Report stage in the Lords
Report stage debate covering support for families of critically ill and repeatedly-removed children, and a major cross-party clash over whether to ban social media access for under-16s or pursue a risk-based regulatory approach.
B(Between 30% and 50% of parents of critically ill children meet the threshold for PTSD — yet the NHS leaves them to find their own way when the hospital doors close. My Amendment 90 asks only that the Government systematically review the barriers: from diagnosis through treatment and into bereavement. Parents like Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis — who walked 105 km to Downing Street carrying Hugh's shoes — deserve more than signposting to underfunded charities. No legislation, no mandated spending: just a proper, overdue look at why support is reactive rather than proactive, why siblings remain invisible, and why mental health screening is not routine.My Lords, Amendment 90 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the barriers preventing parents of critically ill children being by their bedside. I have been working with Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis for around a year. After their son Hugh passed away, they could have stepped back. Instead, they made a conscious decision to stand up and try to change the lives of other families. They are in the south-west Gallery today, as they have been for previous debates. They have turned the most devastating personal loss into a determination to make sure that other parents are not left to face the same failures that they experienced. When Hugh died in 2021, Ceri and Frances left the hospital at 11.30 pm. When the doors closed behind them, Hugh was still in there, and suddenly they were out of the system. They stood outside with their bags, trying to work out how they could carry on. They had a three year-old child at home whom they had not seen for three weeks. There was no transport, which they did not expect, and they took an hour and a half taxi ride home in silence while the driver chatted about football and the weather, unaware that their world had just collapsed. When they walked through their front door, everything was still there: toys, unfinished drawings and the remains of Hugh’s birthday cake still in the kitchen. The pain was unbearable. They woke the next morning and sat in silence. Then, Hugh’s younger brother, Raife, woke up, who they had not seen in three weeks, and said, “Where’s Hughie?” There was no guidance and no support, and they had to do what no other parent should ever have to do: look online. Ceri tried to access mental health support, but no one could help. The GP was unaware of their situation and just offered sleeping pills. Charities said that there was a 12-week wait. Ceri has been very clear with me that he simply would not have survived 12 weeks…
I signed Amendment 90 because after meeting Ceri and Frances I could see it needed a second name. Some 3,000 families a year face this situation — we must assess what is happening and come up with a plan so they are not abandoned.My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly, having signed the amendment so powerfully introduced and presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I did so after having met Ceri and Frances. I saw that the amendment did not have a second name attached to it and thought that there needed to be a demonstration that there is broader support there. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will have been moved by what we have just heard and would absolutely agree that action is urgently needed. We need to assess the situation and come up with a plan to deal with it, so other families are not put in this situation. Happily, this is relatively rare, but some 3,000 families a year are placed in this situation and they must be supported. I hope that we will hear some positive words from the Minister. Briefly, Amendment 99 has not yet been introduced, but it seeks to address another tragic situation, where, again and again, children are born and taken away, usually from the same mother. I spoke extensively on that in Committee, so I will not repeat it now. This is an important group of amendments. I hope we can see some positive direction forward and a further demonstration in your Lordships’ House that campaigning, often by people who have suffered so much, can make a difference and improvements in our society.
Anyone who has met Ceri and Frances knows this is urgently a matter of decency and humanity. Brentford Football Club is already acting as an employer — that shows it is possible. We must find a way to do something about it.My Lords, I urge my noble friend the Minister to look at the amendment and think carefully about what the Government could conceivably do. I honestly think that anyone who has met Ceri, Frances or both of them could do nothing other than to say that we really need this, urgently. I will speak only briefly. When I met Ceri this week, he was delighted to say that Brentford Football Club, as an employer, is already taking this on and doing something about it. Clearly, there are people who feel that this is not just urgent but a matter of decency and humanity. We should find a way of doing something about it.
After stepping down as a trustee of children's hospice Noah's Ark, I am struck by the stark difference between the wraparound bereavement support a charitable hospice can offer — counselling, the Butterfly Suite, benefits advice — and what the NHS provides. That support exists only because of charitable funds; it should not be a postcode lottery. We have responsibilities to these families.My Lords, I was not intending to speak to the amendment, but I also met Ceri this week, and it was a privilege to talk to him. I had not heard that part of his story until my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson told us about it. I recently stepped down as a trustee of the children’s hospice Noah’s Ark, in Barnet. When I think about the support that families get there—not just during the course of their child’s illness and while they pass away but support for siblings, and the ability, through the Butterfly Suite, to be with the child they have recently lost for a number of days thereafter, through to follow-up and bereavement support that hospice staff provide, as well as advice on benefits and access, which might be crucial to the well-being of those parents —I am struck by the stark difference. That support is provided by charitable funds. It should not be that way. This is a postcode lottery. We have responsibilities to this group of families, who fight so bravely by themselves but who need our support and that holistic wraparound care.
One in five care proceedings are repeat proceedings, and almost half of all newborns in care proceedings are born to mothers who have already had a child removed. The charitable organisation Pause has demonstrated that intensive, specialist support breaks the cycle — for every £1 spent, £4.50 is saved in four years. Some local authorities do this; Amendment 99 would make it universal. Amendment 101 adds national data collection. A family justice system that removes the fourth, fifth or sixth child without addressing the underlying reasons is a failing system.My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 99 and 101, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These are designed to tackle the sad and difficult problem of successive removals of children and babies from their parents, in particular from their mothers. When a child is removed permanently under a court order, typically, a number of things can happen, and, indeed, not happen. The court which made the care order and consequent order for placement for adoption will have no further involvement. The local authority which brought the case may well have little or no further engagement with the birth family, who will receive no more attention and support, at least until there is another pregnancy, by which time it can be too late to address the underlying problems. The mother, probably traumatised, may react to the first removal of a child with a bad decision to have another child, in the hope, rather than the expectation, that things will turn out better next time round, which is unlikely to occur. The mother and the father, if identified, will have become mistrustful of the local authority social workers and feel stigmatised and unwilling to seek or accept help. The mother may become hard to reach and may not reveal the next pregnancy until the last minute. Her underlying problems, by then, will not have been addressed; indeed, they may have become compounded. Unless there has been some significant and unexpected change, the local authority will have no alternative but to start new care proceedings for the new child, usually with the same bad outcome as before. Speaking as someone who has had to deal with these cases, I know that those representing the mother and the court will struggle to find any real improvement or anything else to distinguish the case from that of the previous child. These are truly the most wretched cases for any court to deal with. The charitable organisation Pause has considerable expertise in this area and has evolved a model of preventive su…
Without support after removal, parents — particularly mothers — are left struggling with the same difficulties that led to the first removal while carrying additional trauma and stigma. I visited Pause projects as chair of Cafcass and spoke to mothers who had turned their lives around because of that support. At the moment only half of local authority areas provide any support at all. Amendment 99 is critical.My Lords, I rise briefly to lend my support to all three of these amendments. I was very pleased to add my name to Amendments 99 and 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Listening to the debate today, I think this group is dealing with some of the most heartbreaking events that children and families ever face. It has really been very harrowing just to listen to the circumstances that some of these families have found themselves in. I was profoundly moved by the way the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, introduced her amendment. It is a really important amendment, and I very much hope that the Government will be able to look sympathetically at it. I will just say a few words in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, particularly about Amendment 99. As we heard from the noble Lord, almost half of newborns in care proceedings are born to mothers who have already been through proceedings with another child, so far too many children are entering care from parents who have already had at least one child removed from their care. As we have heard, without support—and that is what this amendment is all about: the support that we want to see local authorities offering after a child is removed—parents, particularly mothers, are often left struggling to cope with all the existing difficulties that led to the child removal in the first place, while facing the additional trauma, grief and stigma of losing a previous child. This leads to further child removals too many times. It is simply a heartbreaking, vicious cycle. But with the right support, parents can stabilise, overcome that trauma and make lasting change. The reason I feel so passionately about this is that in my time as chair of Cafcass, I was privileged to visit various Pause projects, to talk to the people who were providing the support and to talk to the mothers about the difference that having that support had made and why they now felt they could turn their lives around so that the…
My Amendments 99 and 101 have support from more than 20 children's charities and the Children's Commissioner. Once a child is removed, services follow the child — there is no requirement that the support needs formally identified for the mother during care proceedings are actually provided afterwards. Without that, vulnerable parents repeat the same traumatic cycle.My Lords, I echo other noble Lords and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, for her very powerful and moving speech. Sadly, like other noble Lords, I know families who have been touched in similar ways. Both personally and professionally, I hope that the Government listen to the noble Baroness’s advice. My Amendments 99 and 101 have support from more than 20 children’s charities and the Children’s Commissioner, and I am very grateful to the co-signatories to my amendment. In Committee the response from the Minister focused on early help and family support that the Government will require local areas to deliver as a way of meeting the needs of these women. But as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, although the funding is obviously very warmly welcomed, it does not address the issues for families who have children removed into care, because once a child is removed from a parent’s care, services and support follow the child. There is no requirement or expectation that the support needs formally identified for the woman during the care proceedings process will be provided after the removal of a child. Without support to change their circumstances, parents are vulnerable to repeat the same traumatic cycle that led to their first, second or—as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said—eighth child being removed. I think the late Nick Crichton removed a 14th child from the same woman, which led to the work that has been referred to today. We know that almost half of newborns in care proceedings are born to families who have been through proceedings at least once.
I have experienced trying to care for a child in intensive care while worrying about another child at home — I would not wish it on anyone. That led me to become a trustee of the Cosmic charity supporting families at Imperial. Charities do incredible work, but the Government should look at what more can be done. On Amendments 99 and 101, our failure to invest properly has a huge fiscal cost as well as the enormous emotional one we have heard about today.My Lords, I did not intend to speak but I too was greatly moved by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I have had the experience of trying to care for a child in intensive care while worrying about another child at home. It is not an experience I would wish on anyone. It led me to become a trustee of the Cosmic charity, which tries to help families going through these types of experiences at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said, charities do incredible work supporting families in the most difficult circumstances. I urge the Government to think about what work they could do to look at the amendment and to see what more could be done to support parents and children in this situation. Switching lanes to a Treasury mindset, I also support my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendments 99 and 101. I know that the Government are sincere in their efforts to give every child the best possible start in life. I also know that at the Treasury and across Whitehall there is a huge push on government efficiency. This strikes me as an area where our failure to invest properly and consider how we can prevent these tragedies occurring has a huge fiscal cost, as well as the enormous emotional cost that we have heard about today.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)Lab16:45 HansardWe recognise that supporting birth parents after removal can have a significant impact and that more should be done — but mandating a specific intervention removes local flexibility, increases burdens and risks diverting funding from other preventive services. The £2.4 billion families first partnership programme is already expanding these services, including Redbridge's pre- and post-birth work. We will update Working Together to Safeguard Children to set out explicit expectations that birth parents are offered support. On Amendment 90, I am pleased to confirm the Government will commission a report on the mental health impact on families of children with a terminal diagnosis — no legislative duty is needed and would in fact slow it down. The Department for Business and Trade is consulting on employment rights for parents and caregivers of seriously ill children, and Hugh's law will have its own chapter in that consultation.My Lords, as others have said, this has been an important debate on two issues that go to the heart of how we need to care for those in the most vulnerable and difficult circumstances, and we share the objective of ensuring that we do better in both situations. Amendments 99 and 101 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, concern support for birth parents who have had a child removed from their care and the collection of national data on repeat removals, respectively. This Government recognise that supporting birth parents can have a significant impact on keeping children safely at home and that more can and should be done. I think it will be a theme of several of the groups this afternoon—in fact, it has been previously—that in some ways it is inevitable that as legislators we turn to legislation to deal with examples of not good enough practice where we want to achieve change. That is understandable, and in many cases, it is the right thing to do. Equally in my experience, strong practice, good evidence and innovation, often based on local needs, are a more effective way to achieve change. We need to be aware that mandating removes flexibility from local authorities to respond to local needs and priorities, increases local authority burdens and risks diverting funding from other preventive services that are not mandated by the legislation. Also, we do not currently have a robust enough evidence base to mandate specific interventions nationally. This would also restrict innovation and deter locally developed interventions—for example, in Lincolnshire, whose TIME programme works with mothers who have experienced or are at risk of repeat removals of children from their care. Wolverhampton has a dedicated team supporting parents who have had a previous removal, and Warwickshire has its return home programme. We are already supporting the expansion of these services through the families first partnership programme, which is embedding the whole-family focus that nobl…
- There has been universal support across the House for Amendment 90. I want the report the Minister has committed to in writing to be called Hugh's Report, and I hope it brings us one step closer to making Hugh's law a reality. I welcome the commitment to discuss the scope with me, Frances and Ceri, and to include siblings and the point of diagnosis. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate today. I will not seek to sum up because I know we have a heavy schedule of business, but I think I am right in saying that there has been universal support for the amendment, which shows the devastating impact that situations like this can have on families. I want to place on record the immense bravery and resilience of Ceri and Frances for keeping going. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, for sharing her experience, and I thank the Minister in another place, Josh MacAlister, for the letter that I received when coming into the Chamber confirming that there will be a report on this issue. I have a few things to mention. I am grateful that the wording and scope of the report, as mentioned by Minister MacAlister in his letter, is up for some discussion. We need to look at the point of diagnosis, as well as, when we are talking about families, making sure that we properly include siblings in that. I welcome the commitment in the letter to keep working with me, Frances and Ceri, alongside other experts. I hope the report he has agreed will be commissioned will be called Hugh’s report, and that we will be one step closer to making Hugh’s law actually happen. Given the commitments received today from the Dispatch Box and in writing, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Ofcom data shows the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from 25% in 2022 to 37% in 2024, with one in five already using it independently. My Amendment 91 asks for proper guidance and policy within early years settings — nurseries are often the most tech-rich environments, yet there is currently nothing. The Government's announcement of guidance for parents is welcome, but it makes the gap in nursery policy even more glaring. I welcome the commitments Ministers have given me on updating the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework, but I need reassurance on timing: a child who was two when we first debated this should not have left for school before any change is made. Will the Minister commit today to substantive changes to the EYFS framework this year?My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 91, in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and Amendment 106, also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am conscious that I am the warm-up act for the debate on Amendment 94A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash, which is also in this group. However, it is right and appropriate that, before we discuss the issue of teenagers and social media, we think first about the early years. Ofcom data shows that the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from 25% in 2022 to 37% in 2024, with one in five of those using it independently of their parents. That data is reported by Ofcom but without any comment or action associated with it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response as to whether the high-quality age verification that may accompany Amendment 94A in my noble friend’s name would be welcome in restricting use among our very youngest children also. It is not just social media. Some 85% of three to five year-olds go online, with one in six owning their own mobile phone, while 98% of two year-olds watch television, videos or other digital content on a screen on a typical day, averaging around two hours each day—double the WHO recommendation—and among the top 20% of two year-olds that figure averaged five hours per day. Such levels of usage go against everything we know about what is needed for good development in the early years, where adult-child interaction is paramount. It goes against everything we know about how much physical and active play our youngest children need, the importance of outdoors activities and the development of healthy eyesight. The reason this is so important is that we know that the early years are an important time for a child’s development and impact them much later on in life. That is why this Government have rightly placed so much emphasis on their early years strategy. In that cont…
- Children are 25% of our population and 100% of our future. Are they at risk? Yes. How do we minimise it? I fully support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and welcome the planned guidance. I ask the Government to give particular thought to vulnerable and disabled children, who may have fewer alternatives to screens, and to harder-to-reach and marginalised families. Speech and language therapists should be included in the advisory group given their central role in early language development.
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. When I was president of the paediatric college, an important part of my job was urging Government Ministers that protecting and investing in children is the only way to protect the future of our country because, as I believe I have said before in this House, children are 25% of our population and 100% of our future. If we fail to protect them, it is not just a moral issue but a financial disaster. There are two questions we need to ask ourselves when we think about how social media is impacting our youth. First, are they at risk? Secondly, how do we eliminate, or at least minimise, that risk? With regard to younger children, I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and I too welcome the planned guidance. I ask the Government to give careful thought to that guidance particularly in relation to vulnerable and disabled children. They may be more limited in their abilities for alternative physical activities so screen time is, understandably, an easier default, and advice for those families is particularly important. It is also important to think about how to reach those harder to reach families or marginalised families who may not easily access the guidance. A final thing I would say, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about who will be in the group, is that the input of speech and language therapists will be particularly important, given their obvious involvement in early language development.
My Amendments 94B and 94C are necessary if this House is to respond to online harms effectively, proportionately and in a way grounded in evidence. A complex safeguarding problem demands a risk-based response, not a blunt one-age ban. Amendment 94B introduces tightly controlled exemptions to any blanket minimum age — but only where they demonstrably improve child safety. The exemptions would be jointly specified by Ofcom and the Children's Commissioner. Platforms would have to show compliance with risk-based guidance and assess mental health impact and algorithmic addiction. The NSPCC, 5Rights and 39 children's safety organisations have warned us that blanket bans would fail to deliver the improvement urgently needed and would push children into less regulated, higher-risk spaces.My Lords, I rise to speak to the two amendments in my name, which are both amendments to Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. These are necessary if this House is to respond to the online harms that children face in a way that is effective, proportionate and grounded in evidence. To be clear from the outset, I share the concerns across this House about the real harms that children face online. These range from exposure to age-inappropriate and damaging content to the disturbing prevalence of grooming and exploitation. Parents are right to be worried and Parliament is right to intervene. However, as the NSPCC made clear in its briefing to us, a complex safeguarding problem demands a risk-based response, not a blunt one-age ban. My Amendment 94B would introduce a mechanism for limited and tightly controlled exemptions to a blanket minimum age requirement. Crucially, such exemptions could exist only where they demonstrably improved child safety, not where they weakened it. Any exemption would be jointly specified by Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner. That joint responsibility is deliberate and important. It would ensure that decisions were made independently of commercial interests and rooted firmly in regulatory expertise and the statutory duty to act in the best interests of children. The amendment sets out a high evidential bar for platforms. Providers would have to show compliance with Ofcom’s risk-based guidance on minimum age, have full regard for UK GDPR principles and give explicit consideration to children’s rights as recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. They would also be required to assess impacts on children’s mental health, examine whether their platform’s design or features encouraged addictive or compulsive use, and scrutinise the role of algorithms in content recommendations and targeted advertising for any products or services, including, for example, gambling content marketing. Importantly, any exemptions wo…
We have reached an inflection point — nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by children addicted to social media. My Amendment 94A would raise the social media access age to 16, require highly effective age assurance, direct the Chief Medical Officer to publish advice to parents and allow 12 months for implementation. Since 2016 there has been a 477% increase in children's contact with mental health services; eating disorders among 17 to 19 year-olds have risen sixteenfold. Jonathan Haidt calls this a mountain of evidence. The most vulnerable children are the most susceptible — the police who specialise in child sexual exploitation say it is precisely the help forums for groups such as LGBTQ+ and those with eating disorders where the worst abusers operate. This is going to happen; the only question is when. Australia is already achieving age-assurance accuracy above 90%. With every day that passes, more damage is being done.My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 92, 93 and 94A, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Cass, Lady Benjamin and Lady Berger. As this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I should draw attention to my registered interests, particularly the fact that I am chair of a multi- academy trust and an investor in a number of companies, including tech and software companies. I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 94A would raise the age limit for access to social media to 16. In fact, this amendment would do rather more than that; it would do five things. First, it would raise the age limit. Secondly, it would require social media companies to put in place highly effective age assurance—currently, many, if not most, social media companies have no really effective age assurance at 13. Thirdly, the amendment would direct the Chief Medical Officer to prepare and publish advice to parents and carers on the use of social media by children—so, if you like, the start of a public awareness campaign. Fourthly, the amendment would send a message that draws a line in the sand for parents, carers and others to use when discussing social media with children, which they are crying out for. Fifthly, it would allow 12 months for implementation. We have reached an inflection point. We face nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media. Many teenagers are spending long hours—five, six, seven or more a day—on social media. The evidence of the damage this is causing is now overwhelming. We have long passed the point of correlation or causation. There is now so much evidence from across the world that it is clear that, by every metric—health, cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime and economic productivity—children are being harmed. I have sent noble Lords an evidence document prepared by health professionals which sets out over 50 studies from around the world showing a clear link betw…
The Government's consultation announcement made me angry: it does not address the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, does not seek to speed up enforcement and is entirely focused on staving off a back-bench rebellion — it is party management, not child safety policy. The UK was once at the forefront of tech safety; we are now becoming a case study for those who want to prove tech is beyond national laws. I agree with every point the children's safety experts make against a blanket ban — it is blunt, partial, fails to tackle root harms and abandons 16 and 17 year-olds. But the Government have ignored parents' and children's pain for 15 months, preferring to sup with big tech. All the social media companies caught by Australia's ban are already in scope of the Online Safety Act. Today is a very low day for Ofcom.My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, because I am going to mirror his words in many ways. Before I start, I thank our warm-up act, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. It is a fantastic result. I hope that the Minister gives her all that she wants. She should be proud of herself that she has done it in just a couple of years, because the child born when I first raised it is probably in tertiary education by now, so two years is a very good timeframe. I had written quite a different speech before I saw the Government’s consultation announcement. That made me rather angry, because it does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research or while they are being investigated. The consultation is entirely focused on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its Back-Benchers might agree to. The consultation’s purpose is to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance; it is about party management. The UK’s children deserve better than that. We have two amendments before us. Neither enjoys the support of all those who care about child safety. As the right reverend Prelate said, what a gift that has been to the Government, because it allows them to kick the issue down the road. The United Kingdom—once at the forefront of tech safety, commended on its AI Safety Institute, the age-appropriate design code, the Online Safety Act and the provisions for bereaved parents, all first and best in class—has squandered its advantage. Instead, we are becoming a case study for those who would like to prove that the tech sector is beyond national laws and is a law unto itself. Regulation has failed not because it cannot work but because the regime envisaged by Parliament was weakened by lob…
We have a choice: send an amendment to the Commons and put pressure on the Government to act, or flunk this opportunity. The royal colleges have unified to say this is a public health emergency — when that happens, we should pay attention and not be brushed off by consultations. A consultation is the tobacco industry playbook applied to smartphones: delay, consult, lobby, weaken. The platforms have not reformed; they have taken the mick and are now introducing AI chatbots to children. You cannot regulate far-off tech titans whose business model depends on children's eyeballs. You can only create perimeters in which they can operate — and that is exactly what Amendment 94A does.My Lords, it is such a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. She is absolutely right. We have a choice today on whether we will send an amendment to the Commons to put pressure on the Government to act or whether we are going to flunk this opportunity. I support her conclusion that this is a moment when the House of Lords does need to act. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Penn for her Amendment 91, which is thoughtful, patiently put and important. I hope very much indeed that the Government pay attention to her notes on timetable and that, if necessary, she presses this point so that she gets what she needs. I want to address Amendment 94A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Nash, and pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Cass, Lady Berger and Lady Benjamin, all of whom have made an enormous impact on this. Guardrails for our children are where we have landed. I say this with some regret, but it is important that we recognise this point. The noble Baroness, Lady Cass, mentioned a meeting with the royal colleges. As a former Health Minister who has had many dealings with the herd of cats that are the royal colleges, I say that if they unify and say that there is a public health emergency, we should pay attention to that moment. We should not be brushed off by attempts to knock this into the long grass via public consultations. We should listen to our clinicians. Dr Rebecca Foljambe and the clinicians against smart- phones have done conclusive research on the harms done by screen time, by predators, by fraudsters, by the filth on the internet and by the sheer quantity of screen time that our children are subjected to. It is an utterly persuasive argument. Further research is not needed. In fact, a consultation is the tobacco industry playbook, applied to smartphones for adolescents. Delay, consult, lobby, weaken—we know this playbook very well. We do not need a “get out of jail” clause for the tech companies; we need implementation. This is our oppo…
I spoke this morning to Jason Trethowan, who runs headspace, Australia's national youth mental health charity — accessed by 170,000 young people aged 12 to 25 last year. His message: of 3,000 young people seen since Australia's ban, 10% cited it among reasons their mental health deteriorated. Young people see the online world as their world; no amount of bans will remove them from online space. Those banned from mainstream platforms are already migrating to AI sites, some of which led to suicide. New platforms open constantly — it is a game of whack-a-mole. I support putting all pressure directly on Ofcom to realise the hopes and dreams of the Online Safety Act rather than a blanket ban.My Lords, I support many of the amendments in this group, but I also want to express my concerns about Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I have listened carefully to his arguments and those of other noble Lords who support the amendment. I too am appalled by the many stories that we have heard. I too want to stop children being exposed to harms online. I hope my record in the debates on the Online Safety Act and other digital legislation show my support for measures to increase safety for children in the digital space. I, like all noble Lords, recognise that there are many harms online. However, I do not think that an outright ban on social media for the under-16s will be effective in protecting children. I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lady Kidron, who I normally always agree with, but we should put all the pressure we possibly can directly on Ofcom to make sure we realise the hopes and dreams of the Online Safety Act. Early this morning, I had an interesting conversation with Jason Trethowan, who runs headspace, Australia’s national youth mental health charity, which last year was accessed by 170,000 young people aged between 12 and 25 in 170 locations across the country. His organisation is at the sharp end of the social media ban in Australia. His main message was that we all want to stop online harms to children, but he called on the Government and legislators to listen to children as well as parents. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has quite rightly highlighted the harms that exist for young people on social media. However, noble Lords also need to be aware of the crucial role that social media plays for young people in communicating with each other, getting information about the world and, very importantly, getting help and advice from like-minded people. Jason said that we all need to understand that young people see the online world as their world. It is a central part of their existence, and no amount of bans will remove them f…
- I said exactly that the Online Safety Act should be amended to ensure safety by design for all users — that is precisely my position.
I am sorry but the noble Viscount is misreading what I said. I said exactly that.
- I apologise for the misreading. The Online Safety Act needs amendment to put the onus on platforms to mitigate risks and to define safety by design. Children's safety charities have championed this — the Molly Rose Foundation, Internet Matters and the NSPCC are all against a blanket ban and propose strengthening the OSA instead. That is where our collective pressure should go.
I apologise. They suggest that the Act should be amended to ensure safety by design for all users, particularly young users. There is a need to strengthen Ofcom’s response to tech platforms that breach their risk assessments. It needs to put the onus on the platforms to mitigate the risks, instead of defining the mitigation measures and taking action only when there is evidence that these measures actually work. This needs to be combined with the definition of “safety by design”. I partially support Amendment 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Children’s safety charities have long been calling for age-appropriate content requirements to be introduced for content on social media and across the internet. However, age-appropriate design should be introduced not just for 18 year-olds but for 16 year-olds and even 13 year-olds. I completely support Amendment 109. I am glad the Government are having a consultation on this issue. I sincerely hope that noble Lords are wrong in saying that this is an attempt to kick this down the road. Addiction is a real problem. This is about engagement and economy, and it needs to be dealt with. I support the call for Ofcom to revisit its interpretation of the Online Safety Act so that it includes addictive design as one of the harms that it needs platforms to mitigate against. I understand the powerful instinct of noble Lords and many parents to ban social media for under-16s, but I ask them to consider that young people will not be torn away from life online. It will not be possible to force them to leave the digital world, however much a majority of adults want that to happen.
As a mother I am one of an army of parents who have watched our children's childhoods steadily hollowed out. I am the devil incarnate at home for banning Snapchat — but the platform I allowed instead, Pinterest, is already pushing my daughter a barrage of consumer advertising and anti-ageing products she should not even know about. Five years ago a partial ban might have been defensible, had we been dealing with companies worthy of trust. That trust has completely disintegrated. We know boys aged 11 have seen rape porn, strangulation porn and incest porn — mainly on X, via algorithms actively pushing it at them. These companies' business model is borderline criminal. An overall ban is essential; we can refine which apps are in scope afterwards.My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Nash and thank all noble Lords who cosigned it. I am nervous about making this speech today because I am praying that my daughter does not read Hansard. I speak as a member of this House, of course, but also as a mother. I have a direct and vested interest in this amendment and make no apology for that. But I also feel I have to speak for the army of parents who, like me, have watched, frankly, in disbelief as our children’s childhoods have been steadily hollowed out to varying degrees. Obviously, lots of us are doing everything we can to keep our children safe. I am the devil incarnate at home because I have not allowed my daughter to use Snapchat. We have gone into a sort of plea-bargaining state, if I can put it that way, whereby I have not allowed Snapchat but have allowed Pinterest. I thought Pinterest was perfectly harmless. I thought it was a nice place where I picked wallpapers and had a jolly nice time going through it. What could possibly be the problem? I was delighted. I said, “Yes, of course you can have Pinterest”. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, it is quite an artistic way to operate. But in fact, Pinterest is now just pushing my daughter a whole load of consumer advertising. She has popped in that she wants a T-shirt of some make or other and, of course, now—bang, bang, bang—the notifications are coming in non-stop. There is a big reason why we now have teenage girls—not even teenage girls; 11 year-old and 10 year-old girls—slathering their faces with hyaluronic acid and anti-ageing creams, products they should not even know about let alone be buying, not least because they are blooming expensive. It is ridiculous. Adolescence is a period of profound emotional and neurological change— hormones, friendships, identity and insecurity playing out in a young developing brain. To then introduce the relentless comparison, exposure, validation and amplification of what social media does is to…
We have legislated away children playing outside unsupervised and created cotton-wool kids prone to risk aversion — and now here we are, because they cultivated their social lives online instead. A blanket social media ban risks the same unintended consequences. The causal relationship between social media and teen mental ill-health is far more contested than implied: Oxford University research on nearly 12,000 children found no correlation between screen time and mental health; Manchester University found no evidence of increased anxiety or depression from social media. The amendment as drafted would age-gate entire platforms — a 70 year-old reading local news, a 30 year-old small business owner on Instagram, a 17 year-old messaging parents — all would require digital identity verification to participate in the public square. That is a serious threat to adult civil liberties.My Lords, once upon a time, in a previous moral panic about children’s safety, parents reacted to the media and politicians catastrophising by stopping their offspring playing outside unsupervised. The unintended consequence was the creation of what became known as cotton wool kids, prone to risk aversion, anxiety, lack of resilience and social isolation. Ironically, to compensate, many of those children were forced to cultivate their activities online. Their social interactions became virtual, and here we are. I worry that we risk similar unintended consequences now if we rush to pass a social media ban for under-16s, so I will be opposing Amendment 94A. I know it has become normalised that, whatever social, cultural or moral panics we encounter, we believe that we can legislate to make them go away. I fear that this sort of lawmaking can lead to avoiding tackling difficult problems and to attempts at quick-fix solutions that too often create a whole new raft of difficulties down the line. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, blamed social media for eating disorders, radicalisation, terrorism, the mental health epidemic, ADHD, poor behaviour in the classroom, misogyny, violence against women and girls, and on and on. At this rate, all that Parliament would have to do is ban the internet for everyone and all problems would be solved. There is a danger of looking for easy answers and scapegoating social media for all society’s ills. I worry about attempts to push this through too quickly or to fast-track it. It is interesting that the three-week fast-track consultation put forward in the other place has been discussed as though it is holding things back. The leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, calls it more “dither and delay”. But this proposal is new; it has only just arrived here on Report as an amendment that would fundamentally change every citizen’s relationship with social media, not just children’s. I worry about attempts at steamrolling it through,…
What we are hearing today is a collective howl of rage and frustration because what we thought we had made clear was meant to happen under the Online Safety Act has not happened. Snap has just settled a California lawsuit in which parents accused it of creating an addictive product — presumably because its chief executive did not want to appear in court to answer the case. Teachers I met in the Lords' Education Centre last week were unanimous that the current situation is unsustainable. A bereaved parent I met in the Peers' Lobby gave me a message for the chief executive of Ofcom. I will spare the House the Anglo-Saxon but the sentiment was unambiguous: Ofcom needs to be kicked into action.My Lords, I remind the House that we are on Report, and I think some of the contributions are in danger of erring on the wrong side of self-regulation. We should stick to the point; I will be very brief and simply try to explain for the benefit of the Government Front Bench, because in various Bills going through Parliament in the last month or so, this subject has raised itself in various forms. I sometimes notice the Front Bench being slightly amazed at what is coming at them from all sides and not necessarily understanding why. That is largely because they were not in your Lordships’ House at the time we went through the lengthy discussions about the Online Safety Act. What they are hearing today is a collective howl of rage and frustration across the House because what we thought we were very clear was meant to happen has not happened. I will give one or two facts which back up the view of my noble friend Lady Kidron that, whatever we do, we have to gather together—the right reverend Prelate made a very good point—and collectively send a message to the other place that this situation is simply not good enough. Today, within the last 10 hours, a court case has been going on in California against Snap, Meta and TikTok where a group of parents are accusing those organisations of creating products which are addictive. It so happens that in the last 24 hours, Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, has settled with the complainants. That is because, I suspect, if they had not settled, the chief executive of Snapchat, Evan Spiegel, would shortly have had to appear in person in the court to answer the case against his company. He chose not to do so. Mr Zuckerberg is apparently also in the queue to give evidence at this trial, and it will be interesting to see whether his company takes the same route. Yesterday, along with many other colleagues, I was part of a session of Learn with the Lords in the Education Centre. I took the opportunity to talk to the young people, mos…
We have a choice to make today and I hope we make the right one. Children under 16 should not be able to access social media until platforms accept their responsibility and implement stringent safety controls. We have given them the opportunity; now is the time to act decisively. Every minute we wait, more damage is done. The Government have moved — but in the wrong direction. There is no need for a consultation; we have all the evidence. Children do not need a social media account to access the internet — Wikipedia and BBC Bitesize are fine. According to NHS Digital, there has been a fivefold increase in eating disorders among 11 to 16 year-olds. A 22.7% increase in suicide rates for those aged 10 to 24 between 2012 and 2022. Childhood lasts a lifetime, and we must act to protect it.My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Kidron and the right reverend Prelate. We have a choice to make today, and I hope that we will make the right choice. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which is really important. Early years matter—they matter so much that we must do everything we can to protect them. I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to which I have added my name. I wish to speak on Amendment 94A, which is really important, as I strongly believe that children under the age of 16 should not be able to access social media and have social media accounts. This is a necessary measure until the online platforms accept their responsibility, implement stringent safety controls and perform their duties to our children. We have given them the opportunities to do so; now is the time for us to act decisively. Each minute we wait, more damage is done to our children’s well-being. It is great that the Government have moved on this issue, but they have done so in the wrong direction. There is no need for a consultation, which will cause even further delay. We have all the evidence we need; we have to stop this catastrophe now. The world is watching us, and I believe that many countries will follow suit, because this is a global crisis. There are those who believe that this amendment is a blunt instrument and will prevent children accessing the outside world. I do not agree. Let us consider the options. What would we rather have: children becoming addicted, showing signs of anxiety, even taking their own lives and being exposed to the terrible age-inappropriate dangers allowed by social media providers, who do not have our children’s interests at heart, or protecting them until those social media providers get their act together? I know which option I would choose. This amendment sends a clear message to those who want to harm our children and fail to protect them. They have failed in their duty, and now is…
Not a week goes by without evidence that Ofcom is struggling to enact the Online Safety Act. That law does nothing to protect children from social media's highly addictive algorithms, constant notifications and barrage of content they were never seeking — content that is misogynistic, divisive, racist and filled with disinformation, even if not technically illegal. We are going backwards. The average child now spends 21 hours a week on these platforms. I hear constantly from parents: children moved school because of social media bullying; police on doorsteps because of grooming; children in in-patient eating disorder care. That is no surprise.My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 94A, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. In the interests of time I will not talk about the other amendments, but I commend the noble Baroness on her introduction of this group of amendments. There are a handful of issues that consume me on a daily basis, and the negative impact of social media on millions of children and young people in this country is one of them. Despite the important introduction of the Online Safety Act to control illegal material and prevent children accessing harmful and inappropriate content, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, expertly articulated, not a week goes by in this place when we do not hear how Ofcom is struggling to enact and enforce this important legislation. That law does nothing to protect the next generation from social media, with its highly addictive algorithms, its constant notifications, its ability for unsolicited contact by people unknown to children and its barrage of content that young people are not even seeking or searching for. While it might not fall under the definitions of illegal or harmful, it is still misogynistic, divisive and shaming; diminishes our children’s self-worth; is racist, dangerous, and violent; and contains a disproportionate amount of misinformation and disinformation. We are going backwards because, if we do nothing, the situation will only get worse as the tech companies continue to fight for our children and young people’s attention and develop their social media products to get as many eyeballs on their platforms as they can in the pursuit of profit. As one of the handful of parents in this place with primary-age children, I am deeply concerned by the constant stream of case studies that I hear from other parents about the effect that social media is having on their children, who have had to move school due to bullying on social media, who have had the police turn up on their doorstep due t…
- Two points that have not been made. First, your Lordships' House is not the right place to make this decision — we are extraordinarily unrepresentative, particularly by age. I also spoke to the young people in the Lords Education Centre: they overwhelmingly said they did not want a ban. We must stop doing politics to young people and give them agency. Will the Minister include a people's assembly representing young people from across the country in the consultation? Second, social media is a mirror: it reflects the misogyny, violence and fake news that runs through our society, it does not create them. Even if we could wave a magic wand and remove young people from social media, they would still face poverty, school pressure, misogyny and racism. We must understand that before we vote.
My Lords, I have two original points to make that have not been covered at all. We should bring ourselves back to the fact that there is an enormous amount of agreement around this Chamber. I think everyone will say we feel enormous sympathy for the families, some of whom are here today, who have lost family as a result of contact with social media. We all accept that we want 16 year-olds on the day of their birthday to be able to stride out into the world confident, capable, ready to step into adulthood. Most of us want to rein in the overwhelmingly powerful digital companies which have been allowed to run wild across the world by political decisions made by adults. I particularly commend the right reverend Prelate for naming the spectre in the room—Donald Trump and his tech bro friends. He is a spectre here and is now recorded in Hansard. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that we have very broad agreement that the Online Safety Act has been a total failure and Ofcom is not delivering what it should be doing. Those are the points of agreement. Where my conclusions drive me is that I would back Amendment 91 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, with some caveats, which I will get back to, but it is not my intention to vote for any of the ban amendments before us today. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Lib Dems’ brave effort to find a way through a middle road and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, almost swayed me that we should make a gesture. The case I put, argument one, is that your Lordships’ House is not the right place: we are not the right people to be making this decision. Many of us have joined since the depths of Covid, but those who were here then will remember when the House went largely remote and lots of people who had never used a computer before were suddenly on Zoom. We met their grandkids: “There you are, Granny. You are off mute now”. I invite your Lordships to look at the people around you. We are extraordinarily unrepresentative of…
There have been no randomised controlled trials of social media bans or restrictions for healthy under-18s. The Wellcome Trust is funding an RCT in Bradford with 13 to 16 year-olds — not a ban, but a smartphone app limiting social media to one hour a day with a 9 pm night-time curfew, co-produced with the young people themselves. The feedback from teenagers was that they would reject a ban but would accept significant time limits. We need to hear the voice of young people when designing these interventions.My Lords, I will speak briefly about the lack of scientific evidence for Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. No one disputes that rates of suicide, depression, anxiety and self-harm have increased among teenagers in the last decade. However, the question before us is whether a social media ban for under-16s would decrease those rates. I know that this has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, but I still believe that evidence from randomised controlled trials is important, even in this context. There have been no randomised controlled trials of social media bans or restrictions for healthy under-18s. The lack of experimental evidence in adolescent populations may be because it is difficult to experimentally manipulate social media use in such an age group. There was one RCT of 220 adolescents and young adults aged 17 to 25 with pre-existing emotional distress, who were asked to reduce their social media use to one hour a day for three weeks. However, the sample participants selected were all experiencing at least two of four symptoms of depression and anxiety, and should therefore be classified as a clinical sample, not a representative sample of the general population. There is an RCT of adolescent participants from which we can learn, even though it has not started. It is funded by the Wellcome Trust and it will take place in Bradford and feature adolescents between the ages of 13 and 16. The intervention will not be a ban, but will involve a smartphone app that, importantly, limits the use of social media apps using a co-produced combination of a daily budget of one hour per day and a night-time curfew between 9 pm and 7 am. The co-production of the trial is very important. We need to hear the voice of young people when designing these interventions. They themselves are very concerned by the negative impacts of social media. Perhaps not surprisingly, the feedback from the teenagers in Bradford schools was that they would be against a b…
I do not think banning social media for under-16s is the right answer, but I hear the collective cry of pain and anger. We already have a minimum age of 13 — go into any primary school and see how effective that is. How will the Minister implement the age limit we already have and stiffen Ofcom's backbone to hold tech companies to account? A ban without enforcement is legislation that makes no difference. We must hold platforms to account to produce age-appropriate products — that is what we have done with every technology over the centuries and we should not duck it now.My Lords, I will also endeavour to be brief. Like many who have spoken already, I spent a very large amount of time on the Online Safety Act. I agree entirely with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. This is a cry of pain and anger from this House that I hope the Minister is hearing, but I do not think that banning social media for under-16s is the right thing to do. I will add two reasons that have not been discussed so far. First, I worry that absolutely nothing will change by implementing a ban. We already have a minimum age of 13; go into any primary school and you will find how effective that is. I urge the Minister to tell us how she is going to implement the minimum age we already have. How is she going to stiffen Ofcom’s backbone to hold tech companies to account? Otherwise, we can legislate all we like, but it will not make any difference. Secondly, I have huge respect for the eloquence with which my noble friend Lord Nash set out the horrors and harms that social media is undoubtedly doing, but there is one flaw in his argument. He quoted a lot of research that points to the harm that excessive use of social media does to children. A ban, however, is zero use. We must be very careful about that. Social media is part of the modern world; it brings good as well as ill, and to simply ban it is abdicating responsibility. I worry hugely that we are letting the tech companies off the hook. We have to hold them to account to produce products that are age appropriate. We have done that with every other technology as it has grown up over the centuries, and we should not duck the issue now. That takes me to the right reverend Prelate’s point, which seems like quite a long time ago. I am in the same dilemma, because I am absolutely certain that change has to happen, that the Online Safety Act is not working as those of us who worked so hard on it envisaged, and that Ofcom is not delivering. I doubt that…
Common threads run through all these competing amendments: a shared acceptance of the level of crisis our young people face and a common desire to give them greater protection. Of the competing approaches, I am more persuaded by Amendment 94A — it is cleaner, clearer and bolder. Whichever amendment we settle on, the issue must come back to this House from the other place.With respect, everyone else has had an opportunity to speak, but no one from my party has, and I want to make some remarks. The House should draw a level of unity from the fact that, although a variety of solutions are provided by these amendments, common threads run between them: a common acceptance of the level of crisis that our young people face, and a common desire, I think, to provide greater levels of protection for our young people. On the competing and well-argued cases for the amendments, I am more persuaded by Amendment 94A from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which I believe is cleaner, clearer and bolder. Nevertheless, whichever amendment we settle on, I agree with others that the one thing we cannot afford to do as a House tonight is to prevaricate. I cannot put myself in the mind of the Government. Therefore, I cannot determine whether the proposed consultation is a sincere attempt to engage seriously with this issue or, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, a cynical device to get past the problems internally in the Commons. There are clear problems with the consultation. First, it does not produce any guaranteed outcome. A lot of us are concerned that, over a prolonged period of time, the muscle of the big tech companies will adjust that to water down whatever comes forward. Secondly, it does not produce swift results. We do not know a timeframe that ultimately will lead to implementation. The longer we delay, the more harm is caused to children. Where possible, we should always be reluctant to ban and restrict but, when we look at the protection of children, we have to make an exception to that. The case for action now is overwhelming. During the passage of the Online Safety Bill, one of the most moving and significant meetings that I attended was one hosted by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, where she brought in families of children who had died as a result of various online harms. There was a common thread for a lot of those families…
My Amendment 108 and Amendment 110A take a harms-based approach. Parents and MPs are receiving hundreds of thousands of letters because parents do not trust us to act — and with the Online Safety Act they were promised a new world, but nothing changed. Not one company has been fined or prosecuted for what they have put online. When Australia banned social media, TikTok launched a new platform under a different name within 24 hours — not on the banned list. A list-based approach ignores gaming, AI-generated content and countless other platforms. My Amendment 110A raises the age for processing personal data in social networking services from 13 to 16, excluding educational platforms and NHS services. Three additional years of protection from commercial data exploitation during the most vulnerable period of development — that is what we owe our children.My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. I will speak to my Amendments 108 and 110A, and briefly to Amendment 91 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I start by thanking the hundreds of thousands of mums, dads, grandparents, single parents, teachers, et cetera, who have kick-started this campaign. While politicians have not been able to get action, they have swung into action. If noble Lords talk to any MP of any party in this Parliament, they will tell you that they receive hundreds of thousands of emails and letters. I was talking to our digital lead MP, Victoria Collins, and she told me that, in the last three days alone, she has received 1,500 pieces of paper about this. Why? It is because parents do not trust us to do anything. Of course, with the Online Safety Act, they were promised that we would see a new world, but when they look around they see that nothing has changed. Frighteningly, when I asked the Minister a few weeks ago how many companies have been fined or prosecuted for what they have put online, he did not know the answer. That does not fill us with confidence. Creating a safer future for our children and grandchildren is at a critical crossroads. Our parents, teachers, experts and even young people themselves are calling for action. I hear from real teenagers talking about their experiences online. One teenager said: “I look at my younger brother and I’m so worried about how much he seems addicted to screens, we have to do something”. Another said: “Help, I just can’t stop”. When doctors discovered that smoking kills, and when research showed that seatbelts saved lives, we acted. Today presents an opportunity to take a similar life-saving action. It is clear that everyone here is strongly committed to this end goal—to safeguarding children and protecting them from the risks of the online world. Parents and children are both telling us that they feel powerless in the face of platfor…
- I must correct that. We had a meeting on Monday; I made proposals, the noble Lords went away and I heard nothing back. They returned with their own amendment. That is slightly glossing over the facts.
I must take objection to that. We had a meeting on Monday. I made some proposals, and then the noble Lords went away and I heard nothing. They came back with their amendment. I think that is slightly glossing over the facts.
- Children's charities came to us and expressed their concerns — we listened to them and tried to incorporate that. We also tried to work with Lord Nash to find a shared amendment. At the end of the day it is children who are important, not party politics. We will support Amendment 94A because something has to come back to this House on which we can all work together.
We must ensure that children are protected online and send a message to the Government that now is the time for action, not consultation. As Liberal Democrats, we know that children come before politics. We must work together for their safety and future. I turn briefly to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I praise and thank the noble Lord for taking this initiative. He deserves a lot of thanks from this House. He has worked tirelessly to get a solution. I was concerned when he said that we had rushed out a counter-amendment. We have not rushed out a counter-amendment at all. Children’s charities came to us and expressed their concerns, and we wanted to ensure that we listened to what they said. We have tried to incorporate that in the amendment. We tried to work with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to achieve an amendment that we could both support. At the end of the day, as I said on my previous amendment, it is children who are important. We are not interested in playing yah-boo politics or trying to score points. We will support Lord Nash’s amendment because we understand, as the right reverend Prelate rightly noted, that something has to come back to this House on which we, as a House, can then work together. I turn briefly to Amendment 110A.
- We have three options before us: the Government's consultation; the Liberal Democrat approach; and Amendment 94A from Lord Nash. Lady Penn gave a master class — not a warm-up act. The key element in the Liberal Democrat amendment is delegating the decision on which apps are safe to Ofcom and the Children's Commissioner. But Ofcom is, by consensus across this debate, struggling with powers already given to it in the Online Safety Act. Do we want to hand a struggling organisation one of the most complicated jobs before Parliament? I would suggest we do not. Parliament should decide what is appropriate for our children — that is what Amendment 94A does, via statutory instrument subject to this House and the other place. And it is not a blanket ban: proposed new subsection (5) gives flexibility to exclude suitable apps. The Government's consultation does not feel like leadership. As Martin Luther King said, a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus — and the Government need to get moulding, fast.
My Lords, a good speech is a short speech. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I have spent most of this debate rewriting my speech. I have tried hard to listen to what noble Lords have said. We have three options before us tonight: the Government option of a consultation; the Liberal Democrat option; and the option from my noble friend, Lord Nash, as it relates to social media. Briefly, before I talk about the three options, I would like to say to my noble friend Lady Penn that, rather than being a warm-up act, she gave us a master class in how to present an amendment. She made a well-argued, practical case for her amendment, underlining the importance of shifting norms for very young children at the earliest possible stage and calling urgently for firm action, and timing on that action, from the Government. Like others, we look forward to the Minister’s reply. To return to the group of amendments that deal with social media use, we have before us, as we have heard, an opportunity to end the harm that our children and grandchildren are experiencing as a result of the hours that they spend on there. I was going to talk about the merits of my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, but I think others have done that extremely ably. I will therefore turn to the key differences between my noble friend’s amendment and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Between the fiercely critical comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about Ofcom struggling and critically undermining implementation and wider failures, and the comparison made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of Ofcom being to the tech companies as “Dixon of Dock Green” is to “Crocodile Dundee”, I think those noble Lords have done my job for me. The key element in the Liberal Democrat amendment is that we would give powers to Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner to decide which apps are safe or not safe. Whether it is my noble friend Lady Harding, who may be…
The harms of social media are clear — addictive by design, algorithms operating in a moral vacuum. But Molly Russell's father Ian is against a blanket ban on under-16s because a ban is likely to push children to less regulated platforms. My 14 year-old uses WhatsApp and Pinterest — both allowed under Australia's ban, but on my reading of Amendment 94A, both would be prohibited here. The consultation on banning addictive design rather than applying a blanket age ban could deliver far greater harm reduction for everyone. Can the Minister confirm that action will follow within the 12-month timeline Amendment 94A proposes? We should also give Ofcom the unambiguous requirement to enforce age restrictions rigorously, mandating robust age assurance — but sensitive to digital rights and not requiring big tech to hold sensitive data about our children.My Lords, I have followed these issues closely through my work on the Online Safety Act, first as a member of the Joint Committee, then on the Opposition Front Bench and now on your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee. I added my name to Amendment 91 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and I am delighted that that Government are listening and hope that Ministers can give the noble Baroness the reassurances that she seeks. Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, I first thank him for raising these important issues and detailing the harms so compellingly. The harms caused by social media are clear, both in terms of the harmful content and that they are addictive by design. The algorithms operate in a moral vacuum; platforms’ algorithms do whatever it takes to keep us on screen. I am attracted to the Government’s proposal in the consultation around banning addictive design rather than a blanket age ban. That could see a huge reduction in harm for all of us, as today’s University of Sussex research about doomscrolling demonstrates. However, it is our children whom we most want to protect. My 14 year-old at home is time-limited on her phone; she is not allowed her phone in her room overnight and is limited to two social media accounts. This is difficult to parent, but it is our responsibility as parents to navigate it with our children. Incidentally, the two social media accounts she chooses are WhatsApp and Pinterest. Both are allowed under the Australian social media ban. One keeps her connected to family and friends, and the other she needs for her GCSE art. Under Amendment 94A, on my reading of it, it seems pretty categorical that it would include all social media platforms and she would be banned from both.
- It is the most vulnerable children — in households with the least parental discipline — who are most exposed. Parents who can control their children's device use are not the ones who need Parliament to act.
I am interested to hear from a Labour politician, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that there are parents who can control their kids, but it is the most vulnerable kids and the least advantaged kids who live in households in which there is no discipline who are the most exposed.
- The wording of proposed new subsection (2)(a) of Amendment 94A reads: 'regulations made by statutory instruments require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly effective age-assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users' — that looks categorical to me.
The noble Lord and I debate with great respect and friendship. My reading of “regulations made by statutory instruments require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly effective age-assurance measure to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users” is that this is categorical.
- It will be up to the Government — approved by this House and the other place via statutory instrument — to decide which apps are in and out. Apps suitable for children, WhatsApp and Wikipedia could all be excluded. The Liberal Democrats' amendment, by contrast, delegates that function to Ofcom and the Children's Commissioner through a complicated procedure, with no flexibility to exclude them — which would be a nightmare.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, is that it would be up to the Government, approved by this House and the other place, which apps are in and out. Clearly, it would be possible for those apps suitable for children to be excluded, as would WhatsApp and Wikipedia. The Lib Dems have drafted their amendment in such a way that it would include everybody, and it would be up to this very complicated procedure with Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner to work this out—which, frankly, would be a nightmare.
- Pinterest was implicated in Molly Russell's suicide. Her father Ian is thoughtful and brave — and he is against a blanket ban because of the unintended consequences for children's safety. Boys spend significantly more time on gaming platforms than social media; a ban on social media would push them toward less regulated gaming environments and the dark web. We should back the Government's consultation, but action must follow within the 12-month timeline of Lord Nash's amendment. We need age-appropriate design: give Ofcom the unambiguous requirement to enforce rigorously, mandate robust age assurance, and ensure we do not require big tech to hold sensitive data about children. Listen to children and young people — that is a very good reason for holding a consultation.
I will move on. I will try harder to read further to get to the same place as the noble Lord, Lord Nash—but I doubt it. Pinterest was implicated in the suicide completed by Molly Russell. Molly’s father, Ian, is thoughtful, brave and inspiring. I listened to him talk on the BBC this week about why he and countless other expert children’s charities are against a blanket ban on social media for under-16s. They worry about the unintended consequences for children’s safety. A blanket ban is likely to lead to under-16s finding less regulated platforms to connect to online, such as gaming platforms or the dark web. It is worth noting that according to recent Internet Matters research, boys spend significantly more time on gaming platforms than on social media platforms. Children may also turn to VPNs, which would then undermine the child safety gains of the Online Safety Act. The VPN amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tries to address this, but age-gating VPNs may be extremely problematic. My phone uses a VPN, following a personal device cyber consultation offered by this Parliament. VPNs can make us more secure, and we should not rush to deprive children of that safety. A blunt, blanket ban—it is a struggle not to call it a Blunkett ban—would also deny young people the positives of some of the less addictive social media. Young people will continue to want to connect with each other. They will want to share music, their photos and videos, and their creative content. I was of the mixtape generation, now replaced by the shareable playlist. Young entrepreneurs will want to market their products: will they have to use an adults account on an adult’s phone, and be exposed to the risks of adult content as a result? When I speak to young people in my capacity as president of Young Citizens, I am struck by how well informed they are. They find out what is going on in the world through social media. Is it right that we lower the voting age to 16 and simultaneously prevent ac…
I support Amendments 94B and 94C — amendments to Amendment 94A — which would transform a blanket ban into an effective, harms-based approach that can actually be implemented and enforced within the same timetable.My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight. Like him, I have been involved in debating online safety issues—from the internet safety Green Paper through to the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, and then seeing the Online Safety Bill become an Act. I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley’s Amendments 94B and 94C, which are amendments to Amendment 94A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. In doing so, I urge the House to strengthen his proposal by transforming it from a blanket ban into an effective, harms-based approach to social media regulation that can actually be implemented and enforced within the same timetable.
I do not care which amendment we pass tonight, as long as we pass something that goes back to the Commons and gives them — and us — a good process beyond today, rather than trying to resolve this once and for all on the Floor of the House this evening. The fact that we are mostly debating Amendments 94A and 94B is itself a symptom of how these issues have exploded in public concern. And nobody today has mentioned the spectre in the room: the US Government put this Government under extreme pressure over tech regulation. Perhaps now — particularly given all that is happening around Greenland — is the time to show that we are not pusillanimous and we are standing up for Britain, whatever the tech bros think.My Lords, perhaps I am a simple-minded and naive bishop, but it seems we are getting into a debate we probably should have had in Committee on the different ways of approaching a quite specific issue, and I would rather we did not spend all night doing that. Yet we are where we are. The very fact that we are mostly discussing Amendments 94A and 94B is a symptom of the fact that these issues have really come to the fore of the public’s concern in relatively recent times. I have got to the point where I am thinking, “I don’t care which amendment we pass tonight, as long as we pass something that then allows some time for things to go back to the Commons, for them to give consideration and for it to come back here”. Let us have that process. Even though we are at a relatively late stage of a Bill, we can have a good process beyond today, rather than trying to resolve the matter once and for all on the Floor of the House this evening. That is my main point. My second point is on why we are perhaps in a better place now than we were a few months ago. It has worried me that we have not taken action against the big tech companies in the USA in recent times. We know that the US Government put this Government—us, our nation—under extreme pressure. Nobody has mentioned that today. It feels as if it is the elephant in the room. Perhaps we need to now show our courage and, particularly given all that is happening in and around Greenland, perhaps now is the time to say that we are not pusillanimous any more and that we are standing up for Britain and for what Britain needs, whatever the tech bros think is in their interests.
- The Government recognise the concerns about screen time and children's online safety. The Online Safety Act brought in one of the most robust global systems; Ofcom has prioritised the most egregious harms and we fully expect further enforcement action. We have since made self-harm promotion, intimate image abuse and AI-generated child sexual abuse material priority offences. On early years, we will publish new evidence-based guidance for parents this April, develop further guidance for parents of five to 16 year-olds and update the non-statutory early years curriculum guidance — Development Matters — to include screen time and digital literacy. Substantial changes to the EYFS statutory framework will be made after September 2026 and no later than April 2027. On social media: we are launching a three-month consultation on how to improve children's relationship with social media — exploring minimum age, age assurance accuracy, digital consent age and children's use of VPNs. The question is not whether we will act but how to act most effectively. We are seeking constructive conversations with noble Lords ahead of Third Reading and, if necessary, will bring forward an amendment then to enable secondary legislation to deliver the evidence-based outcomes of the consultation.
My Lords, it is clear from the debate that we have had this evening that this is an issue about which there is considerable concern. This Government recognise those concerns about the impact of screen time and about children’s online safety, particularly given some immensely troubling cases. This is a topic of profound national interest and, understandably, as we have also heard today, there are a range of opinions. However, one thing that we are all aligned on is the importance of keeping children safe. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology set out just yesterday in the other place, we are determined to help parents, children and young people to navigate these issues. We know many in this House and the other place have concerns around children’s online safety, how much screen time they get and how this can impact well-being. Rest assured that the Government hear those concerns and are prepared to act to deal with them. I will come to yesterday’s announcement of a new consultation looking at how to improve children’s relationship with social media, but we should first recognise the significant action that this Government have already taken. The Online Safety Act brought in one of the most robust systems globally, with ground-breaking steps to tackle illegal content and activity and to protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. Much discussion today has been, as some have called it, frustration at the extent to which that is being fully utilised, but Ofcom has been prioritising its initial enforcement action against the most egregious harms, such as child sexual abuse material, self-harm content and children accessing pornography. We fully expect further enforcement action to come. We have been very clear to Ofcom that it has the Government’s full backing to take enforcement action. We have since built on the Act’s foundations. First, we made content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority…
- How can companies and the regulator be taken seriously when the proportion of three to five year-olds on social media has risen from one in four to nearly 40% in just two years since the Online Safety Act was passed? One in five two year-olds is spending five hours a day on a screen — if that is not a call to arms, I do not know what is. I welcome the commitments on Amendment 91; the gap has narrowed. On that basis I withdraw it — but I will hold the Government to account for delivering.
My Lords, I will be brief. My only plea to noble Lords, as we take this issue forward beyond today’s debate in the Chamber—as I have no doubt that we will—is that we keep the interests of our very youngest children in mind. If we think that companies and the regulator take this seriously, how can it be that the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from one in four to nearly 40% in just two years, since the Online Safety Act was passed? If the fact that one in five two year-olds is spending five hours a day on average on a screen is not a call to arms then I do not know what is. On my Amendment 91, I welcome the commitments from the Government. The gap is now small, indeed it narrowed by a further few months during the course of this long debate, and I will hold them to account for delivering on it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 91.
- I thank all noble Lords for the debate — but I would still like to test the opinion of the House.
I thank all noble Lords for the debate that we have had, but I would still like to test the opinion of the House.