Lord Clement-Jones:

Moved by Lord Clement-Jones

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 38Z22 to Commons Amendment 38Z17, Amendment 38Z23 to Commons Amendment 38Z18, Amendment 38Z24 to Commons Amendment 38Z20, and Amendment 38Z25 to Commons Amendment 38Z21—

38Z22: As an amendment to Commons Amendment 38Z17, in inserted paragraph (b), after “ways” insert “, and (c) compliance with— (i) any Codes of Practice published by ofcom pertaining to the safety of children as users of internet services, and (ii) the Children’s Code published by the Information Commissioner’s Office, and (d) the risk of exposure of children to— (i) risks of serious harm, manipulation, sycophancy or exploitation, (ii) illegal content or primary priority content, (iii) serious loss of privacy, and (iv) contact from strangers.”

38Z23: As an amendment to Commons Amendment 38Z18, in inserted subsection (8A)(b), after “consultation” insert “, and to any representations made directly to the Secretary of State’s Department before the first regulations under subsection (1) are laid before Parliament, by members of the public in relation to children in imminent danger arising from their contact with an internet service. (8B) The Secretary of State, in exercising the power under subsection (1), must have regard to the outcomes of a review of OFCOM’s powers, under Part 7 of this Act, to enforce regulations made under that subsection. (8C) The review described in subsection (8B) must be completed within six months of the day on which the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is passed. (8D) In conducting the review described in subsection (8B), the Secretary of State must give consideration to— (a) OFCOM’s ability to prevent serious harm to children as users of internet services, including with the use of powers set out in sections 144 to 147 (business disruption measures); (b) the relevant views of— (i) legal experts, (ii) online safety experts, (iii) relevant academics, (iv) relevant charities including children’s and women’s charities, (v) OFCOM, (vi) Parliament, and (vii) any other persons the Secretary of State deems relevant; (c) whether OFCOM’s powers under Part 7 are adequately supported by any existing provisions relating to— (i) injunctive relief, and (ii) individual redress, to enable OFCOM to enforce those regulations effectively or whether further such provisions are necessary to enable that enforcement.”

38Z24: As an amendment to Commons Amendment 38Z20, in inserted subsection (1A), leave out “12” and insert “six”

38Z25: As an amendment to Commons Amendment 38Z21, in inserted paragraph (3)(b), leave out “six” and insert “three””

My Lords, as we reach these final stages of ping-pong on the Bill, I will first express the profound regret and disappointment of the Liberal Democrat Benches at the posture now being adopted by the Conservative Opposition. I have immense respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the tireless campaign he has waged to protect children from online harms. Yet, last night in the Commons, the Conservative front bench effectively laid down their arms, deciding that it is now “reasonable” to give the Government some time. By caving in at the 11th hour, the Conservatives have chosen to accept a compromise that leaves our children waiting far too long for meaningful protection.

We on these Benches acknowledge that the Government have moved their position, and I thank Ministers for their engagement throughout. We welcome the change to a “must” duty and the introduction of a timeline in the Bill. However, when we look at the reality of the Government’s latest proposals, passed in the Commons yesterday, the fatal flaw remains that timeline. The Minister in the Commons outlined a timeline that consists of a progress report in three months, 12 months to lay regulations and a further six-month buffer for so-called “exceptional circumstances”, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, has outlined today. As my Honourable Friend Munira Wilson pointed out in the Commons last night, this adds up to 21 months before we might see any real action. Let us be absolutely clear: giving platforms nearly two years to comply is simply unacceptable and unsellable to the parents whose children are suffering at this moment.

Because the Conservative Opposition have backed down, this is our last opportunity to stand for the robust measures that so many parents, experts and civil society groups have been crying out for. Therefore, we have tabled these short, very clear amendments to do a few vital things.

First, our Amendments 38Z24 and 38Z25 would slash the Government’s bloated timetable down to a strict three plus six plus three-month framework. They demand a progress report in three months, would give the Government just six months to lay regulations and would allow only a tight three-month extension if absolutely necessary. Secondly, our Amendments 38Z22 and 38Z23 would incorporate the principles championed so expertly throughout the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We must regulate the product, not just the user. Amendment 38Z22 would mandate strict compliance with ofcom’s codes of practice and the ICO’s children’s code, which of course was enabled on to the statute book by the noble Baroness. It explicitly demands that regulations protect children from the risk of serious harm, manipulation, sycophancy, exploitation and unsolicited contact from strangers.

Crucially, Amendment 38Z23 would ensure that the Government cannot ignore the voices of parents. It would force the Secretary of State to have regard to representations made by the public regarding children in imminent danger arising from their contact with internet services. Furthermore, it demands a strict six-month review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers, forcing the Government to formally consider whether the regulator needs stronger teeth, specifically evaluating the need for business disruption measures, injunctive relief and individual redress. We cannot allow the tech giants to use this 21-month window to continue business as usual. We must act decisively and we cannot let this moment pass without making the strongest possible point that our children’s safety cannot wait. We must send a clear message to the public that there are still those in this House who will not compromise on a tight, workable timeline to dismantle the addictive architecture of big tech. Because the timeline is the critical issue and because we believe that this House must hold the Government’s feet to the fire, we give notice at this point that, at the conclusion of this debate, it is very likely that we will wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his openness, his campaigning and his extraordinary ability to bring different views together. This morning, he and I agreed that, whatever the outcome of this particular conversation, we would work continuously and ferociously for child safety in the future.

I support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in its entirety. However, I will draw attention to two particular matters. The first is new subsection (8A)(b) inserted by Amendment 38Z23, which states that, when making regulations, the Secretary of State must give consideration to representations

“by members of the public in relation to children in imminent danger arising from their contact with an internet service”.

For well over a decade, I have responded to requests for help from families of children at risk of serious harm or, in far too many cases, when it is already too late. It is an enormous privilege, but it is also a tragic one, and it is a sad indictment of our current regime that those parents feel compelled to turn to me rather than to government, the regulator or the police.

Yesterday, the Minister said:

“When potential criminal activity is being threatened and there are imminent risks, that is also a matter for the police”.—[Official Report, 27/4/26; col. 946.]

My heart sank when I heard that. I have repeatedly warned, both on this Bill and the Crime and Policing Bill, that the police will not accept complaints where a child is being manipulated, groomed or threatened by a chatbot, because there is no human perpetrator. Equally, in cases of self-harm or threats that do not meet the threshold of a criminal offence, ofcom has no role.

The Government have resisted every attempt to provide a route for parents in crisis. They have, on several occasions, whipped heavily to prevent the creation of an individual reporting mechanism, a route to the courts or an offence to which the police could respond. New subsection (8) effectively requires DSIT to establish a mechanism through which the public can inform the department directly about children in imminent danger. Of course, I would far prefer a comprehensive regime, but perhaps if cases of individual imminent danger come regularly to the department’s attention, Ministers may yet come to a different conclusion about the need for an individual complaints mechanism.

The second issue is the enforcement powers. Yesterday, the Minister said that we did not need a review because the Online Safety Act already provides for one; indeed, she repeated that point in her opening remarks. However, Section 178(2) of the Act says:

“The review … must not be carried out before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the last of the provisions of Part 3 comes into force”.

As the matter stands, today, the clock is not even ticking, because not all the provisions of Part 3 have yet been decided; nor have they come into force. Therefore, there will be no review for at least two years, and possibly far longer. Further, when the review eventually confirms what many of us already know—that the Act’s enforcement mechanisms are insufficient—we will then face yet further delay before any actual changes are made.

We could, and should, have placed enforcement at the forefront from the beginning. Instead, the Government have repeatedly blocked attempts even to discuss the issue. This amendment would introduce a clear requirement for a review within six months of the Ofcom enforcement powers that are relevant to the Bill. The parliamentary arithmetic is against the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I say this to the Government: it is within your gift to create a portal for desperate parents and to bring forward a timely review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers. The continued refusal to do so, while persisting with headline-grabbing announcements about new duties, does not change the lived experience of children.

Only an hour ago, I spoke to a tech insider who described this as “safety theatre”—a term used in Silicon Valley for announcements that generate headlines but fail to deliver the necessary change. Our children deserve better: they deserve swifter, more effective and more principled leadership.

My Lords, I thought that I was walking into a kind of kumbaya, with peace breaking out, but, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, perhaps I got that wrong.

I was going to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nash, with whom I profoundly disagree, on having achieved something of a victory. I was also going to congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Smith, on reaching some kind of compromise—at this point in ping-pong, we might all be relieved about that—but I do not understand the Government’s position. So I want to ask the Minister a genuine question in good faith.

We have heard a lot about the fact that this measure could not be implemented because we had to wait until the consultation was over. What if those who were consulted on the Government’s plans for a social media ban for under-16s—experts, NGOs, parents—do not agree that age functionality restrictions for under-16s represent the best approach to keeping teens safe? What if they raise worries about the anonymity and privacy of over-16s and adults, as well as a fear of digital ID? Some of the 55,000 people who responded certainly raised the problem of censorship mission creep.

I ask that because, does this not pre-empt the outcome of a consultation that the Minister assured us the Government could not do? Is there not therefore a danger of undermining evidence-based policy in general, to be so pragmatic? Might it imply that public consultations are just going through the motions and that politicians are not really listening to the public at all? What do those of us who have concerns about this under-16 ban do if some of our warnings are ignored before it has even happened, never mind afterwards, when I am sure we will see that some of our fears are actually true? If, by the way, this was only about keeping children safe, or if I thought it was the best way to keep children safe, then fine—but not everybody thinks it is.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind words and for the statement. I thank the Government for their active engagement in the matter of social media, albeit rather last-minute, and for making a binding commitment to impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16, to be focused on addictive features, harmful, algorithmic-driven content, and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy and have led to so much harm and a number of deaths.

This is very welcome to the millions of parents, voters, teachers, health professionals and others who have been asking for it, and it is exactly what my Amendment would have achieved. I would just ask the Government to get these lines to all Ministers, so that when they are on the airwaves, they stick to them, rather than giving long and rather confusing answers—because it is to this statement that we will be holding the Government to account to deliver on as soon as possible.

I thank all noble Peers from across the House who supported my amendment, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger, Lady Benjamin and Lady Cass, who put their names to it originally. I also very much thank my team, Ben and Molly Kingsley of Safe Screens, Bella Skinner and Becky Foljambe of Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Simon Bailey and Ed Oldfield. I also thank Annabelle Eyre and Henry Mitson, who have advised me on the process. Having taken five Acts through your Lordships’ House as a Minister, I have discovered how different the gamekeeper-turned-poacher process is. I also thank Susannah Street and Connie Walsh in the Public Bill Office for being so available to help me navigate the intricacies of the amendment process.

Above all, I thank the 27 bereaved parents who have campaigned so tirelessly alongside me, particularly Ellen Roome. They did not have to do this; they did it so that no other family would have to live through what they have lived through, and they have ensured that, as a result, every child in the country will be safer because of their work, and I thank them for it. I do hope that the Prime Minister will meet with them, as they have requested, very soon.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I share the noble Lord’s concern about timescale. I see no reason why the Government cannot act faster than the longstop they have allowed for, and I understand and have heard their statement that they intend to do so. I also share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about ofcom. Having met recently with Ofcom and heard the long-winded and convoluted process it has to go through before it can stick anything on the social media companies, I was confirmed—if I needed any confirmation—in my view that we have to put the onus on the companies to get their houses in order by restricting children’s access to harmful features, rather than hoping we can regulate our way out of this problem.

However, we need to improve substantially the Online Safety Act and to strengthen Ofcom’s ability—and, if I might say so, its capacity and boldness. It is disappointing that the rumour is there will be nothing in the King’s Speech which would enable us to do this. I hope we can live together to fight this battle another time, but so far as this Bill is concerned, I feel the moment has passed.

My Lords, I thank the Government for listening to the voices of concern, including those of the bereaved parents, for our children’s safety to be at the forefront of all our minds.

As we move forward to the next steps, it might be a bit late in the day to make this suggestion, but I have an idea to throw into the mix. It may sound radical, but it is for the tech companies and IT platforms to require a licence from ofcom to operate in this country. It may sound like a crazy idea, but radio and TV companies need a licence, so why not tech companies and social media platforms? If they do not comply then their licence will be taken away from them or they will be fined huge sums. This is one way to get them to be focused. Are we bold or intrepid enough to do this? It could be the answer to keeping them focused and to keeping our children safe. Age assurance is the key which they need to operate to keep our children safe. As we move forward, I hope that everyone will make it their responsibility to do just that, in every way possible. Ofcom is vital to all this. I look forward to working with the Government on this important issue and to us keeping the focus of our minds on our children’s safety, happiness and contentment for the future.

My Lords, here we are again. It feels a bit like doomscrolling to keep returning to this subject. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and all those who have supported him for pushing water uphill successfully, defying gravity. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for appropriating, with her permission, the Motion moved yesterday by my noble friend Lady Kidron.

I thank the Minister for having moved. However, I take issue with her description of where we are today as a “landing point”. Rather than us being at a landing point, I hope that we all feel that we are at a launching point, because we need to go a great deal further. One of the things that one has learned throughout this process is that there is a body of knowledge on this issue among some people in both Houses of Parliament that is quite considerable. There is a very high level of knowledge of some of the issues, some of the potential solutions and the faults with some of those potential solutions. There is no perfect answer.

For many of us who have been quite closely involved with the genesis of the Online Safety Act and what has happened thereafter, there has been an apparent lack of interest and engagement from some in the current Government and the departments involved to co-operate and collaborate with those Members of both Houses who have extensive knowledge and to tap into that knowledge. There is a loose collection of those involved in this. We are called the “tech team”—a nice tautology. The members of that team want to help the Government and be behind or alongside them. We do not wish to be constantly harrying the Government and encouraging them to do more. Yesterday I was wearing a tie which had some acrobatic, leaping elephants, because it required a level of noise and drumbeats to get the Government’s attention. Today, I am wearing a tie which has a series of sheep jumping over a hurdle, because those of us on the tech team need to summon our inner sheepdogs to manoeuvre the Government in the right direction.

Motion A1 is not, as the Minister said, about creating restraint on the Government. It is about creating focus. What is contained in Motion A1 is a very clear description of what can and should be done at speed, without restraint, to get the ball rolling. I do not think that anything that comes out of the consultation will tell us anything that we did not know. If anything, it may get slightly more confusing because I suspect that it will be quite unfocused. I appeal to the Government to listen to those involved in this who perhaps have the most history, the most bruises, the most insight and the most knowledge about what is going on internationally, not just in this country, to work together for the benefit of children.

I will support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if he decides to test the opinion of the House—more in hope than in expectation of a great victory. However, I appeal to the Government to listen and to work with us and not, as it occasionally feels, against us.

My Lords, I will briefly add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Nash on what is a substantial achievement, and my thanks to the Minister and the Government for having heard the strong voices in this House. But I will also double-click—if your Lordships will forgive the tech jargon—on what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said.

I have now spent 15 years working on child internet safety, and I fear that that entire period has been safety theatre. I worry that today is another one of those days. While we congratulate ourselves on having made some progress, the reality will be that we have not achieved anything at all unless we actually get change in the products that our children are using every hour of every day.

I ask the Minister and the Government to consider how they can look at greater enforcement while the consultation is ongoing. I fear that, despite the best intentions of everyone from all sides of this House and the other place, the reality is that the tech lords are smiling.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and to the tireless campaigning of my colleague and noble friend Lady Benjamin, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, who I do not see in her place at the moment.

This issue has been long in the waiting. For many years, we have heard about the impact that social media is having on our young people, and today I am a bit sad that, having taken us so far, the rug has been pulled from under the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, not by colleagues here but by colleagues down the Corridor. We are almost there, but there are still issues to be resolved. As was said earlier when we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, there may well be industry insiders smiling, thinking that they have dodged it for the time being.

Talking of time, I listened very carefully to the Minister when she said that it is not about whether we take action but about what sort and how quickly. I hope she will address that when she gets up to speak, because I have genuine concerns about those timelines and what will happen if, in the consultation, the public say, “We want this Government to act quicker”. Will they be able, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, to go back to the three-six-three timescale and do things more quickly? That is what the public want. If things slip to 21 months, we will almost be in the General Election period. I hope the Minister reflects on that.

I would also like the Minister to answer the question that my noble friend Lady Benjamin asked about ofcom licensing these tech platforms, just as it does for radio and TV. If we are going to involve Ofcom more, we also need to look at giving it more teeth because, at the moment, it is not able to govern as we expect. Clearly, I support my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s attempts to test the opinion of the House. I really hope that noble Lords and noble Baronesses from across the Chamber will support him, because we are almost there but not quite. I do not want us all to get so close to achieving what we desire and then to pull away.

My Lords, I start where the Minister started, by acknowledging the work of my noble friend Lord Nash, who has led an incredibly effective campaign, which has been driven not by any political motives but by three things: first, wanting to do right by all children; secondly, having listened to the pain and the passion, as many of us have, of those parents who have lost their children, those who are worrying about their children and those whose children have been deeply harmed by social media; thirdly, by the weight of evidence from not just those parents but health professionals, police and law enforcement, and teachers.

Parents around the country are celebrating the Government’s decision to commit to act with the focus, as my noble friend said, on harmful and addictive features and algorithms and the ability to meet strangers online. It is my noble friend, his team and his co-signatories who are behind that change, and we are all really grateful to them for that.

But, as we have heard this afternoon, the work to get this right is only just beginning. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to get things a bit more right this afternoon with his Motion A1, but these issues were debated yesterday, and now is not the time to revisit them. But the Government will benefit—whether they want to or not—from the expertise in this House, as we have heard; from my noble friend’s drive and focus; and from the experience and insight of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; and, sadly for not much longer, from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who will be much missed on these issues.

I also acknowledge the courage of those Labour Peers who have supported my noble friend’s campaign, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, but also the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who have all spoken out. We all know in this House how difficult that is to do. When we think about the impact that this change, if well implemented, will have on our children in future, we are all reminded of the extraordinary privilege that we hold to sit here and be part of shaping that change.

This has been a long Bill. I think there were around 700 amendments in Committee stage and many more thereafter. I could not have played my part in that without the wonderful campaigners, including, of course, the bereaved parents—especially Ellen Roome, who has been extraordinarily generous with her time—the experts and all the charities who have supported me on everything, including children deprived of their liberty, children who are not in school, free school policies, and, of course, social media and smartphones. I cannot thank them all enough. They brought to life the reality of the policy choices that the Government are making.

I would like to pause a moment and remind the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that, when he talks about the Conservatives bailing out at the last minute, it was the Liberal Democrats who bailed out all of 24 hours ago at the very last minute on a situation that would have clarified today the position of smartphones in schools and those schools that have “not seen, not heard” policies. Ironically, we are going to have to wait roughly 21 months as a result of their decision to move from supporting and signing an Amendment to, as the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, said yesterday, preparing to vote against us on it. I ask the noble Lord perhaps to reflect on that.

But the Government have made a commitment that children should have no access to smartphones. When I met the Minister in the other place yesterday, she reassured me that the head teacher who spoke on the radio just after our debate last week and said that putting this guidance on a statutory footing would make no difference in her school, because they had had a ban since 2023 and children had phones switched off in their pockets and in their bags, would think again and would understand that was no longer appropriate. Given the evidence from many people at the Education Select Committee this morning, I press the Minister to confirm that she agrees with her colleague in the other place that that school will no longer think that policy is acceptable. The Government have committed to addressing this no later than September 2027, for which I am genuinely grateful, but my guess is we will need to address it sooner than that.

In closing, I am grateful for the steadfast support of the co-signatories to my very many amendments across the Bill, including my noble friends Lady O’Neill, Lady Spielman, Lord Agnew and, of course, Lord Nash. I would particularly like to call out the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who has been the most stalwart of stalwarts and has supported our proceedings with his own charm, expertise and insight from start to finish, which is quite a marathon. I have had fantastic and skilled and long-suffering support from the Public Bill Office and from an amazing team of special advisers and researchers in Annabelle Eyre, Henry Mitson, Dan Cohen and, for part of the Bill, Beatrice Hughes.

I would like to wish the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, a well-earned rest at the end of the Bill. I have some sense of how many hours and how many plates they have been spinning respectively. For my part, I am going to be stepping down from the front bench now that the Bill is completing its passage—anyone would think I was sad to go—but I genuinely look forward to working across the House on the special educational needs and disabilities legislation when it comes and more. Our role is making sure that legislation works in practice; I have tried to do this in this Bill, and I will try to do it in the future.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today and during the whole of the Bill’s passage. First, on the specifics, as I set out earlier, the Government hope that today we are able to reach an agreement on the Government’s Motion; it represents an effective compromise that recognises the shared desire across the Government and both Houses that we must act quickly to protect our children’s online well-being.

On that point, and perhaps taking up the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as my Honourable Friend said yesterday in the Commons, and in fact as we have said throughout discussions on these issues, we have been clear that the status quo cannot continue. The Government were clear when they launched their consultation that this was not about whether we take action, but rather what we do. We are consulting on the mechanism and that is the right thing to do. But we are clear—and this is the result of some of the very important engagement that has gone on—that, under any outcome, we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16. As I said earlier, I can confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to these restrictions not instead of them. This is a reasonable approach for this House, and in fact for both Houses, to take—to recognise the importance of the consultation and to recognise the strength of feeling as represented in these two Houses about the need to take action.

I also hear some of the other comments around the need for enforcement. I am sure that some of the debate will continue, and that is probably for other days and possibly even other bits of legislation.

To reiterate, as both Secretaries of State for Technology have made very clear, ofcom has absolutely got the backing of this Government for enforcement. It is already undertaking 100 investigations. The Online Safety Act, which some noble Lords have alluded to, set out a timetable for the review of enforcement measures. It seems appropriate that that happens at the point at which the evidence is there about the use of the duties. I was not here, but I presume that was the reason why that was the timetable set out by this House and the other place.

The government Amendment reflects our commitment to act. It recognises the importance of having regard to harmful and potentially addictive design when exercising the power and contains a legally binding timeline to ensure that this action is urgent. It is a timeline that has been tightened due to the engagement as this Bill has gone through, so that, to be clear, regulations now must be made within 15 months of Royal Assent. To reiterate what colleagues inside and outside this House have made clear as we have set off on this process of consultation, this is a period of time that operates as a cap; it is not a target. The Technology Secretary has been clear that she wants to take action quicker than this. This House and the other place have been able to set in place a timeline that will ensure that that action happens. For all these reasons, I urge the House to join the Government and support our amendment, so that we can move on from these discussions, important though they have been, to start taking action.

It was one year ago this week that we had the Second Reading of this Bill in this House. I close by expressing my gratitude to your Lordships’ House for its constructive and valuable scrutiny on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I thank all noble Lords I have engaged with during its passage. I thank the Opposition front bench, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, given her announcement today—though I would have thanked her anyway. When I arrived in this House, she kindly agreed to have a coffee with me to talk about her experiences and help me to settle into my role here. She has been enormously concerned about the effectiveness of our schools and the safety and well-being of our children. She has been a doughty opponent. She has always been clear about the detail and always willing to engage outside this House, in order to bring that experience to improve our considerations. I am slightly fearful that she will be even more difficult to deal with on the Back Benches than she has been on the Opposition Front Bench. I know that for her Opposition service and her service as a Minister, there are many people who have enormous respect for her and the contribution that she has made.

I thank the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley—for their engagement during the course of this legislation. I thank my noble friend Lady Blake for taking this Bill through this House alongside me. Her support, knowledge and commitment to children’s social care and education have been evident at every stage. I thank my noble friends Lady Anderson, Lady Twycross, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lady Lloyd of Effra for their support during the passage of the Bill, particularly for stepping in when I decided I was going to take an extended duvet day. I thank the officials in the DfE and the Bill team for their enormously hard work, both in designing the policy and given the considerable scrutiny that the Bill has received as it has gone through both Houses.

It has been a huge privilege to argue for the transformational measures in the legislation during that time, but I very much hope that this is the last time I will need to do so. That is not because I do not think that these are enormously important issues but because it is now time to put the work of this legislation into action: it is time for free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England; to cut the cost of school uniforms; to ensure that phones do not disrupt a single second of the school day; to keep our children safe online; to ensure that there are excellent teachers in excellent schools; to stop children falling through the cracks between local services; to transform child safeguarding arrangements and to support children in care; and to lift 100,000 children out of poverty with our record expansion of free school meals. This Bill ensures safety and opportunity for every child in this country, so that every child has the best start in life. Its measures are desperately needed. We cannot afford to wait a moment longer. I commend the Bill to the House.

My Lords, briefly, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on Motion A1. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who have done so much to contribute to the way this debate has moved forward. I thank the Ministers for their engagement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who I know will be missed from the Opposition front bench. She is always gracious, even under fire. I thank and pay tribute to all the bereaved families, without whom we would not have had the representations that we have had, and all their supporting charities.

I heard the exhortation from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, to exercise our inner sheepdog, but all I can display is my inner Dobermann, and so, at the end of the day, despite all the thanks and tributes to all those who have taken part, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Ayes 91, Noes 181.

Motion A1 disagreed.

Motion A agreed.