Programme motion, Consideration of Lords message in the Commons
Commons ping-pong on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill — the House debated Lords amendments on sibling contact in care, allergy safety, social media age restrictions, smartphone bans in schools, school uniform cost limits, and admissions numbers.
OBThis Bill will lift over 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals, deliver breakfast clubs in every primary school, and is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation. Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. Lords amendment 17B on sibling contact strengthens the right of children in care to maintain contact with their siblings — it is a travesty that children can end up losing contact with their brothers and sisters. On social media and phones, our consultation allows us to act at real speed and addresses a much wider range of services than the Lords amendments — we will report back to Parliament within six months if we have not acted before then. On school uniforms, a numerical item limit is simpler, transparent, enforceable and overwhelmingly backed by parents. On admissions, our amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 102 will ensure decisions on published admission numbers give parents a choice of high-quality school places close to home.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.
Sibling relationships are often the most important in a looked-after child's life. Will the Minister commit to data collection on sibling separation as part of implementing amendment 17B, so we can be certain it is having the intended effect?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?
- The Under-Secretary is happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss data collection on sibling separation further.
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.
Care-experienced young people made this point powerfully to the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry on human rights in the care system. I put on record my gratitude to those young people for sharing their experiences, and to the Government for making this important change.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.
- I thank the hon. Member for that work. Turning to allergy safety — Lords amendment 105B requires all schools to have allergy safety policies, review them regularly and publish them. Schools must have regard to statutory guidance covering allergy awareness training, stocking adrenalin devices and incident reporting. This is Benedict's Law, named in memory of Helen Blythe's son, to ensure every child with allergies can attend school safely.
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 differe…
Will the Minister ensure that as the social media consultation progresses, the voices of young carers are heard?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.
- I can give that promise and am happy to arrange meetings with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There will not be endless rounds of consultation — the Government will act. We have listened to concerns in both Houses about a desire for swift action and appropriate scrutiny.
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.
Will the Minister confirm 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?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?
- The consultation is targeted widely, at everybody with an interest in or affected by this issue. I am happy to write with more detail on how it is taking place.
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.
Surely the swiftest action would be to use this Bill to ban smartphones from schools and ban children under 16 from social media. What extra information do you need to take those steps?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?
- The range of options we are considering in the consultation is significantly wider than the Lords amendments — including critical issues such as addictive design. We are committing to report back to the House within six months if we have not acted before then.
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.
Please confirm for the record that the ban on mobile phones in schools will not extend to alternative and augmentative communication devices — devices that have transformed the life of an autistic child in my constituency who uses one to communicate.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.
- There is provision in the guidance for schools to make exceptions for such exceptional cases.
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.
Anyone watching would think the real reason the Minister will not accept the amendment on uniforms is pride — there is no real argument against it. And there is equally no real argument against an immediate statutory ban on social media for under-16s: if no child under 16 can access social media, it does not matter how it is designed.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.
- The right hon. Gentleman's opinion on the quality of my argument is his own. On Lords amendment 102 and admissions: we have already committed to tighter regulations making clear that school quality and parental choice will be central to decisions on published admission numbers. In an age of declining rolls, it is important these powers exist so that every child has a great school place.
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.
The Government's own guidance makes clear that non-statutory guidance is not to be taken as a complete or definitive statement of the law. The evidence on smartphone harm to children is damning. Why will the Minister not take the step now and support a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools?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?
- Our objectives are the same — phones should not be in schools at any point during the day. The problem with why phone policies were not being enforced was weak guidance. We have strengthened it, Ofsted is now enforcing it, and support teams are helping schools implement it. If the consultation says a statutory ban is the silver bullet, of course we will do it — but in my honest view, we have already solved the problem of banning phones in schools.
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.
Has the Minister heard back from any headteacher representative bodies who say this ban would be so much more straightforward if written into law — because of difficulties with a minority of parents who make it harder to enforce? Headteachers tell us how much easier it would be if it were in primary legislation.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.
- We have changed the weak guidance and Ofsted is now enforcing it. Should the consultation say the guidance must be on a statutory footing, we will proceed on that basis — our objective is the same: no phones in schools from start to end of day. This Bill will break the link between background and success and lift thousands of children out of poverty.
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.
Since I last argued we should act to ban social media for under-16s, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a landmark verdict: two social media giants were found responsible for injuries suffered by a young woman across her childhood. These companies knew their platforms were addictive, knew the risks to young people and chose not to act — and children have paid the price. Eight further trials are already scheduled in California alone, and thousands more claimants are waiting. Here in the UK we are still watching. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106 still only requires schools to "have regard to" guidance on smartphones — for the love of God, put this guidance on a statutory footing. I am here for the bereaved parents in the Gallery: Ellen, who lost her son Jools to a TikTok blackout challenge; Lisa, whose son Isaac died at 13; Mariano, whose daughter Mia took her own life at 14 after online bullying; and George, whose 15-year-old son Christopher was groomed and killed 50 days after receiving threatening messages online. Every one of them is fighting so this does not happen to anyone else's children. Labour Members should ask themselves why they are still refusing to act.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.
- Does my right hon. Friend share some sympathy for the Minister, who has been put in the impossible position of arguing both that the problem is solved and that the consultation might yet tell us it needs to be legislated for? Those two positions are in logical contradiction. Clearly it needs to be legislated for.
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?
- As ever, entirely correct. The evidence is irrefutable and the Government need to get on with it.
As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The evidence is irrefutable, and the Government need to get on with it.
Screen time is a profound problem across the board — not just phones, but all devices. We now know it affects children's confidence in communicating and that their cerebral capacity is being altered over time. I hope the consultation looks more broadly at screen time, and that the Government send a clear message from this place that children and screen time are not happy bedfellows.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.
- We are in a profound battle for childhood and against the screens. The Government's recent guidance on under-fives and screens was very good, but they need to finish the job: get smartphones out of schools and ban children from social media. 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. A jury has examined the evidence and reached its verdict. The question is whether Labour will have the courage to do the same. I will keep fighting for change — and in the immortal words of Taylor Swift: "You want a fight? You found it."
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 sustain…
- The abnormal is becoming routine. Growing up has never been easy, but when someone's sense of what is normal is altered beyond recognition, it becomes impossible to navigate the vicissitudes of maturing — and that is where we are. This House took 25 years to regulate the internet at all; now the whole House can come together to protect our children from this menace.
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.
- 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 a clear timeframe for doing it. The parents in the Gallery will not give up either — and with parents, teachers and doctors, we have the place surrounded.
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.
A decade ago I raised the heartbreak that siblings in care suffer when separated and denied contact. What followed were amendments, debates, early-day motions, articles, questions, ministerial meetings and letters — so many letters. Every single time I was advised there was sympathy, 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. When I heard my noble Friends carry Lords amendment 17B — the same amendment I moved in 2016 — I was for once completely lost for words. To 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. It may have taken a decade, but this is for them.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.
- Thank you for persisting, and showing what a Back Bencher can do by keeping going, winning the argument, bringing it around and making a material difference to the lives of people who already suffer enough.
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.
- I hope the children I worked with are listening. It may have taken a decade and they will now be adults, but I hope they know that this is for them — and it is they who have made sure that other little ones will never have to go through what they had to go through.
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.
I warmly welcome Lords amendment 17B — but I note it was Labour MPs who opposed the Lib Dem Baroness Tyler's earlier attempt in the last round of ping-pong. I am glad the Government had a change of heart. On phones: government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106 requires headteachers only to "have regard for" guidance, not to mandate it. Young people themselves say they want a break from social media stress at school. Headteachers in my constituency told me: "This is yet another thing you pile on to Ofsted inspections — please can Ministers just make it law?" On uniforms, rejecting Lords amendment 41B refuses even a 12-month review of whether the item cap actually works. The Schoolwear Association says 61% of its members may increase prices because of the cap. Why won't Ministers accept an off-ramp to prevent another forced U-turn? On Lords amendment 38: it is heartening that Ministers are finally recognising children's data should not be a commodity for social media giants — but the amendment says only that they "may" make provisions, not that they will, and it is silent on the addictive design that engineers children's attention. The recent US court cases against Meta and YouTube confirm what we already knew: those apps are designed to keep children hooked.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 mand…
- PISA research 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. Does that not make acting on this even more urgent?
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?
- There is a plethora of evidence showing we have to act now. Internal Meta documents revealed executives saying: "If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens." That is my 11-year-old daughter they are talking about. Another memo showed 11-year-olds were four times more likely to keep coming back to Instagram than competing apps, despite the platform requiring users to be at least 13.
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.
Social media has become central to childhood and the negatives massively outweigh any positives. Even at its most benign, children spend 40, 50 or 60 hours a week on it — it is intentionally addictive, and a US court has now made that determination. There has been a 118% rise in children and young people accessing mental health services in England in the last decade. In a Harris poll, 39% of Gen Z said they wished social media had never been invented. I support Government amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 38 — we need to get on with it. I urge everyone to complete the consultation and urge the Government to act with haste after it closes on 26 May.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 thei…
- Social media is too often toxic in its effect on children. Parents who want to act fear isolating their children from friends who are all online. Teachers spend their days investigating cyber-bullying instead of teaching. Our children struggle to escape algorithms designed to be addictive. I will vote for Lords amendment 38 — to save children from that toxic world and give them their childhood back. Lords amendment 38 sets a clear boundary so parents are not isolated. When a child asks why they cannot go on Instagram, a parent can say, "Sorry, but that is the law." I will also vote for amendment 106: banning smartphones during the school day in primary legislation means every school in the land would have absolute clarity. The Government suggest passing it into law would not have effect — if we pass a law banning smartphones in schools, I would be pretty confident that means schools would not have smartphones. Children are suffering every single day this goes on. If we know it is wrong, harmful, and damaging their mental health — with bereaved parents in the Public Gallery as proof — how can we say we are just being thorough when there are no clear questions we need answers to?
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…
- There is a consensus across this House both about the harms of social media and about the urgent need for action. But on some points of detail, there is genuine disagreement between important stakeholders — including bereaved parents — on what exactly the solutions should look like. The Education Committee's evidence session on Tuesday will afford two hours of questioning of experts and key stakeholders. 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?
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?
- The hon. Member makes a stronger case than the Minister, but it lacks specifics. What precisely does the Government wish to find out, and why would that cause delay? On smartphones in schools specifically: if there is evidence that schools would disapply primary statute — that headteachers up and down the land would literally break the law — let us hear it. It seems like nonsense. What do we need to know about smartphones before simply putting this in the Bill?
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.
- The Education Committee evidence session on Tuesday next week will afford two hours of questioning of experts and important stakeholders. I believe it will make a useful contribution to helping the Government reach the right and implementable solutions during the consultation. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to tune in.
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.
- I accept the offer and will look at the evidence — but I still do not have an answer on what we are actually looking for. The problem is not just social media but smartphones: it is the combination together. Smartphones give children constant access to social media, and social media gives them algorithms designed to keep them scrolling. Data from the Youth Endowment Fund shows 70% of teenagers have seen violent content online despite only 6% actively searching for it. Children are not seeking extreme content — it is pushed at them. Parents in the Gallery are looking on and wondering what on earth is keeping us back.
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.
On banning social media for under-16s, there is genuine complexity — we have seen what Australia did and we believe our solution is better because it is future-proof and would encompass every platform. But the issue of smartphones in schools is much simpler: we do not want phones in schools, we do not need phones in schools, we know phones are in schools, and the Government could act through this Bill right now.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.
- Absolutely right on smartphones. There is literally no reason not to act. Governments tend to resist all amendment and change — but we must recognise complexity where it exists, and where there is a simple answer, simply get on with it.
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.
- Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that banning mobile phones in schools will not harm children, and that not banning them does harm children?
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that banning mobile phones in schools will not harm children, and that not banning them does harm children?
- That is a simple logic, beautifully expressed. There is no argument against a ban. The Government are better than this — I hope they will listen in the Chamber tonight. All of us should be trying to deal with what is true, right and proper. Where there is a simple answer, we should simply get on with it.
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.
Lords amendment 38 is quite simple: it is about delaying access to certain harmful social media services until children are 16 — not a blanket ban, but targeted measures aimed at services not designed with children in mind. The evidence from countries like Australia suggests that where age verification is not working, it is often because platforms are not properly enforcing the rules. The onus must be squarely with the tech companies. The amendment proposes not simply "reasonable steps" but highly effective age assurance, and that is meaningfully different. France and Spain are taking similar steps; we ought to be part of this broader shift. There is a question about what additional insights a small trial would add, given the body of research that already exists.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.
- The priority for any legislator is to protect citizens from harm, and this amendment would protect children from harm. The technical implementation — how we control access — should not be the deciding consideration, given that harm. That responsibility belongs to the platform owners, who have access to technology they refuse to use.
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.
- We must hold the tech companies to account — they are the ones in control. I support the Government's direction of travel, but 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, there is a strong case for them to bring forward their own proposal to achieve the same outcome clearly and in a timely fashion.
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.
- There are unanswered questions on definitions and exactly where the boundary lines are — but the Government consultation is not just about those technical points, it is about the "whether" as well as the "how". By all means consult to make the measures bullet-proof, but today we could say, like other countries: "We are doing this. We are going to protect our children." Does the hon. Member agree?
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?
- I understand exactly what the hon. Member says. I support the Government and the Bill — but there is a strong case for the Government to bring forward their own proposal to achieve the same outcome as Lords amendment 38, clearly and in a timely fashion. There is a clear expectation, inside and outside this House, that we must act.
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.
About 50% of my parenting involves placing limits on my children's phones to limit time on them — but I am doing battle against a force with billions of dollars and the capability to make content more and more addictive every day. Those tech companies and their algorithmic content are killing kids. It is a public health crisis and the Government are moving far too slowly. A University of Birmingham study shows teachers spend 100 hours a week trying to control smartphone use. The Government's amendment says only that the Secretary of State "may" make provisions and asks for a six-month progress update — no requirements to act, no timeline. That is not decisive action; it is a licence not to do very much. The consultation is flawed — it asks children 62 questions. How on earth can a child whose attention has been taken by a phone answer 62 questions? The world is moving faster than the Government: juries in the US have returned landmark verdicts against Meta and Google, with internal documents showing those companies explicitly acknowledged their products are addictive and that addictive design features were built precisely because of their addictive effects. For once, will the Government act boldly and quickly and use powers in this Bill to protect all our children?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…
- Does the hon. Lady share my concern that social media companies have billions of pounds of lobbying power, and could recruit bots and volunteers to rig the consultation — which is why they should not be allowed to participate?
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?
- I absolutely agree — tech companies have billions of pounds, and meanwhile the Government's consultation asks children 62 questions. In New Mexico, Meta faced a penalty covering 75,000 separate violations of state law. In Los Angeles, a jury found Meta and Google liable for negligence and failure to warn about dangers, with 2,000 further cases pending in California. Internal documents disclosed in those cases showed social media companies explicitly acknowledging that their products are addictive and that addictive design features were created precisely because of their harmful effects. What more evidence do the Government need before acting quickly?
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?
It is no longer credible to ignore the scale of the challenge posed by social media to children. Shockingly, a quarter of primary school children have already been exposed to pornography. Children do not even have to go looking for such content — it finds them. According to a YouGov poll, 83% of Gen Z support a social media age limit. We do not have time to waste: action is needed now, not after another consultation. I am pleased to support Lords amendment 38, which would prevent under-16s from accessing harmful social media platforms.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 me…
- Headteachers tell me that if all secondary schools in an area ban phones, children do not get smartphones at 11 when they transfer to year 7 — the age of first ownership rises to around 13 or 14. Banning smartphones from schools is not just about school hours; it is about gaining those precious two or three years when children would not own a smartphone at all.
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.
- Lords amendment 106 mandates schools to prohibit smartphones during the school day — it could have been written in headteachers' offices across my constituency. 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.
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.
My constituents George and Areti are in the Gallery. Their 15-year-old son Christopher was tricked into sharing personal information online and began receiving death threats from an anonymous stranger. Over 50 harrowing days, the threats escalated. Feeling unable to tell his parents and fearing for their safety, Christopher took his own life in March 2022. George and Areti have set up the Christoforos Charity Foundation, working to educate others about the dangers children face online. As George and Areti say, their son was murdered by social media. Will the Government stop the reviews and act now — ban phones in schools and bring in an age restriction of 16 on social media to save lives today?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?
- Screen time and social media reduce children's attention spans and weaken executive function. MRI studies provide biological evidence: higher screen exposure in young children is associated with thinner cortical regions involved in language, attention and cognition, and reduced structural integrity in frontal regions linked to self-regulation. Multiple longitudinal studies of over 10,000 children link screen exposure to increased inattention, impulsivity and ADHD symptom severity. We know from leaked internal documents that social media companies were fully aware of the harm they were causing — designing in addictive features and knowing children want to leave their platforms but feel unable to. I would class those companies as virtual drug dealers. Academic studies have found that 24% of suicides among 10 to 19-year-olds are linked to high-risk use of digital technology. We do not need more consultation, delay or half-measures. We need this Government to insist on safety by design, protect children from damaging platforms, and commit to raising the age of access to social media to 16 and banning mobile phones in schools.
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 wi…
- The language delays caused by these apps will add extra needs into a SEND system that parents are already worried about, storing up serious problems for the future if not tackled now. Does the hon. Member agree?
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?
- I do agree. The Government must implement laws to protect our children from the harms those companies cause, and must also introduce laws obligating them to redesign their platforms to design out those harms — just as the Government introduced age-gating for pornographic sites. This is not some future risk; it is a real and present harm, as cases like that of 14-year-old Molly Russell have demonstrated.
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.
- The question we have debated today is not whether we act, but how we act. My hon. Friend for South Shields has truly honoured her word to the children she worked with. On uniforms, I repeat that we will monitor the impact and conduct a post-implementation review. On social media: I can give a guarantee that we will act swiftly following this consultation, which concludes in only a month's time. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness does not accept the need to hear a wide range of perspectives before acting, but the consensus across this House about the need to act was clear in this debate. This Bill 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 children to support this landmark legislation.
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 wo…
- #485passedMotion relating to Lords Amendment 38 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion relating to Lords Amendment 38. The motion was agreed 256–150.Ayes 256Noes 150
- #486passedMotion to reject Lords Amendment 41B — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41B. The motion was agreed 254–144, so the Commons rejected the Lords' change.Ayes 254Noes 144
- #487passedMotion relating to Lords Amendment 102 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion relating to Lords Amendment 102. The motion was agreed 259–136.Ayes 259Noes 136
- #488passedMotion relating to Lords Amendment 106 — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion relating to Lords Amendment 106. The motion was agreed 248–139.Ayes 248Noes 139