Consideration of Lords message in the Commons
Commons considered Lords messages on social media access for children, smartphone bans in schools, and pupil admission numbers, with the Government defending its consultation approach against Opposition calls for immediate action.
OBToday we are asking the House to reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation — the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation. On Lords amendment 102 on pupil admission numbers, we have tabled amendments in lieu that place a duty on adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN, and to consult the admissions authority, the local authority and the Secretary of State before reducing a school's admissions number. On Lords amendments 38V to 38X on children's access to social media, our consultation goes further — covering gaming, AI chatbots and a wider set of risks beyond social media. This is not a question of *whether* we act but *how* we act. We will respond to the consultation by the summer and report to Parliament within six months.I am pleased to speak on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for our third consideration of Lords amendments. The Bill is the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and it will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care system, so that every child can achieve and thrive. Today, I ask the House to again reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation. I turn first to Lords amendment 102 on the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number following an upheld objection. In this age of declining roles, it is important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place. But the Government have been clear throughout this process that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of PAN decisions. As committed to by my noble Friend Lady Smith in the other place, we have tabled amendments in lieu reflecting this. These amendments place a requirement on the face of the Bill for adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objection. They will also require the adjudicator, before making a decision to reduce the school’s PAN, to consult key parties about alternatives to lowering the school’s admissions number. Those parties are the admissions authority, the local authority and the Secretary of State, which in practice means consulting the relevant Department for Education regional director. We are also taking a power to make it clear that we can require the adjudicator to consult additional parties in line with commitments in our policy paper. Through the Bill, we will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education and parental choice, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders, such as the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including on…
The Government's work on this is much appreciated by parents — especially looking ahead at what further measures might be taken to tackle online harms.Can I thank my hon. Friend for the Government’s work on this important matter, which is much appreciated by many parents—in particular the work of looking ahead at what further measures might be taken to tackle online harms?
- We will act quickly: the consultation will be answered by summer, with a legislative commitment to report to Parliament within six months.
I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention and for all his work for his constituents in Reading Central. To underline the fact that we will act quickly, we have committed to responding to the consultation by the summer and have made a legislative commitment to report to Parliament within six months.
Whatever the Government decide on social media — restriction, ban, or age limit — it is hugely important that young people learn about the dangers through the expanded school curriculum. The Education Committee received evidence yesterday from social media companies, though we were all hugely disappointed that one company did not provide representation.I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time, as always. I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee. I hope that I do not steal the thunder of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is sitting next to me. Yesterday we received evidence from representatives of social media companies and from academics, although we were all hugely disappointed that one social media company did not provide representation. Does the Minister agree that whatever the Government decide when it comes to social media—whether it is restricted, banned or an age restriction is put in place—it is hugely important that young people learn about the dangers? We must ensure that goes into the expanded school curriculum, as discussed in the White Paper.
- Online safety is already part of our revised national curriculum and the relationships, sex and health education curriculum. We have also clarified that the power in Clause 70 can only be exercised to protect children from online harm, and we will share draft regulations with Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople.
I thank my hon. Friend for his work. I do agree with him; this is an important point. The issue is a part of our revised national curriculum and also the relationships, sex and health education curriculum. I am grateful for the engagement of peers and Members across the House on this vital topic. As a result, we have made a number of other changes that strengthen our position, including clarifying that this power can only be exercised to protect children from online harm and that we will share draft regulations with Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople. I welcome the constructive engagement from Lord Nash and the Conservatives as we come to a solution on our small areas of difference. I can assure the House that we intend to return to these matters on Monday in the other place and put beyond doubt the Government’s plans to act and to do so swiftly.
The Government are kicking the can down the road. Lord Nash's amendment would limit social media to those over 16, and there is an opportunity today to tighten regulations on mobile phones in schools — so why are we being so wishy-washy?It seems to me as though the Government are just kicking the can down the road. We have an opportunity in the legislation before us, and particularly in Lord Nash’s amendment—which we are not being allowed to vote on as I understand it—to limit the use of social media outlets to those who are over 16. We also have the opportunity to tighten very seriously the regulations relating to the use of mobile phones in schools, but again, there is a loophole. Why are we being so wishy-washy?
- That characterisation is wrong. We are running a wide-ranging consultation — much wider than the amendments before us — that enables us to act swiftly and decisively to protect our children from harm.
I reject the right hon. Member’s characterisation that we are kicking the can down the road. In fact, we are having a wide-ranging consultation—much wider than the amendments before us—that enables us to act swiftly and decisively. We guarantee that we will protect our children from harm.
- At the start of this year the Government took decisive action on phones in schools. We strengthened the Conservatives' weak guidance, making it clear that schools must implement a policy in which pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the entire school day — during lessons, between lessons, at break and at lunch. We wrote to every headteacher in the country, asked Ofsted to enforce the ban (which it began doing this month), and rolled out targeted support for any struggling school. Today we are also making that guidance statutory — and I am glad the shadow Secretary of State has indicated her support.
I am going to make progress. Let me turn to Lords amendment 106 on our shared objective on banning phones in schools. As the House knows, at the start of the year the Government took decisive action to ban phones in schools. We strengthened the Conservatives’ weak guidance, including making it clear—to directly quote the guidance—that we expect schools “to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day including during lessons, the time between lessons, breaktimes and lunchtime.” We wrote to every headteacher in the country to make it clear that the Government have their back when it comes to banning phones in schools. We asked Ofsted to enforce the ban, which it started doing this month, and we have rolled out a targeted programme of support to ensure that any struggling school gets the help it needs so that this ban is fully in place.
After a year of insisting that a statutory ban was — to quote the Prime Minister — "unnecessary" and — to quote the Education Secretary — a "headline-grabbing gimmick", the Government have finally given in: we have got a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. The Department for Education's own evidence shows that phones are still disrupting almost half of GCSE classes every day. Only making the guidance statutory could fix that, and I pay tribute to the campaigners — SafeScreens, Mumsnet, Parentkind, Generation Focus, Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Phone Free Education and Smartphone Free Childhood — whose relentless pressure delivered this change. But the Minister must be crystal clear today: a "not seen, not heard" policy — where children can keep phones in their bags as long as they are silent — is not allowed under these rules. The real number of schools with a full smartphone ban is only 11% according to Policy Exchange; the 80% figure Ministers constantly cite includes "not seen, not heard" schools, and those policies simply do not work.I want to start with some good news. After a year of resisting—insisting that a statutory ban on smartphones in schools was, to quote the Prime Minister, “unnecessary”—the Government have finally given in and we have got what we have been asking for: a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. Ministers have told me over and over again that there is not a problem. They said that the vast majority of schools have a phone ban and that a statutory ban was, to quote the Education Secretary, a “headline-grabbing gimmick”. At one stage, I was told—by an Education Minister during Education questions, no less—that I needed something better to go on than a smartphone ban in schools. But we have kept fighting, because I know and my party knows that there is a problem. The Department for Education’s own evidence says that phones are still disrupting almost half of GCSE classes every day. We know that children are still seeing porn at school on their friends’ smartphones, and it is affecting behaviour. We have tried guidance to fix the problem, but it has not worked. There is a phones crisis in schools, and only making the guidance statutory could possibly fix it. After various contortions from the Government Front Bench, I am glad that they have finally listened. In the face of a Government who until recently refused to accept that there is a problem, I pay tribute to the incredible campaigners—SafeScreens, Mumsnet, Parentkind, Will Orr-Ewing, Generation Focus, Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Phone Free Education and Smartphone Free Childhood. Their relentless focus and pressure has helped to give voice to the frustrated teachers, parents and students who were desperate for change—change that we have now delivered in the Bill. While that is good news, I want the Government to make it crystal clear that a “not seen, not heard” policy is not allowed under these rules. The statistic that Ministers constantly give—that 80% of schools already have a smartphone ban—includes s…
The Government have accepted what we were pushing for, but it is not good enough to say that it is the pupil's responsibility not to use their phone. Young people face peer pressure. How will the Government support schools to ensure the ban is actually effective?I had intended to speak in the debate but I am afraid I have to leave by 4 pm, so I would not have been able to be in the Chamber for the wind-ups. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crux of the matter is that although it is all very well for the Government to now accept what the Conservatives have been pushing for—a ban on phones in schools—it is simply not good enough for them to say that it is the responsibility of the pupil to not use their phone? Young people are easily influenced and they may well come under peer pressure to keep their phones and to use them to communicate, as my right hon. Friend has said. Will she push the Government to say how they are going to support schools, as the Minister said that they will do, to ensure that the ban is effective?
- That is exactly why we need an explicit commitment from the Minister today that a "not seen, not heard" policy is prohibited. While the commitment could be read from the guidance, it must be made explicit so headteachers have certainty — the Education Minister in the other place could not give that categorical assurance.
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need an explicit commitment from the Minister today. I will be delighted if she is able to give that—it would be fantastic. If there is agreement from Members across the House, everyone will be very relieved. We have gone through the Government guidance and while that commitment could be read from the guidance, it is important for headteachers that it is made explicit. The Education Minister in the other place could not give that categorical assurance—[Interruption.] No, not this Education Minister—the Education Minister in the other place. It is important that the Minister gives that assurance today, and I am sure that she will. The Conservatives have shown that we can come together in the best interests of children, we can force change and we can make a difference.
If this is so important, why did the Conservatives not impose it during the 14 years they were in government?Given the importance that the Conservatives are placing on the ban, why did they not impose it during the 14 years that they were in government?
- We put guidance in place but have been explicit that it was not effective — that is precisely why we have been fighting throughout the passage of the Bill to put it on the statute book. On pupil admission numbers, I welcome the progress made in recognising the importance of school quality and parental involvement, but the Government amendment is not perfect: adjudicators are required only to *take account of* school quality and parental preference, which does not guarantee that good school places are protected. We will not vote against the amendment, but I would appreciate the Minister reassuring parents from the Dispatch Box that successful academies will not be penalised by local authorities merely because they are not run by them.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we put guidance in place, but we have been explicit that it was not effective and that we needed to put it on the statute book, which is what we have been fighting for throughout the passage of the Bill. Turning to the Government amendment on pupil admission numbers, I am grateful that progress has been made in recognising the importance of school quality and parental involvement in decision making. This is a victory to protect school standards in the face of an onslaught against them in the Bill. Parental preference and choice are fundamental to healthy competition and higher school standards, and we welcome the belated acknowledgment of that by the Government. It is the right thing for parents, who would be dumbfounded at the idea that the local authority could unilaterally cut the places at a high-quality, over-subscribed school at the end of their road, which was exactly what was originally suggested in the Bill. The Government amendment is not perfect. It will still allow good school places to be cut as the adjudicator is required to take in account only the quality of education provided at the school in question and parental preference. That does not mean that school places are protected as they should be, but given that the Government have moved their position and taken into account some concerns, we will not vote against the amendment today. However, I would appreciate the Minister reassuring parents from the Dispatch Box that as the Secretary of State will be consulted on these decision, successful academies will not be penalised by local authorities merely by dint of not being run by them.
- The GORSE Academies Trust in my constituency has a very firm policy on phones — so firm that during a security incident last year, no pupil even knew it was happening. The Government should consult academies and institutions like that to understand exactly how they enforce a strict policy.
The GORSE Academies Trust runs schools in my constituency that have a very firm policy on the use of phones. Indeed, there was a security incident last year that put one of its schools under threat, but no pupil knew that that was happening because of that firm policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are academies and institutions that the Government should consult to understand exactly how they are enforcing a very strict policy?
- On social media: if the Government truly wanted change, they could deliver it today. Twice already, Labour Members have voted against a ban. Parents are watching and will not forgive continued delay. The Government's consultation asks not *how* to implement a social media ban but *whether* to do one at all — and it even suggests that TikTok is good for children because they can post dance videos. Labour MPs who care about this issue should vote with us tonight.
That is absolutely right. Enforcing a very strict policy is what now needs to happen off the back of the new statutory guidance. Let me now turn to the issue of social media and the Government’s approach. One of the biggest safeguarding challenges facing children today is social media. If we are serious about protecting children from the extreme and violent content that they encounter online every day, the Government should do what the Prime Minister says he wants to do—protect children online—by voting for change tonight. Parents are watching and they will not forgive the continued delay. Twice already, Labour Members have voted against a ban. Parents will be forgiven for not only feeling deeply let down, but being quite frankly baffled by what is going on. They have heard the Prime Minister promise action, yet once again he is preparing to lead his party through the Lobby to vote against it. If the Government truly wanted change, they could deliver it today. Instead, they have chosen to vote against a ban for a third time.
Labour MPs have not voted against a ban; they voted for a consultation — to listen to parents, young people and charities, and to learn lessons from Australia and Greece. Basing this policy on evidence is the right thing to do.I know that this is an important subject for the right hon. Lady personally, but Labour MPs have not voted against a ban; they have voted for a consultation. They have voted to listen to parents, young people and charities and to learn lessons from what has happened in places such as Australia and Greece. Surely basing this policy on evidence is the right thing to do.
- The Government's consultation is not on how to implement a ban but on whether to do one at all — that is not good enough. Labour MPs who care about this issue should vote with us.
I respect the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that the Government consultation is not on how to implement a social media ban, but on whether to do one at all. That is not good enough. It also says in the consultation that TikTok is good for children because they can post dance videos. I do not believe that that is taking the issue seriously, and I do not believe that it commits to firm action. That is why Labour MPs who care about this issue should vote with us today.
Action and a ban are not necessarily the same thing. A joint letter from the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and many others argued that although serious action is needed on addictive features, safeguarding problems and violent content, a blanket ban has significant drawbacks. We need to look at the evidence and get this right.Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that action and a ban will not necessarily be the same thing? This is a really nuanced policy area. Quite recently, there was a huge online joint letter published by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and many others. It argued that although serious action is needed to tackle addictive features, safeguarding problems and violent content online, as we all agree and as she is saying, a blanket ban has significant drawbacks. It is right that we really look at the evidence, consult nationally and get this right.
- A huge coalition of charities backs a ban. Policing *content* online has not worked, but policing *age* will. Real harm is happening and children are dying — a ban is the most effective way to act, and there is no time for delay.
There is a huge coalition of charities backing a ban. We have tried to police content online, and it has not worked, but we know that policing age will work and make a difference. This is urgent; there is no time for delay. Real harm is happening and children are dying. We must act, and a ban is the most effective way to do that.
- We have the opportunity today to carry the motion from the other House that would introduce the ban. The consultation paper asks "shall we do it?" — that question does not need answering. Am I right?
Let me try again with the question that I put to the Minister. We have the opportunity today to carry a motion tabled in the other House that would introduce the ban. The can is being kicked down the road. We cannot have consultation indefinitely. The question on the consultation paper is not, “How do we do this?”, but, “Shall we do it?” That is not necessary—am I right?
- Absolutely right — action this day is what is required.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Action this day—that is what is required, and that is what we are pushing for.
- If this is so important, why did the Conservatives not get round to it in 14 years in government?
The right hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I ask her the same question that I posed earlier: if this is so important, why did the Conservatives not get round to doing it when they were in government for 14 years?
- The rise of social media really came in 2015–16 with the rise of front-facing cameras. We acted through the Online Safety Act 2023 — a huge Act — but it has not been enough to police content. We now need a social media ban for children, and I will not give up this fight until the Government say what they will do and by when. I hope that comes tonight; if not, the thousands who have joined the 'Raise the Age' campaign will keep fighting.
The rise of social media really came about in a serious way in 2015 or 2016 with the rise of front-facing cameras. We took action through the Online Safety Act 2023, which was a huge Act in pushing forward the safety of children, but it has not been effective in policing content. It has not been enough, and we need to go further. We now need a social media ban for children. Let me say once more: I will not give up this fight until the Government tell the House what they will do and by when. I hope that that comes tonight—the Minister indicates that it may come later in the other place—but I will not give up, and neither will the thousands of people who have joined the brilliant “Raise the Age” campaign, which has been speaking so powerfully for frustrated parents across the country.
Members' inboxes have been filled by parents who feel passionately that they need the Government to step in and say these apps are not allowed for children. As a parent myself, I cannot be over my children's shoulders watching what they see online — what the algorithm is pushing at them is unsafe, damaging and harmful, and they deserve Government protection.The shadow Minister is absolutely right. The inboxes of all Members across the House have been filled by parents who feel passionately that they need help to be able to control their children’s use of things online. They need the Government to step in and say, “You are actually not allowed those apps.” I am a parent myself, with young children, and as parents we cannot be over their shoulder all the time watching what they are seeing online. We know that what they are being given by the algorithm is so unsafe, damaging and harmful, and they deserve to be protected from that by the Government.
- The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have been able to come together in the interests of children — it is just the Labour party that is standing in the way. The Government continually promise urgent action, yet all they have tabled is an amendment that commits to no action whatsoever and specifies no timeframe. Childhood is short, and once children are exposed to extreme and violent content it cannot be unseen. We must act while there is still time to protect children who are growing up today.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. What she says speaks to the point that our two parties have been able to come together in the interests of children; it is just the Labour party that is standing in the way. Frankly, I know that there are Labour Members who agree with us and who want the Government to stop promising action and actually start taking some. Given the events of this week, I suspect that many of them do not even trust a word their own Government say. [Interruption.] It is absurd that the Government continually promise urgent action, yet all they have laid before Parliament is an amendment that does not commit to any action at all and does not specify a timeframe. This is not good enough. In a terrible week for the Government, the Opposition have proved that politicians can make change by coming together in the interests of children to ban smartphones. We can do the same on social media. The Prime Minister has already made his Back Benchers defend the indefensible this week, and I urge Labour MPs not to let him do the same to them again and to vote for change this evening. We owe it to the generation of children who are being exposed to extreme and violent content every single day to do so. Childhood is short, and children are being influenced and impacted by what they are being exposed to right now. Damage is being done now, and months and even years of delay mean a childhood lost for some, because once that content is seen, it cannot be unseen. Once those pressures take hold, they cannot simply be reversed, and the consequences can last a lifetime. This is not about action at some point in the future; it is about whether we act while there is still time to protect children who are growing up today, not years from now. Childhood is short, and we cannot give it back to children later, so we must protect it now.
I welcome the Government's decision to introduce a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools — where an issue is unequivocal, legislation is the most straightforward way to ensure compliance. But what approach will the Minister take to the accompanying guidance on exceptions? Some children still need a phone in school — young carers, or children who rely on phone-enabled software for a disability or special educational need. Our Education Committee witness made an important point: care is needed about who gets to use the phone, which apps are allowed, and how children who have an exceptional need for a phone are protected from bullying.First, I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools. I appreciate that the guidance previously proposed was clear and that schools must take account of Government guidance, but where an issue is unequivocal—and I think the need for mobile phones to be absent from schools unless there is a clear need for an exception is unequivocal—putting the matter into legislation is the most straightforward way to ensure compliance, and it provides clarity for the public. However, what approach will the Minister take to the guidance accompanying this ban, particularly with regard to exceptions? There will be children who still need to have a phone in school for a variety of different reasons—for example, because they are young carers or because they rely on phone-enabled software for support with a disability or special educational need. At the Education Committee yesterday, one of our witnesses made an important point about how exceptions are to be treated when implementing a ban, which was that care needs to be taken regarding how the wider issues in the classroom are managed for children who have an exceptional need for a phone. Those issues include who gets to use the phone, what apps are allowed to be on that phone, and how children are kept safe from bullying in this context.
- Chichester High School uses Yondr pouches — children bring their phones but put them in lockable pouches for the day and unlock them on leaving. Would that be a potential solution, especially for children who need their devices for health reasons?
Chichester high school in my constituency has introduced Yondr pouches—I imagine there are many similar pouches. Children can take their phones to school, but then they have to put them in those lockable pouches. They do not have access to them throughout the day, and they can unlock the pouches when they leave school. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a potential solution, especially for children who need their phones for health reasons or who, for other reasons, need their devices to make sure they can be in school?
- The ban must mean phones are not in bags during the school day but removed from children entirely — I agree with that. For children who genuinely need their phone, the question of how exceptions are managed in the classroom is more complex than simply drafting a list of exemptions, and I hope the Minister can give assurance on that. On Lords amendment 38: in yesterday's Education Committee evidence session, TikTok claimed its apps were not addictive despite having just lost a court case in the US on that precise point; Meta expressed horror at children being harmed on its platform as if it were rare, when police investigations show it is widespread; Roblox expressed confidence that exploitation cannot happen on its site, when an independent expert recently said the risks were so high that children should never be left unattended on it. We cannot continue to rely on the companies causing the problem to regulate themselves out of it. The need for urgent action is clear, and I welcome the Government's consultation and the measures in Clause 70 enabling a ban or other regulatory measures by statutory instrument with no need for further primary legislation. But will the Minister set out a clear timescale for regulations under those statutory instruments, so parents know there is an end point?
I agree with the hon. Member—and, indeed, with the Opposition Front Bencher, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—that the ban must be on the basis that phones are not in bags during the school day, but are removed from children while they are at school. The point I was making was really about children who need to have their phone with them. There will be some exceptions, and the question of how that is worked through in the guidance is important for protecting those children from the pressures that might come with being the only child in a classroom who has access to their phone. Drawing up a list of exceptions is more straightforward than deciding how those exceptions should be managed in a classroom environment, so I hope the Minister will be able to provide some assurance on that point. I now turn to Lords amendment 38. Yesterday, in the first of two evidence sessions on screentime and social media that are designed to enable the Select Committee to contribute to the Government’s consultation, we heard from three companies: TikTok, Meta and Roblox. Next week, we will hear from Snapchat, which withdrew from yesterday’s session at very short notice, much to our disappointment. We also heard from academics undertaking research in this area. It was absolutely clear from the evidence those three companies gave us that we cannot continue to rely on the companies whose platforms are causing the problem to regulate themselves out of it. I think that parents and carers across the country would have been incredulous had they listened to our evidence session yesterday. We heard Meta say that it did not believe that its apps were in any way addictive, when it has just lost a court case in the US on that precise point. We listened to TikTok say that it was horrified that children were coming to harm on its site, as if that was a rare exception, when a police investigation found that such harm is widespread. We heard Roblox express confidence that exploitation ca…
- The evidence on Meta and addiction is shocking. The problem goes broader than children — lots of adults have social media addiction issues too, and a children's ban alone would not necessarily solve that. We need to look at broader solutions.
My hon. Friend is citing some shocking evidence, and I will be sure to listen to the Committee session later. On her comments about Meta not believing that its platforms are addictive, does she agree that the problem goes more broadly than just children? Lots of adults have issues with social media addiction, and a social media ban for children would not necessarily solve that. We need to look at broader solutions.
- The discussion yesterday felt like how a discussion about tobacco might have felt in the 1940s. The harm is so evident as to be undeniable, but the companies responsible continue to argue it is minimal or non-existent and that anything in moderation is fine.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. One of the reasons for the incredulity among those listening to the evidence yesterday was precisely that we recognise the addictive nature of social media. Frankly, the discussion yesterday felt like how a discussion about tobacco might have felt in the 1940s. The harm is so evident as to be undeniable, but the companies responsible for it continue to argue that the harm is minimal or non-existent and that anything in moderation is fine.
- Urgent action is clearly needed. Roblox is not included in the Australian ban because it is not classified as a social media site, yet children can contact each other on it, create disturbing content, be absorbed for hours, and have been groomed there. We should at least consider whether social media harms extend to some gaming platforms. One witness also questioned whether 16 is the right age threshold in the UK context, given that our young people are in the middle of preparing for GCSEs at that age. When we regulate to remove the pernicious influence of social media from children's lives, it is vital that the regulation is effective — and I am frustrated by the Opposition's refusal to acknowledge that complexity and the importance of getting it right.
I will not take any further interventions because of the time left, if that is okay. The need for urgent action to take children off social media in their crucial formative years is clear, so I welcome the Government’s consultation, the measures in the Bill to enable a ban and other regulatory measures to be introduced via statutory instrument with no need for further primary legislation. In our evidence session yesterday, we also heard from academics about some of the complexity that must be considered if we are get to get a ban and any further regulatory measures right. For example, we questioned Roblox. It is not a social media company, because the primary activity on its platform is gaming, and it appeals to very young children. On Roblox, children can contact each other via a trusted friends feature and they can create content, and we have heard examples of some very disturbing content. They can be absorbed on their screens for hours at a time, and we know that there have been examples of children being groomed and contacted by people who want to do them harm. Roblox is not included in the Australian ban, because it is not a social media site, but there should be at least some consideration of the extent to which social media harms also extend to some gaming platforms, and of how children can be protected from that. One of our witnesses questioned whether, in the UK context, 16 is the right age threshold for a ban. In Australia, young people do not have major exams at 16, and there should be consideration about whether the exact time that our young people are preparing for their GCSEs is the right time to be diving into social media for the first time, or whether a slightly younger or older threshold would be better. Next week, we will hear from parents and parent-led organisations, including the Molly Rose Foundation and Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey. It is important to note that these stakeholders have different views, and we will explore their disa…
We welcome the Government's moves to strengthen the adjudicator's duty on quality of educational provision and parental preference before changing a school's pupil admission numbers, and welcome the duty to consult. But we remain concerned about conflicts of interest and how it will work in practice — if a high-performing school has space to expand and there is demand for places, ideology should not get in the way. I welcome the statutory ban on phones in schools and join the shadow Secretary of State in paying tribute to all the campaign groups and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon for her work. After more than a year of begging, this simple change will have a big impact — though it should not have taken this long, and it is a shame it was described repeatedly as a gimmick. With school budgets stretched, I urge the Government to ensure all schools have the support they need to properly implement the ban. And I would welcome clear assurance from the Minister that for pupils with medical needs or caring responsibilities, schools will be free to make appropriate exemptions that are not onerous or discriminatory, and that children with SEND who need assistive technology will have appropriate access to a device. On social media: each day more children are coming to serious harm from addictive platforms, while big tech companies come here and brazenly deny responsibility. I urge the Government to formally recognise in the legislation that both addictive design and harmful content have created this toxic cocktail, and to come forward with a concrete commitment and a swift timeline for implementation.I will try my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every family has the ambition to send their child to the best school—preferably close by—so we welcome the Government’s moves to strengthen the duty of the schools adjudicator to take account of quality of educational provision and parental preference in an area before changing a school’s pupil admission numbers. We also welcome the duty to consult. We remain concerned about conflicts of interest and how things will work in practice. Ultimately, if a high-performing, popular school has space to expand and there is a demand for places, ideology should not get in the way of it doing so. I welcome the Government’s decision to finally ban access to mobile phones during the school day by putting existing guidance on a statutory footing. I join the shadow Secretary of State in paying tribute to all the campaign groups and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for all her work on this issue. After more than a year of parents, teachers and pupils begging, this simple change will have a big impact. I am just sorry that it did not happen sooner and was described repeatedly as a gimmick. Classrooms will be a step closer to becoming a place of focus and learning, free from the addictive and demanding world of social media, but they need the right equipment and procedures in place. With school budgets stretched to breaking point and some parents not necessarily able to afford pouches, I urge the Government to ensure that all schools have the necessary support to properly ensure that every classroom can be smartphone-free. I welcome the reasonable adjustments alluded to in the guidance, but I would also welcome clear assurance from the Minister that for those pupils with medical needs or caring responsibilities, schools will be at liberty to make appropriate exemptions and accommodations that are not onerous or discriminatory towards individual children. Similarly, school leaders should have the freedom to ensure…
- A young boy of just 13 in my constituency was stabbed and brutally murdered in a local park after a terrible series of incidents of online bullying. I pay tribute to Olly's mum and dad, who have campaigned extremely hard to tackle both knife crime and online harms, and who have argued powerfully for a ban at 16. I am aware there are contrary arguments — the Molly Rose Foundation and other campaigners take different views — and I hope the consultation can address those in great depth. Social media, gaming and other technologies move very quickly, and it is important that the consultation explores gaming and a range of other matters, not just social media alone. On phones, I wholeheartedly welcome today's amendment — it gives schools the clarity they need and will help protect children.
It is a pleasure to speak briefly this afternoon. I wanted to speak because we had a tragedy in my constituency, where a young boy of just 13 years old was stabbed and brutally murdered in a local park after a terrible series of incidents of online bullying. This is a very serious matter and I appreciate the Government’s work on it, and the consultation, which has enormous potential. I pay tribute to Olly’s mum and dad, who have been campaigning extremely hard on this matter, to tackle both the scourge of knife crime and social media and online harms. They have argued very powerfully for a ban at 16, but I am aware that there are contrary arguments, as the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), mentioned earlier. The Molly Rose Foundation and other campaigners take a different view. I hope that these matters can be addressed fully in the consultation, and that we can look in great detail at some of the challenges, because these are extremely difficult issues for our society and for parents. In my own life as a parent, I have found it difficult to fully comprehend the level of risk that is out there. We all face the challenge that social media, gaming and other technologies move very quickly, so it is important that we look at gaming and a range of other matters. I look forward to the consultation exploring this issue fully, looking in depth and, hopefully, answering the pleas from all the parents involved in the campaigns, because this is such a serious and important issue. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Minister, and with the Government as a whole, on this matter. On the matter of phones, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s action. It is important to see this issue from the point of view of parents, children and schools. Schools have to implement the ban, and the Minister has rightly set out how today’s amendment will give clarity to schools so that teachers will understand precisely what is mean…
Good schools are exceptionally precious: they transform lives by fostering natural talent, equipping children to tackle challenges, and expanding intellectual horizons. They should be able to grow so that more parents can choose them. Yet the powers this Bill creates on pupil admissions will achieve precisely the opposite — limiting the growth of good schools, or even forcing them to shrink, so that schools performing less well can stay open. The most generous interpretation is bureaucratic convenience as pupil rolls fall, but it is completely absurd to tackle that problem by capping good schools' growth. In practice, this keeps more children trapped in failed schools for longer. I fear the reality may be even worse: since this Government came to power, we have repeatedly seen the Department for Education take steps that undermine the progress of the last Government, including making it harder to turn failing schools into academies. Regardless of whether these proposals are motivated by ideology or convenience, the result is the same: fewer children able to attend good schools.I was very sorry to hear the story that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) shared. I will speak about a different aspect of the Bill: schools and admissions. Good schools, and the good teachers who run them, are exceptionally precious. At its best, a good school truly can transform the lives of its pupils by fostering their natural talents, by helping equip them to tackle challenges and by expanding their intellectual horizons. When good schools are working well, they should be able to grow, so that more parents can choose to send their children to a school where their talents can be cultivated and their interests encouraged. That is a simple principle—one that Members from across the House, and indeed everyone everywhere, should be able to agree to. A good education should not be the preserve of only those children who have parents who can afford to pay for one. Enabling more pupils to attend the best schools in the state sector means that that kind of education can be offered to more children, yet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) has set out, the powers that this Bill will create on pupil admissions will achieve precisely the opposite. They allow the Government and regulators to limit the growth of good schools, or even force them to shrink, in order to make sure that schools that are performing less well can stay open. The most generous interpretation of the Government’s intentions is that this change is being made in the name of bureaucratic convenience. As the number of pupils entering the school system falls, it is true that local authorities will need to make decisions about which schools remain open and where. The Government Minister responsible for defending this legislation in the other place said that the proposals are “very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 April 2026; Vol. 855, c. 541.] Even if that was the case, it would be c…
On Lords amendment 102: the Lords' safeguard said that high-performing schools in demand from parents should not have their admission numbers reduced unless it is necessary and proportionate. The Government rejected that and instead offer softer language — asking the adjudicator to "have regard" to certain factors — but "have regard" is not a protection. Why remove a clear safeguard and replace it with something that offers far less certainty? On Lords amendment 38: the Lords required stronger age assurance and a clear expectation of progress within 12 months. The Government stripped that out and replaced it with a broad power to make regulations at some future point. If Ministers agree there is a problem, why remove the mechanism that would ensure something is actually done about it?The House of Lords has identified clear gaps and proposed practical solutions, and has sent improvements back to us. The Lords has acted to put in place clear safeguards, and the Government respond by stripping them out and pressing ahead regardless. Let us take Lords amendment 38. The Lords were clear that they required action to protect children from harm online, including stronger age assurance and a clear expectation of progress within 12 months. The Government have chosen to strip that out, and replace it with a broad power to make regulations at some future point. If the Government agree that there is a problem, and Ministers clearly do, why remove the mechanism that would ensure something is actually done about it? Similarly, Lords amendment 102 was straightforward. It said that high-performing schools delivering good outcomes and in demand from parents should not have their admission numbers reduced unless that decision is necessary and proportionate. The Government have rejected that safeguard. Instead, they offer softer language, asking the adjudicator to “have regard” to certain factors, but “have regard” is not a protection. It does not guarantee that parental preference will carry any weight. I ask the Minister directly: why remove a clear safeguard for high-performing schools and replace it with something that offers far less certainty? Why take out measures that provide clarity, certainty and protection, and replace them with looser powers and softer language? Once again, we see the same approach—sensible safeguards that have been put forward are being swept aside by this Government. That is why I cannot support the Government’s position at this stage, and why I urge Ministers to think again.
- I have five grandchildren aged 9 to 15, and five Ukrainian children in roughly the same age group living with my family. I know peer pressure only too well — if one child has a smartphone, every child feels they must have one or they are left out. But surveys show that the overwhelming majority of young people are crying out for guidelines and for a ban that makes them all feel the same. We have the opportunity through this Bill to take action this day, not in three or six months' time. Any child who genuinely needs a phone can have a brick phone for medical or caring purposes — we are not talking about brick phones; we are talking about smartphones. Do not prevaricate: do it!
I have a very personal interest in this: I have five grandchildren, ranging in age from 15 to nine, and there are another five Ukrainian children in roughly the same age group living with my family. I want to see all of those young people protected. I understand peer pressure only too well. I understand that if one child has a smartphone, every child has to have a smartphone, or they feel left out. However, I know from all the surveys that have been carried out that the overwhelming majority of young people are crying out for guidelines, and for the ban that will make them all feel the same, and not feel excluded. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, we have the opportunity in the House of Commons, through this vehicle that is available to us, to take action this day, not in three months’ time, six months’ time or two years’ time. If we do not take this opportunity, a generation of young people will suffer, and we will be responsible. There is no need for that to happen. Geriatric though I may be, I understand the difference in definition between a smartphone and a brick phone. It is perfectly possible for any child who has to have a phone to have a brick phone, at very modest cost, so that they can communicate on medically essential matters, or if there are caring issues. That is not a problem. We are not talking about brick phones; we are talking about smartphones.
- Children with a modern hearing aid use an application on a smartphone that cannot run on a brick phone — that necessitates having a smartphone in the classroom.
I hesitate to intervene, but I think the right hon. Member perhaps has not understood that children with a modern hearing aid, for example, use an application on a smartphone, which cannot be put on to a brick phone. That necessitates having a smartphone in the classroom.
- Those cases are very few and far between, and of course there can always be medically necessary exceptions. But we have an opportunity to legislate today — do it!
I do understand what the hon. Lady is saying. Those cases are very few and far between, and there can always be exceptions, where they are medically necessary. I do not believe that is a problem. I am saying to the Minister that we have an opportunity today to legislate. Do not prevaricate; do it!
On social media: all the other things — gaming, chatbots, addictive features — could be *additive* to a ban on social media for under-16s, not a substitute. The Government do not need to consult further on the *principle* — the country and the House know what they want. On phones: throughout this Bill I have found a remarkable contrast — the Government said they would not ban phones because headteachers should have discretion, yet they are going to tell headteachers precisely how many branded uniform items they may specify. The critical question is about "not seen, not heard" policies: pretty much every school already has at least that, but it is not effective as a ban. If the phone is in a pocket or bag, you feel its presence; if it vibrates, you feel it; even if you do not, you feel the compulsion. The only effective policy is phones *away from the child*. Cost is not the barrier: at a school in my constituency, Petersfield, a simple plastic box — the kind you can buy in most large Swedish-format retailers — with foam inserts and numbered slots stores every child's phone at very modest total cost.Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to have heard the last few speeches, which made very important points, but even with five minutes, time is still short for me. I will speak briefly about a couple of aspects of social media and mobile phones. On social media, let us get on with it. We have had this issue come back from the Lords multiple times, and we can do this. There is a glaring logical flaw at the heart of the Government’s argument for not taking action—we have also heard it from a bunch of Labour MPs today—which is, “We can’t do this one thing, because there are some other things we could do as well.” That just does not hold water. All those other things—around gaming, other types of applications, chatbots, addictive features and so on—could be additive to a ban on social media for children under the age of 16. They would still, by the way, be very relevant to child safety. I remind the House that our duty to children extends to those aged up to 18, as per the Children Act 1989 and our commitments to the United Nations. There are issues to resolve about a ban—exactly where the lines should be drawn; exactly what is in and what is out—and yes, of course, the Government have to consult on those issues, but they do not need to consult further on the principle of whether the country and the House of Commons want a ban on young people under the age of 16 accessing social media, a conclusion that so many other countries are also coming to. On mobile phones, throughout the progress of the Bill, I have found a remarkable contrast. The Government said for so long that they would not ban phones in schools because there should be some discretion for headteachers, but they are going to tell them precisely how many items of branded school uniform they are allowed to specify, and will tell them that in secondary schools that could include a tie, but in primary schools, for some bizarre reason, it cannot. I am pleased that the Government have partly seen the…
- On medical and other exemptions: the guidance is very clear that schools can use their judgment to make appropriate exemptions, and I am happy to keep the application of this policy under review — that is one of the strengths of statutory guidance. I share the frustration of the Chair of the Education Select Committee about the Opposition's unwillingness to engage with the nuance in the social media debate. We are properly looking at a range of options in order to act decisively to keep our children safe online. I have been extremely clear: the Government will act, and will act swiftly. On pupil admission numbers: we want to see good schools expand and every child have a great education, but in an age of falling rolls this power may be needed. Parental choice and school quality will be paramount in any decision. On the "not seen, not heard" question raised by the shadow Secretary of State: the guidance we will now make statutory explicitly says that the Department for Education expects schools to implement a policy in which pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day, including during lessons, between lessons, at break and at lunchtime. Different schools are implementing the ban in different ways — trays, pouches, or otherwise — but we are completely clear on what is required.
I thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate, which I found very engaging. I will try, in the few minutes that I have, to respond to some of the key points made. I start with my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who asked some really important questions, in particular on the matter of medical and other exemptions, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) also asked about. I seek to draw Members’ attention to the guidance that is available, which is very clear that schools are able to use their judgment to make exemptions where appropriate, in medical situations or otherwise. I think that is the right and proportionate thing to do. I am, of course, happy to keep the application of this policy under review; it is obviously a great strength of the nature of statutory guidance that we can keep it under review. I share my hon. Friend’s frustration about the unwillingness of Opposition Members to engage with the nuance and variety in the debate on social media, unlike us. We are properly and rightly looking at a range of options. We must do so, in order to act decisively, as we are determined to, in order to keep our children safe online. The hon. Member for Twickenham also asked me for a clear declaration that we will act. I feel that I gave such a declaration in my opening speech, but I will repeat that our consultation is broader than the amendments before us, and enables us to act on a wider range of harms. I am sure that we will continue to discuss this point, but I have been extremely clear that the Government will act, and will act swiftly.
- Some could interpret "not having access" as children not being allowed to touch their phone but still being allowed to have it in their bag. Can the Minister be crystal clear today that that is not allowed under this guidance?
I really appreciate the Minister engaging with this issue. However, some people could interpret “not having access” as children not being allowed to touch their phone during the school day, but still being allowed to have it in their bag. Can she be very clear today that that is not allowed under this guidance?
- Categorically crystal clear: no access to phones at any point during the school day. We have removed from the published guidance any reference to any "not seen, not heard" policy in the case studies. No access to phones at any point during the school day — full stop. It is not for me to determine how headteachers enforce their discipline policies, but I gently point out that the guidance left by the Conservative party was weak and we had to act to fix it. They had 14 long years to take the decisive action we have now taken. The time for party political games on this legislation is over: 15 months is too long to wait for vital safeguarding measures, and I urge all Members to vote with us today.
I can be extremely clear on that, as I have just been. We are categorically crystal clear that there is no access to phones at any point during the school day. The guidance says that. We have removed from the guidance that we have published any reference to any kind of “not seen, not heard” policy in the case studies. We are completely clear: no access to phones at any point during the school day. It is not for me to determine how a headteacher enforces their discipline and behaviour policies in their school, and this is ultimately a question of enforcement. I gently point out that we had to act to fix the weak guidance left by the Conservative party. I ask her to reflect on the fact that phones and social media were not invented in July 2024—her party had 14 long years to take the decisive action that we have now taken. I hope that the time for party political games on this legislation is over. Fifteen months is too long to wait for the vital safeguarding measures for which we need the Bill to become law. There is agreement across the House that phones have no place in schools, and that we must act to keep children safe online. The Government are doing both, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote with us today. Question put.
- #503passedMotion to insist on Amendment 38J, reject 38V–38X — agreed MPs voted on the Government motion to insist on Amendment 38J and to disagree with Amendments 38V to 38X. The motion was agreed 260–161.Ayes 260Noes 161