Lord Nash:

Moved by Lord Nash

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J.”

My Lords, I will speak to Motion A1 and my Amendment on social media. Discussions have taken place with the Government and I thank them for their engagement, but we have not yet reached an agreement and I will put this matter to a vote today.

I note the change from “may” to “must”, but it is not a “must” to do anything very specific. However, based on statements that the Prime Minister has made, I believe we are at one on the features of social media that should not be available to children. He said the

“algorithms, clearly to my mind, shouldn’t be permitted” and that “they must go”. He has said:

“Things can’t go on like this, they must change because right now social media is putting our children at risk”; “I don’t think the next generation would forgive us if we didn’t act now”; “My government will not leave parents to face this battle alone”; “There’s an overwhelming case and that’s why we have to act”; “We’ve taken the powers to make sure we can act within months, not years”.

However, the Government’s new amendment gives them 36 months to lay the first regulations. I understand that Ministers are arguing in the other place that they need three years to lay the first regulations because they fear the possibility of a judicial review, though they have not explained by whom or why. The reality is that a judicial review would not be brought until the Government have announced their plans and published draft regulations. There is always a risk of judicial review when making regulations, but if the Government specify in the Bill in clear terms what they intend to do, there would be a much-reduced risk of JR. If an Act of Parliament requires the Government to act in a particular way, the courts cannot and will not intervene. Parliament is sovereign. Were they to accept my proposals, which would put greater detail in the Bill about matters on which we appear to agree—how and when Ministers must raise the age of access to certain social media features—they would substantially reduce the chance of judicial review. Insisting on their vague discretionary powers would only increase the risk for Ministers.

I will share some evidence that I have come across from recent social media cases. Meta staff discussed how Instagram, a Meta platform, is a drug and said: “We’re basically pushers”. Meta’s own testing found that its algorithms were recommending nearly four times as many children to suspected groomers as to ordinary adults—close to 2 million minors in three months, with 22% of those recommendations resulting in a follow-up request. A Meta safety manager put the number of child victims of inappropriate interactions at 500,000 per day in English-speaking markets alone. One can now buy online an AI agent which enables a male adult to pretend to be a girl, contact a young boy through social media, persuade him to send nude images of himself and then blackmail him. This is sextortion, which has resulted in a number of suicides by young boys. One social media site is particularly well known as the medium for this.

Concerning the Government’s proposals on “must”, not “may”, curfews or time limits cannot be used to tackle harmful, precision-engineered algorithms and addictive features. If they are harmful, they are harmful. As the Prime Minister said, you cannot expect parents to deal with this on their own. If they focus on parental controls, it will only exacerbate the conflicts that we know already take place every night in households across the country.

As I said, I have spoken with the Government, and I am here later today and tomorrow to do a deal. I have told them that if they include in the Bill raising the age to a minimum of 16 for only those particular aspects of social media—harmful algorithmic addictive features, or features that could expose children to serious loss of privacy or contact from strangers—then I will accept that. These are two features that the Prime Minister, Liz Kendall and the Government have already said they will deal with; they are features that I do not believe anybody could have an issue with. I would understand an additional conditional force majeure period to cater for, for instance, a war or a pandemic. I would also accept a condition that the Government would not have to put this into effect if, following their consultation, the CMOs and medical royal colleges advised the Secretary of State that these measures would be likely to do more harm than good for children under the age of 16.

It would be such a small step for the Government to say, following these dreadful, game-changing US social media cases and the very recent increased awareness of the potentially even worse dangers of AI chatbots and companions, that they are now going to focus their consultation on how to raise the age to 16 for just those features of social media—not whether, but how—and what to do about the other features of social media, and to continue to explore the very worrying areas of AI chatbots and companions, gaming and VPNs, and any other areas that their very broad consultation covers. The consultation would still have a role to confirm that the proposals I am putting forward would be effective.

I have heard from lawyers that if we were to lose another child to features which facilitate predatory extortionists or to grotesque algorithmic bombardment, which I am afraid can be only a matter of time, then legal action against Government Ministers for their negligence in failing to act on the evidence could well be successful under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, following the Molly Rose Foundation report, which was not fully recommended on, and following the US social media cases. I am sure that is not something the Government want.

The Government have acted decisively on pornography, nudification, intimate image abuse, cyber flashing, preservation of data after the death of a child and a number of other areas. They should be applauded for that, and I now implore them to act on this matter. It is one small step. In the meantime, however, I urge noble Lords to vote for my amendment once again today.

My Lords, I will speak to my Motion A2. Before I do, however, I wish to say that if the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, decides to divide the House on Motion C1, I will support her. I hope, though, that some other accommodation has been made.

Motion A2 is deliberately drafted so that a successful vote for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, will automatically pre-empt it. That is intentional, and I wish to be clear at the outset that I will vote for Motion A1 alongside the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Indeed, we can be seen as a bit of a double act, with the noble Lord’s Motion capturing the urgent need for action, and my Motion providing a more comprehensive outline of what action should look like.

We are at something of an endgame this week. I have in front of me a chart that compares Motions A, A1 and A2; I would be very happy to send it to any noble Lord who wishes to see it. It shows clearly that government Motion A fails to address key risks identified by ofcom’s register of risks and does not totally tackle additional risks identified by the companies themselves. It shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the fundamental issue of enforcement, without which none of this really matters, because Ofcom will get more duties without having the power to enforce them.

The chart shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the need for parents to have somewhere to go when their child is at imminent risk of harm. I was very disappointed to hear the Minister talking in her opening remarks about parents going to the police when I explained at such great length, when the Government overturned the chatbot amendments, that when a family goes to the police, the police say there is no perpetrator and that they cannot deal with chatbots. It also shows clearly and quite astonishingly that the Government have no sense of urgency. The government Motion gives them three years to introduce measures. If that was not so egregious, it would be quite funny: they have given themselves their entire term of office to bring forward duties that we then do not believe are possible to properly enforce, and all with no role for Parliament.

As I said to the House last week, the online world is more dangerous for children than it was two years ago, yet the Government have refused to engage with the substance of my concerns. Motion A2 offers a guide for what they should be doing. It is bound by the scope of the Bill, but it would be a phenomenal start. The Motion builds on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which will rightly pass again today. Every aspect of the noble Lord’s Motion is also covered in Motion A2. Equally, there is nothing in it that precludes the Government using what they learn from their consultation. In effect, Motion A2 offers the Government something meaningful to offer in lieu of what I hope and believe will be the triumph of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, today.

The Government say that they need the timeline to perfect the details and get this right, but this is a double standard. They have no such concerns for the detail when rolling out data centres, AI in classrooms, giving away creators’ copyright, and putting valuable datasets and government services straight into the pockets of US companies. But when it comes to children, they are overwhelmed by caution and deaf to the cries of pain from parents and teachers, and the demand of children themselves for action. The Minister said in her opening statement that these are matters on which the Government’s amendments would make changes now. Which now? Which change? They have given themselves 30 months to make those changes.

Motion A2 is not aspirational; it sets out the provisions we need for children to be safe online. It requires action within eight months; the prevention of sycophantic, manipulative and exploitative features; compliance with Ofcom’s and the ICO’s children’s codes; that all risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks or additional risks identified by its services are mitigated; that there is no safe harbour; and mandatory data access for researchers and education for under-16s. It would allow 17 year-olds—a particularly vulnerable group as they go out into their adult life—to have some consideration from Parliament, Ofcom and government as to their safety, and it would bring in executive liability for senior individuals within companies, injunctive relief so that parents have somewhere to go when their child is at immediate risk of harm, individual redress, and a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers, including its business disruption powers, within six months.

Again, I say to the Minister: if the review is within scope, bring it forward and make it happen. There has been a single fine, of £50,000, paid under the OSA. Please do not tell the House that enforcement is going to work as it does now.

If we are not here to protect children, why are we here? Whose moral compass are we following? Whose interests are we serving? What outcome are we all working towards? I am a Cross-Bench Peer who, on this issue, sadly, does not enjoy the support of the Official Opposition in the other place nor of the Government in power. Both those facts are a source of immense disappointment. But it is not me but children who are going to pay this price.

I said to the House during the debate on chatbots that if we failed to protect children, we would see more children die. We have failed. Today, I put this on the record so that each one of us understands the price of our inaction.

My Lords, I speak in strong support of Motion A2 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As I said the last time we debated the Bill, we are united in this House in our objective to protect children online, yet we still differ on how to achieve it. The noble Baroness’s Amendment represents the precise, workable and robust framework that our children so desperately need.

We on these Benches welcome recent concessions—and I thank the Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Lloyd of Effra, for their engagement—such as the “must” rather than “may” duty, but the Government’s core approach remains flawed. The Government continue to cling to sweeping Henry VIII powers that will allow them to amend primary legislation via secondary regulations, bypassing full parliamentary debate. We need a Sunset clause to ensure that this power is not abused in the future. The current proposal of up to three years, possibly, to implement regulations is simply unacceptable. We on these Benches believe that the timeline is the critical issue. Our aspiration is a six plus six model—six months for a progress statement and six months for regulations—rather than the protracted window currently offered.

The Government are focusing on regulating user access, rather than addressing the toxic nature of the platforms themselves. We recognise the new references to “features or functionalities” in the Government’s amendments, but they avoid referring to addiction and do not include a list of prohibited features, nor manipulative features such as penalties for non-engagement or interaction with AI companions. Finally, we are concerned about the enforcement of the Online Safety Act and whether these provisions would be robustly enforceable. Will the Government promise a review?

The last time the Bill was in the House, I expressed our considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his campaign. However, his central mechanism is a near-blanket ban for under-16s. We on these Benches favour a more proportionate approach. A total ban of this sort would risk creating a dangerous cliff edge—where children are suddenly exposed to an unfiltered internet at 16, without having developed digital resilience—and accidentally blocking essential and safe services, such as educational platforms or Wikipedia.

Motion A2 offers the safety by design alternative, which we on these Benches strongly endorse. These amendments would require tech companies to fundamentally rewrite their code to remove harmful features. The key strengths of Amendment 38Z10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, include specific prohibitions, explicitly targeting addictive design features that hijack a child’s attention, including infinite scrolling, autoplay, AI companions, and push notifications during the school day or at night. It moves beyond assessing risks to explicitly identifying and banning the architectural hooks of social media. It introduces a private right of action, as the noble Baroness explained, allowing children who suffer harm to seek court orders against non-compliant providers. It mandates a review of ofcom’s enforcement powers to ensure that it is fit for purpose in protecting children.

While the Government propose a framework for monitoring addictive features, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to whom I pay tribute for her persistence in this campaign, proposes a framework for dismantling them, backed by direct legal recourse for families harmed by addictive design. However, we recognise the political reality that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, commands significant support in the House. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches prefer the proportionate approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but to ensure that the Government make the necessary concessions, we will vote for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, as a means of maintaining leverage until the Government agree to a tighter, more effective framework.

We will not accept a timeline that gives platforms years to comply. If the Government want to avoid further deadlock, they must return with a package that incorporates a tight timeline, constraints on Henry VIII powers, the vital safety by design mechanisms proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and much greater assurance on enforcement by Ofcom. We must regulate the product, not the child. We must send a clear message to the Government today about the standard of legislation we expect.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment C1, but I will start with Amendments A1 and A2. The House may be relieved to hear that I am pretty much lost for words in responding to the Government’s position. In the face of overwhelming evidence of a need for urgency to act, most recently from court cases in the US, the Government have chosen the following route. First is to act within three years, which in practice could mean never, given the timing of a General Election within that timeframe and another Government taking a different view. Secondly is to avoid putting, as my noble friend Lord Nash stressed, a clear age limit in the Bill in relation to accessing harmful social media. This is essential and entirely possible in relation to gambling and pornography, so I am unclear why the Minister says it is impossible in this case. Thirdly and finally is to omit reference to highly effective age assurance, which we know is the key element for effective implementation and is already working in relation to pornography and gambling.

Our confidence is also rattled because, as I said in an earlier round of ping-pong, the Government almost always quote the one notable charity in this area which has not signed up to the joint statement of principles for online safety signed by more than 40 other charities, and they rarely quote the evidence of health professionals, police and law enforcement bodies, and parents—including, sadly, the growing number of bereaved parents. The Minister talked again about the importance of the consultation and the fact that we have divided views on this issue, but we have divided views on just about every important issue and it is crucial that the Government take a lead on this, so I urge the House to follow the lead of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and give my noble friend’s amendment the support that it deserves.

Turning to Motion B, I recognise again that the Government really have moved in relation to this issue. The vital issues of quality of education and parental preference are now clearly set out.

On my Motion C1 on smartphones in schools, I am genuinely sorry that we are still in a position where we felt it was necessary to table another amendment to clarify the Government’s position. We welcome the progress that has been made in putting the guidance on a statutory footing and the refinement of the case studies included alongside the guidance.

As the Minister referred to, I am very grateful for the meeting I had earlier today with the honourable Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, the Minister responsible for this policy area, who met me and my noble friend Lord Agnew earlier. I took away from that her undoubted personal commitment to see an end to the disruption and distraction caused particularly by smartphones in schools. She stated clearly in our meeting that she did not want children distracted by a smartphone vibrating in their pocket or in their book bag, and we agree with her entirely.

We welcome the comments that the Minister made just now on enforcement and the Government’s commitment to improve the guidance if it becomes apparent that the enforcement is not working. Although I would like to see it sooner—and I hope that when the Minister closes she can give us some timeframe in which the Government would commit to review that—I think the timing of the next behaviour survey would be a good moment to review it. Just to be clear, the 2024-25 behaviour survey showed that 17% of school leaders in secondaries believed that their mobile phone policies were rarely or never followed, and 34% of pupils in the same schools thought they were rarely or never followed. Or, putting it the other way around, 82% of school leaders in secondaries thought that their mobile phone policies were followed all or most of the time, compared with 38% of pupils in the same schools. Sadly, we know who is right in that regard.

Based on the Minister’s reassurance, particularly if she can give us some idea on timing, I will not test the opinion of the House today. I think the message from the Government is clear: they do not want to see “not seen, not heard” policies, particularly in relation to smartphones. To take one quote from a teenage witness in the judicial review of Montgomery and others against the Secretary of State for Education: “‘Not seen, not heard’ didn’t stop us using our smartphones at school, it just made us more discreet”. That was at an outstanding school where enforcement was claimed to be strong.

I appreciate that many noble Lords may feel that we are dancing on the head of one of the smallest pins ever manufactured, but we think this is so important because these policies outsource enforcement to chance; if a smartphone is not seen, effectively it does not exist. It creates huge amounts of work for school staff, with constant low-level boundary testing—pockets, toilets, corridors, under the desk and so forth. It is just not where we want our teachers spending their time, and we do not want children being exposed to harmful or upsetting content through the school day. Over a quarter said they were photographed against their wishes, and almost a third said they thought they would have got higher GCSE grades if they had not had smartphones in school. Educational psychologists are absolutely clear that for neurodivergent children the distraction is even more pronounced. Having a smartphone in their bag makes learning harder because it takes extra mental effort to ignore it, which can make it tougher to focus and push through when work becomes challenging.

We owe it to pupils and teachers to close the loophole in the Government’s position. I hope very much and trust that both Ministers involved will continue to push to do so. If it does not work, I hope that in short order we will see one or two sentences added to the guidance to, in the words of the Government, make it crystal-clear.

My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister but have the greatest difficulty in understanding why you need a consultation period when dealing with those aged 16 and under. The restraint that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, seeks is to prevent them having access to pornography, which I have described in this House as vile pornography. He is proposing that from the moment the Bill comes into force, there will be a ban for under-16s. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can understand that I speak as a matter of conscience. It is why I support the noble Lord’s Motion.

I speak as a departing hereditary Peer. Regrettably, no time has been allocated for hereditary Peers to say farewell to this House. I am very sad about that, but that is the position. Would your Lordships be kind enough to listen to me, a departing hereditary Peer, saying a brief goodbye to this House?

I first entered this House 54 years ago, in 1972. The House then was very different. There were very few Peeresses—fewer than 10%—and those who were in the House nearly all wore hats. I had the very scary experience, when I was giving my maiden speech, of being attacked by the hatted Baroness Summerskill, who wrongfully attacked my maiden speech. It took me a long time to recover from that attack by the hatted Peeress.

The House in those days was much less proactive. I give a comparison. If you wanted to table an Oral Question, you would go to the Table Office and say, “Have you got a space for me on Thursday of next week?” The answer might be “No, but we can give you a space in 10 days’ time”.

Can my noble friend come to a close? This is not an appropriate moment.

Noble Lords:

Oh!

My Lords, I insist on continuing to speak and am very glad to have support from the Benches over there.

I was comparing the House with the less proactive House 54 years ago and saying how you would go to the Table Office and quickly get an opportunity to table your Question. Look at it now. There is a ballot held almost daily. I do not know the number of Questions in the ballot, but it is probably 30 or 40. This is a great difference.

It has been a great honour to serve this House for over 30 years. I will miss the House and your Lordships very much indeed, but I most sincerely wish your Lordships well. In the new constitution for the House, I do hope that there is a large elected element. That is needed to get a proper constitutional balance between us and the other House.

About 40 years ago, Lord Hailsham—Quintin Hailsham—gave a lecture about the “elected dictatorship”. That is prevailing even more seriously now than it was 40 years ago, with incoming Governments with large majorities completely taking over the legislature—not only in the other House but in this House. We are seeing that during the ping-pong period that we are in now. I leave your Lordships to the ping-ponging that has to be done in the next few days and say farewell, as a hereditary Peer.

My Lords, it is a huge privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I am sure many noble Lords will have the same sentiment as I do in thanking him for his extraordinary service to his country.

I would like to associate myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said, and particularly add my support to Motion A2 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will not repeat those arguments, but I want to make two particular points. It is of great sadness to me that, on this topic, we appear no longer to be working as a collaborative group. Those of us who worked on the Online Safety Act, across all sides of this House and the other place, spent quite a lot of time together discussing how to find common ground. That seems to have been absent in the last couple of weeks. Although I really recognise the effort that both Ministers on the front bench today have put into this personally, we have really missed out on trying to find that common ground that I think all of us here want to find to protect children.

As a result, I find myself again supporting my noble friend Lord Nash on an Amendment that I really do not like in order to try to get to the amendment that I really do like in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I think that is because we have lost the ability to collaborate on this topic, which is a great shame and something that none of us should feel very proud of. I think there is a path; it is about time, as everyone has been saying. I am afraid I do not believe that “a ceiling, not a target” works. That is not what has happened with the Online Safety Act at any stage. Every ceiling has definitely been a target and some of them have been missed. I am afraid the same is true for the DMCC Act; in this digital world, ceilings definitely become targets.

The Minister says that there is the power to review the enforcement of ofcom. When are the Government going to use that power? A commitment to use it, to shorten the time and to work collaboratively throughout the consultation would move quite a few of us.

My Lords, the Government are arguing that they need much more time to consider the evidence because of the given challenges of enforcement. But the bereaved parents who have lost their children through online harms do not agree. They want action now, not some time in the future.

Last week, I met again the bereaved parents who have written a letter to the Prime Minister. They desperately wanted to meet the Prime Minister personally to show their strength of feeling for having a social media ban for under-16s. To hear their harrowing, heartbreaking stories would make any morally minded person weep. The Prime Minister has met the tech companies: why not also with those who have suffered the tragic losses of their children? The bereaved parents felt so hurt by that. They are seeking change so that other families do not have to go through what they had to endure and still do every day since their loss.

Right now, as we debate at this moment, a child is being affected negatively by social media harms. How many more children will be harmed every day by the dangerous, addictive effects of social media before something is done to stop it as soon as possible? I urge the Prime Minister to meet the bereaved parents to give them hope and security; for the Government to accept the Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for the sake of our children’s future happiness and mental well-being; and to give the nation’s thanks to all the bereaved parents who are fighting and campaigning for change. Let us not let them down. Let us act now. Remember, as I keep saying, childhood lasts a lifetime.

My Lords, I am sure that it will be source of huge disappointment to all noble Lords that I do not intend to give a valedictory speech.

Noble Lords:

Shame, shame.

Indeed.

I thank the Minister for responding to the points I raised on educational technology at the last round of ping-pong. It has an awful lot of consultation in it, rather than action, which is emblematic of the situation we find ourselves in.

We went through only one round of ping-pong on the Online Safety Act, the reason being, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, that there was a degree of cross-party accord, which went to the nub of the problems, along with genuine interaction between the key parties and a willingness to listen to one another. I am sorry that we do not seem to be in quite the same place today.

I support Motion A1, from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and particularly Motion A2, in the name of my noble friend Lady Kidron, for exactly the same reasons as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I am not sure that a social media ban is the perfect solution—I am not sure there is one—but the intent is to concentrate the Government’s mind.

If noble Lords want to see what leadership in this area looks like, I draw attention to a column in the Financial Times of 17 April by no less a person than the Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez. He is doing two things simultaneously: he is standing up to our occasional friend across the Atlantic, who is currently probably testing His Majesty’s patience somewhat, but I am sure will be fuelling his sense of humour, probably unintentionally. Secondly, what the Prime Minister of Spain wrote was clear and unequivocal: on protecting under-16 year-olds on social media, consultation and talking about it are not enough: what is required is action.

His Majesty’s Government really must do better on this account. They are telling us, at least if we believe the press, that we are thinking about trying to get closer to our erstwhile colleagues in the European Union. Within Europe, France, Norway and Spain have all said quite unequivocally that they will move to protect from social media children under the age of 16 and, in one case, 15. By working together, all of us who might take this as a course of action will come across the same problems. Australia is coming up with ingenious ways to get around it and the ways in which the companies are reacting. Talking to each other to find a joint approach, to find out where the loopholes are and to close them together, is surely an intelligent way to respond to this, rather than trying to go it alone.

On Motion A2, His Majesty’s Government really do not need a consultation. All they need to do is shut themselves in a room with my noble friend Lady Kidron, who would be able to tell them, with her eyes closed, exactly what they need to do to get action and results.

The Minister mentioned that she was very grateful for her interaction with a variety of people across the House on this subject. One person who has largely not been included in those discussions is my noble friend Lady Kidron. If there are any meetings, guess who is usually the last to be met? That is a compliment to the noble Baroness: they know she will ask some extremely awkward questions and will almost certainly know a great deal more than the Ministers, who are not experts, but also than the so-called experts who are advising them. But that is not the intelligent way to go about this.

As a backdrop, the columnist Gideon Rachman has written a piece in the Financial Times entitled, “Are Europe and America headed for divorce?” I suggest to the Government that looking over their shoulder, which they have done since they took office, and worrying about what the United States might or might not do or think, is getting us nowhere. If it comes to a choice between looking after our children and protecting them as quickly as possible, and worrying about what the US might do to react and whether that could hurt us economically, surely that is not a proper choice. Children, obviously, come first, and I implore the Government to follow that route.

My Lords, it is a source of great regret to me that I will be following the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Nash, into the Lobbies, because I think the Government are making a mistake here. We should have been much more courageous in addressing these problems.

I am mindful of the fact that the United States of America is making life rather difficult for us at the moment, because taking any kind of independent stance seems to be a reason to be roundly scorned by the United States President, but there has to be a moment when we take a stand. We have done it with the war in Iran and it would be right to do it here, for the very reasons that have been expounded by others already, which is that this is about protecting our children. We are making a grievous mistake by not listening to those voices about the need for us to work in coalition on this and not to make it something that we worry about.

As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, just said, we have to be prepared to stand up to the technology oligarchs who basically do not want any regulation at all. We have to be brave and courageous, in this area, in empowering ofcom to do its job properly and in protecting those whose lives are made so difficult in trying to restrain their children from using these phones in the ways that we have heard about. I really regret it, because I do not want to disagree with the Government at the moment, but we should see that there are principles that must be adhered to here. I hope that other colleagues on these Benches see this as too important for us to put off for three long years.

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for all the service that he has given over many years. It was an absolute pleasure to join him at the dining table before this debate to exchange views about his long history here and his guidance to me as one of the younger Members of your Lordships’ House. We will miss him dearly.

Thank you very much.

I was intending basically to agree with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I therefore had not intended to speak on issues around social media. However, I have to say that I agree with not only my noble friend but the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. This is a plea to the Government Ministers—both the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Lloyd, have engaged with all of us and we thank them for the time that they have taken to speak to us—that we are not that far apart.

As your Lordships can clearly tell from opinions right across the Chamber, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, whom I also thank for her contributions, we all want the same thing. Here is a radical plan: why do we not all get together once, in a single room, to see if we can thrash something out, because we know that the clock is ticking. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, there are people out there awaiting our actions, so we clearly need to move at pace. I hope that, when the Minister gets up, she reflects on what has been said.

I will concentrate on smartphones in schools and share the comments of Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. He said:

“School leaders are as concerned as everyone about the impact of social media and phones on children and young people. NAHT has supported calls for a ban on pupils using smartphones during the school day”.

These Benches agree with that important point. He went on to say:

“Statutory guidance will give school leaders the clarity they need to implement a ban, and will remove any ambiguity or differences between how schools approach smartphone policies. Schools will only then need to decide how to implement and enforce a ban across their school community and the government must provide any support they require to do so”.

I hope the Minister will comment on that, when she gets up.

I was also heartened to read the comments of the Conservative Shadow Secretary of State, Laura Trott, who was quoted by the BBC as having said on social media:

“After a year of resisting our calls to ban smartphones in schools Labour have finally listened & u-turned. They were wrong to dismiss it as an unnecessary gimmick. This will give teachers the backing they need and it is a huge win for behaviour & attainment in schools”.

I agree with Laura. That is why, having read the guidance, and more importantly, having just listened to the Minister at the Dispatch Box, I can say that the assurances she has given, in particular the guidance that the Department for Education expects schools to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to mobile phones throughout the day, including during lessons, the times between lessons, break times and lunchtimes, are the reassurances that the campaigners who came to your Lordships’ House and those outside were seeking.

If the noble Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House on her Motion C1, we on these Benches are not minded to support it. If the Minister can get up and give us the reassurance that she has, I think we have it.

My Lords, in starting, I too recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hacking. But I have to say, as a former Chief Whip in the other place, I am not quite of the same view that rebelling against your party is a sign of conscience. Nevertheless, I thank him for his service and comradeship to me since I have been in this House.

Thank you very much.

I am sure the noble Lord will remain busy even if he is not here. I look forward to hearing his views from afar, as I have heard them from behind me over recent years.

I turn now to Lords Amendments 38V and 38X. This Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses and acted decisively to directly address them. I understand from today’s debate that there is a view among noble Lords that the Government may not yet have gone far enough. But it is of course important to remember that it is the passing of this Bill that will ensure that the progress that has been made will be on the statute book.

We are absolutely committed to protecting children online and doing it the right way. Throughout the whole Bill, that has involved discussion, consultation and engagement, including, earlier in its passage, with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on a range of issues, which we then looked at in detail in Committee.

Noble Lords have told us that the progress we need to make on this cannot be optional. We agree—that is why we have now put in the Bill the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the outcomes of the consultation. Please be reassured that, due to that change, action will follow. It must follow.

Your Lordships’ House also told us that this must happen at pace. That is why we have committed in legislation to a clear timeline. The six-month progress report must set out when regulations will be made. I will come back to that timing point in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, reiterated his demand that the age of 16 is included on the face of the legislation. Again, I know there is not necessarily a consensus on whether this is the right thing to do, even among those who are not satisfied with how far the Government have gone already. I think the reason is that it pre-empts the outcome of our consultation, which seeks views on what restrictions on what features and at what age would be best.

We want to be confident that what we introduce works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why we are not waiting; we are testing options now, taking evidence from families, and, as I have said, we are putting the legislative powers in place to act quickly once the consultation closes. Our Amendment allows for this outcome, but it also allows for a range of other outcomes, including, as I suggested earlier, for example, restricting some of the most harmful functionalities for children older than 16.

We rightly heard noble Lords’ concerns around the harmful and potentially addictive nature of many services. That is exactly why this is explicitly addressed in the consultation. However, in legislation, we have to be a little bit careful about the terms we use. Addiction, for example, is a medical term. A specific diagnosis of social media addiction has not been medically recognised and is a contested concept. If we are not careful, using this term in the legislation is likely to create a high bar for the exercise of the power to tackle the problem of addictive design as it is colloquially understood. Our drafting is intended to specifically capture features which might cause children to overuse services in a risky or harmful way. The Secretary of State must have due regard to these features in exercising the power.

We have gone even further, with a legislative commitment that the Secretary of State must now have regard to how services and features could impact children’s usage of services, and the potential harms excessive use might cause. Collectively, these changes represent a significant strengthening of the Government’s position. They provide certainty of action, urgency and stronger safeguards for children. I urge noble Lords to recognise how far we have gone and to support the government amendments.

We particularly recognise the concerns that have been voiced during this debate and more widely regarding the Government’s intended timescales. I repeat that the power to extend is designed to cover exceptional circumstances only, rather than being a means of delay. Nevertheless, we have heard the arguments this afternoon and I am sure that my colleagues in the Commons will have more to say on timings when the Bill returns to the other place this evening. I am sure everybody will have noted the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to continue with his constructive engagement with Ministers on that and other issues.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for recognising the progress that we have made on admissions and the published admissions numbers. I hope and believe that we can now be confident that these changes will help to ensure that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. That is the objective that we share.

On Amendment 106 in relation to mobile phones, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for recognising the progress that we have made on this, the clarity of the Government’s position that pupils should not have access to their mobile phones during the school day and the recognition of the assurances that my Honourable Friend Minister Bailey was able to give around the strengthening of the guidance and the enforcement support that we will now put in place.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness about the behaviour survey being a good way to measure the impact of the changes the Government have already made. For that reason, I am able to say to the noble Baroness that we can commit to looking at the behaviour survey, seeing the impacts and using that to make any necessary revisions to the guidance by September 2027.

With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the Government given the considerable movement that I think we have made in a range of areas.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who really does know what she is talking about. I remember that, during the debates on the now Online Safety Act, it was she who first drew the attention of your Lordships’ House to the dangers of the algorithm, and here we are, so many years later. However, it is the algorithm that must go—the Prime Minister has said it—for children. All that I am asking today is that we focus on that and on stranger contact, which has led to so much child abuse and deaths. That is all.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, including the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, whom I wish well in the future, the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Russell of Liverpool. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his comments about other countries; I would add Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world, Brazil, the seventh most populous, and many others. Frankly, at the rate we are going, 50% of the world population will have acted on social media before we do anything, which will put our children at a massive economic disadvantage.

The Minister said that my proposals pre-empt the outcome of the consultation but, with the way that I have outlined them today, I do not believe that that is the case. They would allow the experts, including the Chief Medical Officer and the medical royal colleges, to consider the outcome of the consultation in relation to the very limited and focused proposals that I have suggested today. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but, on the basis of what she has said here on the Floor of the House today, I do not sense much movement yet. I must therefore ask the House to agree to Motion A1, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I should remind the House that, if Motion A1 is agreed, it will pre-empt Motion A2.

Ayes 316, Noes 165.

Motion A1 agreed.