Lords Chamber

Monday 20th April 2026

(began 1 hour, 51 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:36
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:20
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
considered. >> The question is that the Commons amendments be now considered. As amendments be now considered. As many as I say, content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it motion a Baroness Merron.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 28 A Commons in their amendments. 28 A Commons in their amendments. 28 A 28 b 28 C 29 A 29 b 29 C my Lords, these amendments were tabled by the government in the other place to government in the other place to correct an error arising from amendments made in your Lordships amendments made in your Lordships House at Report stage. Without these amendments, Trading standards officers in Wales would lose the ability to issue certain fixed penalty notices for the existing offence, a proxy purchasing for a short period of time.

The error would also have prevented trading standards in Wales from being able to issue fixed penalty notices for the sale of tobacco to those under the age of 18, before the smoke free generation policy takes effect on the 1st of January 2027. This is in contrast to England, where trading standards will be able to issue fixed penalty notices for these offences. My Lords, this was obviously an unintended error and if left unresolved, this would have created a difference between the enforcement regimes in England and Wales.

I am pleased, therefore, that we've been able to resolve the issue with the six narrow amendments, and I hope that noble Lords will be supportive in their considerations. I beg to move.
15:22
15:24
15:24
15:25
None Portrait Legislation: Chidlren's Wellbeing and Schools Bill - consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons (day two)
-

Malvern. >> My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be
15:25
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. The question. >> Is that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. As many as our opinion will say content to of the contrary, not content. the contents have it motion a Baroness Smith of Malvern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on that this House do not insist on its amendment. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their. agree with the Commons in their. And and and do agree with the And and and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 38 J to £0.38 and I will also speak to to £0.38 and I will also speak to motions A1A, two D and D one.

In this group we will be debating amendments relating to restricting social media for under 16 digital literacy in the school curriculum and mobile phones. And turning to speak, first of all, to motion a one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Muhammad, which disagrees with amendments 38 J and £0.38 and proposes new amendments. 38 Q and 38 U. I'll also talk to motion A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Amendment 38 Q 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 38, R would amend UK GDPR so that the digital age of consent is raised from 13 to 16.

For some social networking services, motion A2 amends government amendment 38, A, B and C, requiring the Secretary of State to restrict under 16 seconds from accessing user to user services or restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations. Firstly, my Lords, I want to thank the noble Lords Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, Lord Nash and other noble Lords for their sustained commitment on these vital issues. Let me be clear, it is a commitment that the government shares.

Protecting children online is a priority for this government, as I know it is a priority for noble Lords. The question then is not whether, but how and what action is taken and who is involved in making sure that that action is right. It is to facilitate this, that the government, of course, launched their consultation in March. I'm pleased to see that the noble Lords revised amendment considers the variety of measures that we are seeking views on through that consultation.

It acknowledges that there are numerous approaches to securing the safety and well-being of our children. A blanket ban for under 16 to access social media and restricting specific addictive features or functionalities, risky features and raising the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR. This is what our consultation is focussed on. This shows, I think, that the noble Lord, as I've suggested, is in agreement with the government that it's not only important we take swift action, but also that we take the correct action.

Let me be clear, 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, decisive action. Amendment 38 Q, while well intentioned, may give too much discretion to services in setting age restrictions without considering the evidence from the government's consultation, amendment 38 R 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. And in thinking about how we go about this and who is involved, it might be a good opportunity to remind this House that our consultation seeks views from those affected most by the issues we're discussing today. Parents and children themselves, and we've already received over 50,000 responses, with over 30,000 from parents and more than 7000 from children from the organisations that have responded, nearly half 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 the pace, scope and scrutiny. That's why the government has strengthened its approach since coming to this House, and made clear changes to the proposed legislative powers. Firstly, on timing, we are determined to move at pace.

That's why we have tabled legislative powers to ensure we can act quickly grounded on the evidence of the consultation, we have now also placed a firm commitment on the face of the Bill to report to Parliament within six months. This progress report will both set out 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, and that's why we have also made an amendment that makes clear that any future regulation must take that into account, ensuring protections are properly targeted and proportionate. And 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 the noble Lords Amendment on supporting children's understanding of user to User Services.

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 they encounter through different media channels, and to ensure that they can identify and challenge mis and disinformation. Media literacy will be embedded in the new primary citizenship curriculum and strengthened across relevant subjects. Recent updates to relationships, sex and health education guidance now also include 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 2026. My Lords, we have listened, we have acted and we believe these amendments respond directly to the concerns raised. They strike the right balance between urgency and effectiveness and set out clear. Set out a clear, deliverable route to stronger protections for children online. We have been clear that it is not if we act, but how recent moving to motion D relating to amendment 106 and motion D1 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Baron, which insists on this amendment.

This amendment, we believe, is unnecessary. Our guidance is clear that all schools should be mobile phone free by default. And in making that clear, I acknowledge that we share the same policy intent as the noble Lady, as well as many other peers in the House today, to make sure that schools are mobile, phone free environments. That's why we've published strengthened guidance. We've asked our network of attendance and behaviour hubs to provide support to schools, and from this month, Ofsted will inspect schools mobile phone policies.

Because what we all want to do is to protect children from the disruption and distraction caused by mobile mobile phones throughout the school day and to create calm, focussed school environments that support learning, behaviour and wellbeing. We are all in agreement on this. We've listened carefully to Parliament and we recognise the strong and widespread feeling across the House are on this issue and that is why I can 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, providing clarity and consistency for schools across the country. In doing that, reduce unnecessary burdens on headteachers and send a strong message to parents giving headteachers clear backing to create and maintain the mobile phone free school environments that our revised guidance are clear should exist.

This reflects, I think, both the intentions of the noble Ladies, the concerns that have been expressed by my the noble Lord Lord Mohammed directly to me and the government's concerns that allow us to support schools in creating the calm, focussed and safe learning environments that we all want to see. And I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A, B agreed to motion A1 Lord Mohammed agreed to motion A1 Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and my Lords, I must inform the House that if motion A1 is agreed to, I will not be able to is agreed to, I will not be able to call motion A2 by reason of pre-emption.
15:37
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> I'd like to personally welcome the noble Baroness Black to her place after a short period of illness, and I personally would illness, and I personally would like to thank you for taking the time out last week to engage with us, to talk to us, to want to better understand where we're coming from, but also give give us the opportunity to understand where you are coming from, and also like to thank the Baroness in terms of Lord Boyd for your engagement as well over the Easter period.

Both engagements have been very helpful for us, my Lords, in terms of tabling my First Amendment, a group of amendments around this issue is. We do have some concerns around the Henry the Eighth powers. That may well be, you know, as the government is seeking. Whilst I note that Lord Nash may not as hold as strong a view as I do in terms of these. Henry 88 powers, I think across this House we do have issues. Whenever a government wants to take on lots of powers, and I do note that he's proposing a sunset clause for me.

I still have concerns around how, you know, the government intends to, once the consultation happens, make changes. And I always have this view that if these are powers that are required for a set period, so be it. But I still still have concerns around what may happen in future if another government comes in or may want to use them. So I am sympathetic to what the Lord Nash has proposed, but I do have my in my amendments. But we were hoping that the government may well take up the opportunity to support them.

Our quest for actually bringing in their own primary legislation. And then we do have this issue around whether we have a ban or do we, as we call it, regulated, addictive, regulating, addictive features. And we've always been clear from the amendments that we proposed previously that we didn't favour an outright ban for under sixteens, but we like we wanted an age rating. So therefore, the duty fell upon the social media providers to be able to deal with those features, whether it's putting in things that, you know, young people get addicted to, like constantly scrolling, etc.

and that's where we stand. And I'm sure many members of your Lordships House, if they were able to vote on our amendment, they may well be there. And I really think that that's where we need to be in terms of rather than outright ban. But I get that in this in your Lordships' House previously, we have voted for Lord Nash amendments in order to make sure that this issue stayed live. And it'll be interesting what happens later on today when no doubt some of those amendments are proposed.

Secondly, we do, as you mentioned, have issues around data collection of data and GDPR, particularly this issue we've had that we want around the age of consent and currently 13. We wanted the issue to be around 16, and I really hope the government does address that. And then additional enforcement enforcement, additional harms whilst empowering Ofcom. The issue of guidance on addictive features is also introduced in specific requirements for platforms that access and mitigate the risks of services being used to create and distribute child sexual abuse materials, including mandating, human moderated and cooperate, cooperating for law enforcement.

And my Lords, in all our efforts, what we've tried to do is to try to do the best for our young people. We've tried to help and assist the government, nudge it in the right directions, and that's what we'll endeavour to do today as well, because I think ultimately, speaking to both Baroness Miller and Baroness and Lord Nash and others in in your Lordship chamber, I think we're not too far away from where we should be. It's just a matter of implementation and the speed and pace.

And I note that the government keeps saying that, you know, after our consultation, you know, we'll it'll all come out. We've been debating this since last year when actually. And I'm going to put it on record again. And I've said it in meetings before when Lord Nash actually, to his credit, was the one that first flagged this. And and to be honest with you, I don't care which political party anyone belongs to. If they're here to safeguard our young people, then credit where credit's due.

And we've tried to work, you know, across party with Lord Nash, with the crossbenchers, to ensure that we get to where we are. Can I just briefly move to smartphones, as I say, smartphones in schools rather than I think what Baroness May said in terms of mobile phones, because we've always been clear, it's the smartphones that we have a problem and our meetings that Baroness Barran and others have been to when we've met with parents and head teachers, that is the issue. They've said it's the smartphones, the issues around social media, the WhatsApp groups and others that have been the issue of concern.

We have noted that some parents have had concerns around being able to access or be get in touch with their young people, their children, particularly in rural areas. And that's why we often talked about being able to have the more old fashioned phones that, you know, many of us had, say, 20 years ago that basically allowed you to make phone calls and nothing much else. So therefore, we've been clear it's the smartphones that are issue for us. I know my noble friend Lord Addington was very clear about supporting, you know, what he often refers to as devices that enable people that need that extra support in school and how we dealt with that.

But clearly that that issue fell in your Lordships' House when we tried to propose it. But clearly, I do take reassurance from your commitment in terms of enhancing those guidance, because I think that's what those headteachers have been looking for. They have been saying, look, look, there's a very small group of parents who, whenever we bring in a policy like this, are very vocal and they are stopping them doing what they are there to do to help and manage those schools and, you know, help support the teaching of young people rather than constantly having to fend off a small but very vocal group of parents.

So in that sense, I think the government is heading in the right direction. It might not quite be there where some of us want it to be, but I just want to thank the Minister for that, and I look forward to hearing other contributions from your Lordships'

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House question. Was that motion a B agreed to? Since when motion A1 has been moved Since when motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A to leave out from disagreement to end and insert the words as printed on and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords, I to. Welcome the noble Lady, the Minister, back to her place, and I
15:44
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
Minister, back to her place, and I thank the noble Lord Lord Mohammed for his remarks. I ask to speak to my motion a2 for anyone who studied the verdicts in the two US cases, they are clearly game changers. The evidence from the social media companies themselves are damning. I have a treasure trove of documents of these. 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 has spoken only yesterday about the importance of highly effective age verification to ensure children can't 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 paper between us, it's 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 allay an amendment to the government's amendments to the fact 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 to be chosen very selectively, and I'm sure will be very few in number.

Definitely not an outright or blanket ban. And to state this on the face of the bill, I have also proposed in the amendment a sunset clause of two years on the Henry the eighth element of the powers that the government is proposing to take. 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 over 40 charities and other organisations, including the NSPCC, five rights, the Anti-Bullying Alliance, the centre for Protecting Women Online, the Children and Young People's Mental Health Coalition, the National Children's Bureau, quorum, the Internet Watch Foundation, the Mental Health Foundation, Mumsnet Parent Kind, the New Naswa and the centre for Young Lives, and many others.

Central to these principles are safety by design, with responsibility resting firmly on the services themselves. My amendment also contains a disapplication of the online safe harbour of the Online Safety Act, Safe Harbour, which will make enforcement easier for Ofcom. The involvement of Ofcom, the Children's Commissioner and the Royal Medical Colleges as expert advisors. The requirement for digital literacy, provision for children and a transparency provision. My Lords, it. Sorry, my Lords, a few words, if I may, about Australia and whether age verification can work.

Destroy alien 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 they are now moving to enforcement. As the Right Honourable Kendall said yesterday, we would propose in this country highly effective age verification, as is working for pornography as opposed to the Australian weaker, 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. My Lords, 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 merely to be used highly, selectively, and definitely not to apply to apps for particular vulnerable groups. Then the consultation can be about how to affect this and and learn over the next 12 months from Australia and the many other countries affecting similar measures.

And then the rest of the consultation can be about the equally very urgent matter of AI companions and chat bots, and about VPNs and the other matters it covers. The government has acted swiftly on pornography, nidification, intimate image abuse, cyber flashing content that promotes self-harm and suicide, and the preservation of data after the death of a child and in 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. My Lords, over a six month period, the LMS that drive products like chat bots like ChatGPT and Claude 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. My Lords. It was clear from the shocking evidence discovered in the American trials that there are people of conscience in the 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.
15:50
15:51
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page