noble Friend Baroness Tyler of Enfield. She has been championing this issue for many, many years and I recognise her tireless work. I also recognise the tireless work of the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who, as we have just heard, has also been working so hard on this issue.

The amendment addresses a critical oversight in our current regulations, ensuring that the bond between siblings is not severed simply because their care status differs. These relationships are often the only constant in a child’s life. Protecting them provides a vital anchor of stability amid the profound upheaval of new care arrangements.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106 requires headteachers only to “have regard for” guidance on smartphones in schools, rather than mandating the existing guidance. Young people themselves say that they want a break from the stress of social media at school. We all know the impact that our phones have on our concentration and focus. If Ministers and other hon. Members in this House cannot resist the temptation to look at their smartphones during a debate like this, how on earth do they expect a 14-year-old to ignore a TikTok notification in a double science lesson? According to Health Professionals for Safer Screens, a quarter of children’s notifications go off during the day. I am deeply alarmed that our children’s educational attainment should be hindered by an issue that is so simple to solve. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about guidance and asking Ofsted to look at it. After they made the announcement that they would include the issue in Ofsted inspections, I met a group of headteachers from my constituency. They said to me, “This is yet another thing you are piling on to the Ofsted inspection. Please can you ask Ministers to just get on and make this law?”

Where schools have managed to ban phones during the school day, they have seen a real transformation in pupils, going from being glued to screens to chatting and playing Uno at break times. Headteachers report significant reductions in incidents of low-level disruptive behaviour and lower in-school truancy, and children and teachers are reporting being happier in school.

However, many headteachers are still battling to get their schools to that place. Our headteachers need proper support to do right by our children, where they are challenged by parents who want still to be able to reach their children even during the course of the school day, to ensure that children have a healthy and safe education free from distraction.

I ask the Minister, and the Secretary of State if she is listening, to make this guidance statutory. Will the Minister support schools with the tools and funding to manage this transition to ensure that every classroom is a space where children can focus, learn and thrive, smartphone free, unless they have a need for a device for medical reasons, for special educational needs or because they are young carers?

It is a strange irony that the Government demand endless evidence before reining in big tech yet refuse a single review of their branded school uniform policy. By rejecting Lords amendment 41B to review the effectiveness of the Government’s cap on the number of branded school uniform items, as opposed to the Liberal Democrat proposal of a price cap, Ministers are effectively asking the British public to trust that they have exactly the right answer. The amendment is a significant concession on what we have previously proposed. It merely asks for a review of the policy after 12 months. We have a shared goal on both sides of the House to tackle the cost of living for hard-pressed families, but Ministers seem to lack the humility to admit that there is a chance that their policy prescription to bring down the cost of uniforms may be wrong. The Schoolwear Association has said that 61% of its members may increase prices based on the item cap.

The Government were forced to U-turn on winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on welfare reform for those in receipt of benefits. Why will they not accept the offer of an off-ramp to potentially prevent another forced U-turn somewhere down the line? What do they fear about testing their policy in a year’s time, just in case the uniform suppliers hike their prices in response to this policy, as the industry has repeatedly warned and as a basic understanding of market forces would suggest? The Government cite their manifesto as though it were a shield against better Liberal Democrat ideas, but a manifesto commitment is only as good as its delivery. Parents want action that will actually lower their bills. If the Government are so sure they have got it right, they have nothing to fear from a 12-month review.

On the theme of supporting families, I shall speak to Lords amendment 38. I first offer my belated congratulations to the Government on accepting the merits of part of the Liberal Democrat position in their amendment. Having spent a year opposing our efforts to ban big tech from collecting the data of under-16s, it is heartening to see Ministers finally recognise that we can no longer allow social media giants to treat our children’s personal data as a commodity to be harvested for profit. It is also welcome that the Government have moved towards the Liberal Democrat position of age ratings for social media, by accepting that children of different ages will be affected by the online world in different ways. But the Government have still not gone far enough. Their amendment says only that they “may” make provisions to tackle these issues, not that they will.

The Government’s amendment also remains silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the infinite scroll and the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government fail to recognise that this amendment will leave parents, families, children and indeed the Government fighting against big tech with one arm tied behind their back. The recent US court cases against Meta and YouTube confirm what we already knew. Those apps are designed to keep our children hooked.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on this issue. She is right that age classifications that tackle the social media companies, rather than going after children and their rights, are what matters. Recent research by PISA—the programme for international student assessment—on seven internet activities by 15-year-olds in 47 countries found conclusive evidence that life satisfaction is lower at higher rates of social media use by 15-year-olds. Does that not make acting on this issue now even more urgent?

[Munira Wilson]

I could not agree more. There is a plethora of evidence out there showing that we have to act, and we have to act now. I simply cannot understand why the Government are not committing to doing something soon.

Going back to the US court cases, one document revealed that Meta executives claimed:

“If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”

That is my 11-year-old daughter that Meta is talking about. Another internal memo showed that 11-year-olds were four times more likely to keep coming back to Instagram compared with competing apps, despite the platform requiring users to be at least 13 years old.

18:02

This needs to be big tech’s seatbelt moment. We need to stop treating social media use as a behavioural addiction and start recognising that it is driving substance addiction-style behaviour, just like drugs and alcohol. That is why we need a ban on harmful social media for under-16s, and it is why we need clear and explicit recognition from the Government that they will tackle addictive design, not just harmful content.

We remain particularly concerned that the Government’s reporting timeline will kick the can down the road, when parents and families are contacting MPs in their thousands to call for urgent action. Speaking as a parent, and on behalf of parents in my constituency and, indeed, the length and breadth of this country, we are not interested in a report in six months’ time; we are not interested in their maybes or in the nuances of whether it needs primary or secondary legislation. We want a clear, cast-iron guarantee that this Government will protect our children online, and we want to know when they are going to act to do that.

The Liberal Democrats remain ready and willing to work with the Government to improve this legislation, but our priority is ensuring that changes are implemented without further delay. This is not a new problem; the Children’s Minister himself brought forward legislation to start to tackle this problem early last year. If the Government are interested in poaching more Liberal Democrat ideas, I am happy to remind the House of our position. We have called for film-style age ratings for online platforms, enforced by Ofcom, including a ban on harmful social media for under-16s.

This sensible approach does not ban useful sites like Wikipedia or Tripadvisor or important tools for family life like WhatsApp. It does not vest huge powers within the hands of one individual. It does not write a blank cheque for an unnamed individual to decide what our children may or may not access. After all, we do not know who any future Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology may be. Our approach would, specifically, dismantle the addictive architecture of big tech, encourage social media giants to regulate the content published on their platforms, and spark a race to the top that prioritises safe, enriching and healthy online spaces—not just for children but for all of us.

I am concerned that the Government have not listened to sector experts regarding their plans for pupil admission numbers. To quote the chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, who gave evidence to the Bill Committee, the powers that the Bill gives the schools adjudicator would be “a source of concern” due to the “potential conflicts of interest” that could arise when allocating children to schools. I ask the Minister this today: would she be happy to look parents in her constituency in the eye if her local authority asked the schools adjudicator to cut place numbers at a popular, high-performing school?

I recognise that there is some concession in the Government’s amendment, but it is too vague in its assurances and open to challenge. As the shadow Secretary of State said, it only asks the schools adjudicator to have regard to the performance of a school. We cannot support it. I implore the Minister to start listening to parents, carers and young people. Whether it comes to school places, the cost of school uniforms, smartphones in schools or access to social media, do not led ideology or pride get in the way.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the Government’s amendments and support the live consultation on these matters. Social media has unfortunately become central to childhood, and the negatives are massively outweighing any positives.

Even when social media is at its most benign, children are spending 40, 50 or maybe 60 hours a week on it. It is intentionally addictive—of course, since we last debated these amendments, a US court has made that determination—and affecting children’s sleep, concentration and wellbeing. Of course, it is much worse than that, with relentless bullying; the promotion of self-harm, eating disorders and suicide; sextortion; misinformation and disinformation; envy and comparison; as well as a significant dose of misogyny and porn. It is therefore not a surprise that there has been a 118% rise in children and young people accessing mental health services in England just in the last decade.

In all child-related matters, we need to listen to the voice of the child. In a recent Harris poll, 39% of Gen Z respondents said they wished that social media had never been invented. There is a significant rise in three to five-year-olds using social media, with 37% doing so, according to Ofcom.

A group called Big Tech’s Little Victims, in association with the National Education Union, recently conducted a social media experiment. It created accounts for four fictional 13-year-olds, signed them up to the main platforms and had a researcher scroll the accounts for 30 minutes a day for a week. The results were staggering: those fictional 13-year-olds were receiving, on average, one piece of concerning content a minute. To reinforce the point, the group put together a reel of the worst bits so that I and other Members could see the racism, sexual violence and misogyny that children are witnessing. We will never stop violence against women and girls until we stop feeding this hate to our children.

Parents up and down the country are in the impossible position of exposing their children to that content or having their child be the one who is missing out. I therefore support the Government’s ambition to act. It is right that laws keep pace with technology; it is right that we consider whether stronger protections for under-16s are needed; it is right that phones should play no part in school life; and it is right that the Government ensure that any legislative changes are legally robust, compatible with existing law, and capable of standing up to scrutiny in the courts.

I welcome Government amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 38, which will require a statement on progress within six months if no regulations have been made. We need to get on with it. I urge everyone to complete the consultation and I urge the Government to act with haste following the consultation’s closure on 26 May.

[Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had significant and interesting contributions from both sides of the House so far. I will speak in support of Lords amendments 38 and 106. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) just set out in a powerful speech, social media is too often toxic in its effect on children, and parents who want to act—again, exactly as he just pointed out—fear isolating their children from their friends who are all online. Teachers, who want to protect children, spend their days investigating claims of cyber-bullying instead of boosting learning, which is their job. Our children struggle to escape the clutches of algorithms that are designed to be addictive.

That is why I will vote for Lords amendment 38, to save children from that toxic world and give them their childhood back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, it is a “fight for childhood”. That is a good slogan, because unlike most slogans it has some real heart and substance to it.

We need to support parents like John in Beverley, who tells me that his children feel constant pressure to be online and compare themselves endlessly with others. John is right. Those of us who are parents know that sometimes the kindest word we can say to a child is no—only to hear the inevitable response, “But Billy’s mum lets him do it.” It is not fair that parents like John, who are doing their best each day, face that battle alone.

Lords amendment 38 sets a clear boundary so that parents are not isolated in their decision making, and when John’s children ask why they cannot go on Instagram, he can say, “Sorry, but that is the law.” Since MPs seem to get blamed for pretty much everything else, if parents say, “It’s because Graham says you can’t; it’s not my fault,” I will take that. If as a result one child is happier and healthier, that is something we can all be pleased with.

Parents are not alone in saying that the relationship with technology is broken; teachers say it too. Hannah, a teacher from Hedon in my constituency, tells me that she deals with the consequences of online harms every single day and she fears the long-term impact on her pupils. Teachers such as Hannah are spending their time investigating what pupils have seen on Facebook or X, when, as I say, they should be teaching physics or art.

In too many schools, smartphones are everywhere. I never seek to be rude, and in particular not to the Minister, but she suggests that the problem is solved. The problem is not solved. Smartphones are everywhere in too many schools, meaning that students are scrolling, not learning, and staff are policing, not teaching. That is why I will also vote for amendment 106, which would require schools to ban smartphones during the school day. It means that governing bodies, headteachers and parents—whoever—have absolute clarity.

I did not really understand the Minister’s argument, suggesting that passing it into law would not have effect. If we pass a law to ban smartphones in schools, in primary legislation, I would be pretty confident that that would mean that schools would not have smartphones during the school day. She has probably been put up to it by her Secretary of State, who will not let her do the obvious and sensible thing, which is to listen to colleagues on all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales studiously stuck to the party line but none the less made an emotionally powerful argument for action now, albeit just managing to say, “Well, if you have to do your consultation, get on with it.”

The arguments from the Minister do not really stack up. This is not political point scoring—I hope it is not —but children are suffering every single day and month that this goes on. If we know that it is wrong, if we know that it is harmful, if we know that it is damaging children’s futures and their mental health—we have parents in the Public Gallery who have lost their children as a result of this stuff—how can we say that we are just being thorough when there are no clear questions that we need an answer to and no clear questions were set out?

[Helen Hayes]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, who is an expert in this area.

[Helen Hayes]

I believe that there is a consensus across this House, both about the harms of social media and smartphones for our young people and about the urgent need for action. I have listened carefully to the contributions from Opposition Members but have heard no acknowledgment that, on some points of detail, there is genuine disagreement between different important stakeholders—including bereaved parents—on what exactly the solutions should look like. The Government’s consultation is affording the opportunity, for example, to the Education Committee to undertake some really detailed questioning of those important stakeholders who have differences of opinion. That will help the Government get to the right and effective approach. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that difference of opinion and the importance of probing it?

[Graham Stuart]

Again, with no disrespect to the Minister, I think the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has made a stronger case, but lacking in the specifics. It would be important to understand exactly what it is that the Government wish to find out. Then we could better understand why there would be a cause for delay. I have not been able to understand precisely what that is.

Let us take the issue of smartphones in schools. We have absolute denunciation from the Minister of the use of smartphones in schools, yet a kind of smokescreen has been thrown up that somehow passing into statute that smartphones cannot be in schools during the school day is somehow not the solution. If there is evidence to suggest that schools will disapply primary statute that says smartphones can never be used in schools during the school day, and that headteachers up and down the land will literally break the law, okay, let us hear it. That seems like nonsense to me. What case is there? What do we need to know about smartphones to not just put this in the Bill and, as soon as it becomes law, see every single school in the land ensure that there are no smartphones, with no argument? It is obvious, is it not? I will happily give away to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood again.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. I think he would find it helpful to listen to the Education Committee’s evidence session on Tuesday next week, which will afford two hours of questioning of experts and important stakeholders in the field. I believe that we will make a useful contribution to helping the Government get to the right and implementable solutions during the consultation process. I encourage him to tune in to that.

18:15

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Lady, but it is not like the Select Committee has never looked at this issue; it has looked at it repeatedly. If we are being unfair, then just let us know. What is the problem with banning smartphones in schools in the legislation? The hon. Lady has given an excellent answer, and I accept her offer and will ensure that I have a look at the evidence, but I still do not have an answer on what we are looking for. What we need is a ban. What the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) wants to see is a ban. We know that smartphones in school are harmful, and we need to get on with this.

The problem we face involves not just social media but smartphones. It is the combination of the two together. Smartphones give children constant access to social media, and social media gives them algorithms designed to keep them scrolling. That is why these amendments must be passed together. One tackles the addictive platforms; the other restores classrooms to places of learning.

We would never allow our children to be abandoned in a car park full of strangers, so why are we leaving them alone in chatrooms? Data from the Youth Endowment Fund shows that 70% of teenagers—vulnerable children—have seen violent content online, despite only 6% actively searching for it. That is all because of the algorithms. Children are not seeking extreme content; it is pushed at them. Knives, pornography and real-life violence are being delivered by addictive algorithms designed to keep children scrolling, all in the name of so-called fun. The parents in the Gallery and across the country are looking on and wondering what on earth is keeping us back. At a time when there is a disconnect between ordinary people and politics, it is obvious that we need to act. We have the opportunity to act—we have legislation that has a slot in Parliament—yet we are still coming up with bogus excuses for inaction. Parents have had enough.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I believe we are talking about two different things. On banning social media for under-16s, there is a complication there. We have seen what they have done in Australia, and what other countries are doing. We believe that our solution is the right one, because it is future-proof and would encompass every platform, every game and every piece of tech, but the issue of smartphones in schools is much, much simpler. We do not want phones in schools. We do not need phones in schools. We know that phones are in schools, and we need the Government to act on this; doing so would be simple, straightforward and quick. It could be done through this Bill, right now.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She makes a fair point about the greater complexity around social media. I would have liked greater clarity in this debate about what questions need to be answered, and how those answers would be pursued, but she is so right on the issue of smartphones. There is literally no reason not to act. I have been a Minister at the Dispatch Box, and with no disrespect to the excellent supporting civil servants, there is a tendency for Government, including the civil service, to resist all amendment and change. It becomes about defending the first script regardless, even when it is obvious that it should be changed. Even when there are parents in the Gallery who have suffered the most unimaginable loss, somehow the system still resists.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that banning mobile phones in schools will not harm children, and that not banning them does harm children?

[Graham Stuart]

That is a simple logic, beautifully expressed. There is no argument against a ban, is there? Smoke is being blown in our faces.

The Minister is better than this. I say this to the Government Whip: I hope that the Government will listen in the Chamber tonight. I remember an Adjournment debate during my first Parliament, when we were again in opposition. Halfway through, the Minister tore up his briefing notes and said, “Actually, do you know what? It says here that I should resist this, but the hon. Member is right; I will seek legislation. We will get the opportunity and make the change that he has asked for, because what he says is true.” Should not all of us be trying to deal with what is true, right and proper? We must recognise complexity when it is there, but where there is a simple answer, we should simply get on with it.

[Caroline Voaden]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I had better bring my remarks to a close; I have probably taken up too much time already.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

True.

[Graham Stuart]

Thanks very much—the Government Whip agrees with me; that is always nice.

Let us act, listen to the parents and the people out there, and get on it. I know that the Ministers on the Front Bench do not get up in the morning to make the world a worse place, let alone to make children suffer. They are here to try to make children’s lives better, and there is a real opportunity here to do that. I hope that Government Members will consider breaking from the fearsome Whips—we have heard the Government Whip shouting from a sedentary position. Tell him that he is best ignored, and vote with us to make things better for children.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Let me start by saying that I support the Government’s direction of travel on this Bill. The focus on children’s wellbeing, both in schools and out, is obviously right, but let me address Lords amendment 38, tabled by Lord Nash, about social media access; it was accepted back into the Bill, with a large majority. It has cross-party support and reflects growing concern not just in Parliament, but among parents, teachers and professionals working with young people.

The amendment is quite simple: it is about delaying access to certain harmful social media services until children are 16. It is not a blanket ban or a restriction on everything, but targeted measures aimed at services that are not designed with children in mind. That distinction matters, because some criticism has suggested that the amendment would create cliff edges, but we already have age limits in place today. The issue is not whether limits should exist; it is whether they are properly enforced, and whether they reflect the reality of how platforms operate.

There has been a lot of debate about whether age verification actually works. The evidence from countries like Australia suggests that where it is not working, it is often because platforms are not properly enforcing the rules, or young people find ways around the ban through VPNs. That leads to a broader point: the onus must be squarely with the tech companies to implement the safeguards. Where the law sets a clear standard, platforms must meet it consistently and effectively.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member is making an informed speech. Would he agree that the priority for any Government, and any legislator, is to protect citizens from harm? This amendment would protect children from harm. The technical implementation—how we control access—should not be a consideration, given that harm. As he rightly said, that should be the responsibility of the platform owners, who have access to technology that they refuse to use.

[Peter Prinsley]

I agree that we must hold the tech companies to account; they are the ones in control of the situation.

The amendment proposes a higher standard—not simply “reasonable steps”, but highly effective age assurance, and that is meaningfully different. We have heard about movement internationally. France and Spain are taking similar steps, and others are following. We ought to be part of the broader shift in how Governments are approaching online safety for children. Also, this cannot just be about restrictions; of course, there is a role for education. Children need to understand the online environment that they are engaging with, particularly when it comes to the algorithms, data and content driven by artificial intelligence.

We have heard about the consultation, and I support it in principle, but the scale of the issue is already well evidenced. There is a question about what additional insights small trials would realistically add, given the body of research that already exists.

[Damian Hinds]

There are unanswered questions about definitions, what should be in and what should be out, and exactly where the boundary lines are. Parents sometimes talk about social media in a way that professionals might not; parents might exclude certain messaging apps, for example. There are questions to be resolved, but the Government consultation is not just about that; it is about the “whether”, as well as the “how”. By all means, let us consult to get those technical points right, so that the measures are bullet-proof and future-proof, but today is the day that we could say, like those other countries did, “We are doing this. We are going to protect our children—and yes, there is still work to be done on exactly how that will fall out.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Peter Prinsley]

I understand exactly what the hon. Member says.

My position is this: I support the Government, and I support the Bill, but I think the House should take very seriously what the Lords have asked us to consider. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment as it stands, I believe there is a strong case for them to bring forward their own proposal to achieve the same outcome clearly and in a timely fashion. Ultimately, this is about setting the right boundaries for children in a digital world that is evolving quickly. There is a clear expectation, inside and outside this House, that we must act.

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

As the mother of four teenage and young adult children, about 50% of my parenting involves placing limits on my children’s phones or devices to limit the time they spend on them. In so doing, I am, like so many parents in my Esher and Walton constituency and across the country, doing battle with a pernicious, invasive and overwhelming force, for which my kids are proxies and against which I can never win. That force has billions and billions of dollars, and the desire and capability to make content more and more addictive every day, so that children spend more time online. The result, as so many studies show, is a negative effect on our children’s wellbeing, mental and physical health, and attention in class and at home. Those tech companies and their algorithmic content are killing kids. It is a public health crisis, and unfortunately, the Government are moving far too slowly to deal with it.

My eldest child was born in the year Facebook began, so my children have spanned the whole Gen Z Instagram generation. My youngest child is part of the TikTok generation. For me, the battle gets harder with each child, but I count myself lucky for not having had an “iPad kid”—a child who receives a device around the age of two. Gen Z children use that pejorative term to refer to younger children who are glued to devices, have short attention spans and throw tantrums when screens are taken away—these are children of two years.

The curious thing about Gen Z and Gen Alpha children is that many of them will say that they wish there were more controls over their screen use and time. They find algorithmic content too much to deal with, and it is having a negative impact on their mental health—so the children are asking us to act too. This generation is growing up with more anxiety and more exposure to harm, and children are less attentive. Every single day it gets worse, so we need to act now.

I have received over 2,600 emails from parents in my constituency asking me to ban social media for under-16s and to address their use of smartphones. I have spoken to school heads about the effect of the technology on their pupils, and parents are overwhelmed and feel completely powerless. A University of Birmingham study has shown that teachers spend 100 hours a week trying to control smartphone use. Headteachers tell me that teachers are doing battle with children as well as with their parents. Children pick up their phones in class to answer calls from their parents. They say, “I have to answer this because my parents are calling me.” That is time away from classroom learning.

Unfortunately, the amendment does not meet those challenges. It gives the Secretary of State optional powers, which they may or may not use, to restrict access to certain online services, and asks only for a six-month progress update. There are no requirements to act, and no timeline for doing so. That is not decisive action; it is a license not to do very much. A delay is being justified through a consultation that is flawed, as many Members have pointed out, and there is a reliance on small-scale pilots when much larger studies already exists. It looks very much like the Government are unwilling to take on the tech giants.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Earlier I asked the Minister whether tech giants and providers of social media have access to the consultation, and she will be writing to me with those details. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that those companies have billions of pounds of lobbying power, lots of bots and lots of volunteers who they could recruit to rig the consultation, and that is why they should not be allowed to participate?

18:30

[Monica Harding]

I absolutely agree. Tech companies have billions of pounds, and the consultation also asks children 62 questions. How on earth can a child whose attention has been taken by a phone answer 62 questions? Meanwhile, the world is moving faster than the Government. Even if people think that we should wait, watch and learn from Australia, as others have pointed out, in the United States they do things differently to us and sue. Juries in the United States returned landmark verdicts against Meta and Google. In New Mexico the case against Meta for misleading the public about the safety of its platform, and enabling child sexual exploitation through its design practices, resulted in a penalty that covered 75,000 separate violations of state law. In Los Angeles a jury found both Meta and Google liable for negligence and a failure to warn users about the dangers of their products, and a further 2,000 cases are pending in California alone.

Evidence in those cases included internal documents that were disclosed by the social media companies involved, explicitly acknowledging that their products are addictive, that addictive behaviours harm children’s mental health, and that the design features driving those behaviours—endless scrolling, autoplay, notifications, slot-machine tactics—were made not in spite of their damaging consequences, but precisely because of their addictive effects. That is outrageous, yet the Government are letting them get away with it every day.

What more evidence do the Government need before they act quickly? They are letting down our young people, and parents in my constituency of Esher and Walton are demanding action, not down the line but now. If children cannot resist this content, through no fault of their own, the Government must act for them so that they are not able to access it. Time is not on our side, so for once will the Government please act boldly and quickly, and use powers in the Bill to protect all our children?

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

We are at a point where it is no longer credible to ignore the scale of the challenge posed by social media to children and young people. Platforms and algorithms are designed and deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, capture attention, and keep users scrolling for as long as possible. As adults, we can take responsibility for our own actions, but for children and those under the age of 16 whose brains are still developing, and who in their teenage years are naturally focused on social interaction and engagement, we have a responsibility to ensure that their mental health as well as their physical health is prioritised.

The harm is happening now; action is needed now, not after another consultation. Parents are asking for help, and as a mum I know how hard it is to set boundaries when a child says, “but everyone else has a phone” or “everyone else is on social media”. There are also serious safeguarding risks because, as we have heard, predators use these platforms to groom and exploit vulnerable young people. While many of us use social media and see some of its benefits, it is not all harmless fun. Shockingly, a quarter of primary school children have already been exposed to pornography, and from violent and sexual content to material that promotes self-harm, misogyny, eating disorders and other harmful behaviours, what young people are exposed to can be deeply disturbing. The problem is that children do not even have to go looking for such content—it finds them. If it is content that we would not want to see as adults, we have to ask what it is doing to our children.

That is why I am pleased to support Lords amendment 38, which would prevent under-16s from accessing and using social media platforms. This is not just a view held by Members on the Conservative Benches. Parents, teachers and safeguarding professionals all want to see change. Crucially, so do young people themselves: they are the ones with first-hand experience of the influence of social media and, according to a YouGov poll, 83% of Gen Z support a social media age limit. We do not have time to waste on this issue. We must act decisively and put protections in place.

[Caroline Voaden]

I have spoken to lots of headteachers who are campaigning for a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. They say that if all the secondary schools in an area were to ban phones, children would not get smartphones at 11, when they transfer into year 7, and the age at which they would get a smartphone goes up to about 13 or 14. Parents would not be under pressure to buy a smartphone for their children when they are 10 or 11, so we would be gaining two or three really valuable years, when those children would not own a smartphone. Banning smartphones is not just about having an impact on school hours; it is about gaining that precious time so that children get phones when they are older. I beg the Minister to listen to that point.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I will now turn to why we need consistency for headteachers, schools, parents and children, particularly in relation to a mobile phone ban.

Lords amendment 106 mandates schools to prohibit the use and possession of a smartphone during the school day. It is an amendment that could have been written in headteachers’ offices across my consistency. As we have heard, many schools already have some form of mobile phone ban, but guidance alone can lead to inconsistencies, making it harder to enforce rules and leaving parents and young people navigating mixed messages, especially when children compare themselves to friends from other schools, and when parents look to each other for advice on what their children are allowed to do.

Since my election, I have met with headteachers from across Chester South and Eddisbury, and the amendment sets out exactly the kind of framework that they are asking for—one that gives them the clarity and backing to enforce what many are already trying to do. I recognise that earlier this year the Secretary of State issued further guidance on smartphone use in schools, but advisory guidance is not enough. It needs to be statutory: clear, robust action that meets the scale of the challenge, because without it, we are asking teachers to deliver change without giving them the backing to do so.

Ultimately, we have a duty to protect our children, and that means acting now, not later. Parents, teachers and young people are asking for change. This House should listen and I urge colleagues to support these amendments.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My constituents George and Areti are in the Gallery. Their story is one that no parent should ever have to go through. Their 15-year-old son, Chrisopher, was an active and outgoing young man with a bright future ahead of him.

One night in January 2022, Christopher was in his room playing video games. He clicked on a pop-up link and was tricked into sharing personal information about himself and his family. Just moments later, he began to receive messages from an anonymous stranger, threatening to kill his family if he did not complete a series of challenges. Over the 50 harrowing days that followed, these sick challenges got worse and worse. Christopher felt that he was being watched constantly, and felt that he could not tell his mum or his dad what was going on, fearing for their safety. Tragically, the challenges reached such an unbearable level that sadly, in March 2022, Christopher took his own life.

Since meeting George and Areti for the first time this year, I have been taken aback by their resilience and determination to ensure that this can never happen again. Together, they have set up a charity that works to educate others about the dangers that exist for children online. The Christoforos Charity Foundation sets up and has been doing events and activities for kids where they are encouraged to leave their phones behind and enjoy real-life connections.

As George and Areti say, their son was murdered by social media. That is why we should act swiftly to protect children online. Will the Government stop all the reviews and get on and act now by banning phones in schools and bringing in an age restriction of 16 on social media to save lives today?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I rise to call on the Government to support Lords amendments 38 and 106, which would raise the age of access to harmful social media platforms to 16 and ban mobile phones from schools. A broad range of extremely well-informed speeches has already been made in the House, so I will focus on the recent and not-so-recent scientific research that shows the harms of mobile phones and social media in particular.

Social media and access to mobile phones for children reduce attention spans and weaken executive function. Screen time, especially from smartphones, fast-paced videos and multitasking apps, is linked to poorer executive functions, including sustained attention, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility and working memory. Neurocognitive explanations suggest that highly stimulating screens promote rapid attentional shifting, weakening a child’s ability to concentrate in less stimulating real-world environments such as classrooms.

Screen time also creates language issues and verbal delays in early childhood, infancy and toddlerhood. Studies reportedly show that higher screen exposure before the age of three is associated with smaller expressive vocabularies, delayed language milestones and reduced conversational turn-taking. That effect is largely explained by displacement. Screen time displaces direct adult-child verbal interaction, which is essential for language development. Importantly, passive consumption and videos and scrolling are significantly more harmful than interactive co-used media. That increases the demand on our education system to support the children who are behind in their development, so banning phones will not only protect children, but allow them to learn at the rate that human beings are able to learn.

Access to mobile phones and social media also alters brain development. MRI studies provide biological evidence supporting behavioural findings. Higher screen exposure in young children is associated with thinner cortical regions involved in language, attention and higher-order cognition, as well as altered maturation of visual and executive control networks, and reduced structural integrity in the frontal and temporal regions linked to self-regulation.

In our society, we have an increase in the number of children with neurodiverse conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The use of mobile phones and social media and fast, short-clip videos increases ADHD-like symptoms and attention dysregulation. Multiple longitudinal studies, including analyses of more than 10,000 children, link higher screen exposure to increased inattention, impulsivity and ADHD symptom severity.

Let me turn to the cognitive effects of screen multitasking in adolescence. Frequent mobile phone use, particularly media multitasking, is associated with lower working memory capacity, poorer sustained attention and reduced cognitive control efficiency. The scientific consensus shows that well-supported adverse cognitive effects from the use of mobile phones and social media include weaker attention and executive function, language delays in early childhood, reduced learning efficiency, ADHD-related symptoms and atypical brain development patterns.

Earlier in the week, I was in the Chamber for the Government’s statement on their intention to halve the use of knives in our society and among young people over the next 10 years. I welcome those kinds of approaches, which protect our children and wider society. We have heard about the recent court cases in the US, and we know from leaked internal tech company documents that the social media companies were fully aware of the harm they were causing. They were designing in the addictive nature of their platforms, and they know that children want to leave their platforms but feel unable to do so because of their addictive nature. I would class those companies as virtual drug dealers. When people—particularly children—are exposed to the platforms they are providing, they become addicted to those platforms and unable to wean themselves off them.

18:45

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman speaks to the language delays that are created by these apps. Does he agree that the fact that these additional needs are going to come into the system on top of reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system—which parents are already worried about—will create extra anxiety and extra pressures, and is going to store up problems for the future if they are not tackled now?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I do agree with the hon. Member. I sympathise with the Government—there are huge pressures in all policy areas, particularly children’s services, education and healthcare, and now they have to deal with the tech giants. The Government introduced age-gating for pornographic sites so that people under the age of 18 could not access them. That was absolutely the right thing to do; despite the fact that there are workarounds and technical ways for people to bypass that age-gating, it does project the majority of children from exposure to pornography. Now, the Government must deal with the virtual drug dealers. They must implement laws to protect our children from the harms those companies cause, and must also introduce laws to obligate them to change and redesign their platforms in order to design out those harms.

Academic studies have found that 24% of suicides among 10 to 19-year-olds are linked to high-risk use of digital technology. Heartbreaking cases such as that of the 14-year-old Molly Russell, who tragically took her own life in 2017 and whose legacy lives on through the Molly Rose Foundation, have demonstrated that social media use is undoubtedly contributing to rising rates of self-harm among young people. This is not some future risk; it is a real and present harm. We do not need more consultation, delay or half-measures; we need this Government to insist on safety by design to protect children from exposure to damaging content and platforms, and not to implement anything that aims at damage limitation. We need this Government to listen to our citizens, not to the tech giants. As such, I once again join right hon. and hon. Friends and Members across the House in calling on the Government to commit to raising the age of access to social media to 16 and banning the use of all mobile phones in schools, rather than continuing to leave children exposed to systems that are causing irreversible and unnecessary harm.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that he is trying his luck. However, it is worth reminding Members—everyone has been here for the best part of two years at a bare minimum—that the guidance is very clear that, if they wish to contribute to a debate, they are under an obligation, not a gentle request, to turn up in the Chamber for the start of the debate. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman was present, so I call the Minister.

[Olivia Bailey]

With the leave of the House, I thank all Members for the contributions they have made to today’s debate. It has been a really useful, wide-ranging conversation, and I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in it. Important contributions have been made about safety and opportunity for all of our children.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) made a powerful speech, and I join her in thanking Ashley John-Baptiste. My hon. Friend has truly honoured her word to the children she worked with.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made a wide-ranging speech, and in response to her points on uniforms, I repeat again that we will monitor the impact of the change and conduct a post-implementation review.

On the question of our intention to act on social media, let me be clear—I think I will be repeating this lots in the course of my summation this evening—that it is not a question of whether we will act, but how we act. The Government have been clear about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) is a passionate campaigner on tackling hate online, and he made a characteristically erudite speech. He demanded haste following our consultation, and I can give him that guarantee. We are clear that we will act swiftly following this consultation, which concludes in only a month’s time.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) made an engaging speech, and both his speech and the intervention from the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) reminded me of the broad consensus across this House about the need to act. However, he does not seem to accept the need to take the time necessary to get this right and to hear a wide range of perspectives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) made compelling arguments about the dangers of the online world. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) reminded us of the challenge faced by parents when tackling these challenges—I identify with that—and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) made a powerful speech. I welcome George and Areti to the Gallery, and I thank them for their bravery and strength in campaigning in memory of their son, Christopher.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a wide-ranging speech, but he talked in particular about early childhood. I share his concerns. The research that the Department has published and the guidance we have recently published warn that too much time online and on screens can have a detrimental impact on key measures for our youngest children. That is why we have acted by issuing clear guidance to give parents the support they need to navigate that challenge.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I will not, I am afraid.

Finally, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) made a moving speech that reminds us of the urgency of action. I, too, have met bereaved parents and those are the toughest meetings. I thank them for their bravery and courage. The question we have debated today is not whether we act, but how we act. I gently say to the right hon. Member that, instead of rushing to the narrow ban proposed by the other place, we need sufficient information. This Government are determined to take action to keep our children safe online, but we need to consider all perspectives and a much wider range of services and features.

I thank Members from across the House for their considered contributions this evening. The Bill we have before us today will lift children out of poverty, break down the barriers to opportunity and tackle the cost of living for families. I urge Members across the House who share Labour’s ambitions for our children to support this landmark legislation.

Lords amendment 17B agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 38, but does not insist on its amendments 38A to 38D and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.—(Olivia Bailey.)

18:54

Division 485

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 256

Noes: 150

Clause 29

School uniforms: limits on branded items

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 41B.—(Olivia Bailey.)

19:07

Division 486

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 254

Noes: 144

Clause 56

Functions of adjudicator in relation to admission numbers

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 102, but proposes Amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of the Lords Amendment.—(Olivia Bailey.)

19:19

Division 487

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 259

Noes: 136

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 106, but proposes amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.—(Olivia Bailey.)

19:30

Division 488

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 248

Noes: 139

Lords amendment 105B agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 41B;

That Olivia Bailey, Jade Botterill, Amanda Martin, Tim Roca, Alan Strickland, Laura Trott and Will Forster be members of the Committee;

That Olivia Bailey be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.