2.2.2 – The powers of the House of Lords
In December 2024, the government introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. This Bill includes a number of measures; however, several issues were notably omitted. These included the regulation of smartphones and social media use by children. The terms “smartphone” and “social media” did not even appear in the Bill as introduced.
A number of MPs have pushed for the government to make greater provision to protect children from the dangers associated with smartphones and social media. These include Josh MacAlister, then a Labour backbencher, who attempted to pass a Private Member’s Bill that would have banned smartphones in schools. This Bill failed to receive government backing and, as is often the case with Private Member’s Bills, it did not pass.
However, there has been a significant surge in pressure group activity concerning smartphones and social media. Groups such as Phone Free Education, led by Esther Ghey—whose daughter Brianna was murdered following horrific online abuse—have brought renewed attention to the issue. The Netflix series Adolescence also helped to propel the debate into the mainstream. Furthermore, the Australian Parliament passed legislation imposing a ban on social media use for under-16s, becoming the first Western government to do so. In addition, NASUWT, a major teaching trade union and pressure group, has come out in favour of such a ban.
It is in this context that a number of peers from across different parties have stated that they will seek to amend the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. These amendments would prohibit students from using or carrying mobile phones in school unless for educational purposes and would prevent under-16s from accessing social media. Such a ban on social media would be similar to the legislation passed by the Parliament of Australia late last year.
Last Sunday, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, came out in favour of a ban. This was a surprising move for many and was seen by some as unconservative, particularly given her New Right leanings, where personal autonomy is rarely infringed. However, Badenoch rejected these criticisms, arguing that the policy was a matter of common sense and that children are not adults, meaning it is legitimate for their freedoms to be restricted.
The cross-party group of peers are aware that such measures are likely to be publicly popular. They also know that, at a time of political weakness, Keir Starmer may not wish to be forced into opposing a policy that many see as a rational and necessary response. As such, the tabling of amendments in the House of Lords is likely intended to encourage the government to engage with the issue proactively. While the House of Lords cannot constitutionally force the government to legislate in this way, this situation illustrates the Lords’ political power to pressure the government into change, rather than risk losing a public debate on a salient issue.