Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - Commons Reason and Amendments – in the House of Lords at 3:25 pm on 20 April 2026.
Baroness Smith of Malvern:
Moved by Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38J to 38P.
38J: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) After section 214 insert—“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services214A Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of protecting relevant children from a risk of harm (including harm presented by content), make provision by regulations requiring providers of specified internet services—(a) to prevent access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services;(b) to restrict access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.(2) “Relevant child” means a child who is of, or under, a specified age (and different ages may be specified for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)).(3) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes provision—(a) about the steps that must or may be taken by a provider for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;(b) about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;(c) about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) includes, for example, provision requiring a provider of an internet service to—(a) limit the amount of time per day, or over the course of a specified period, for which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;(b) limit the times of day at which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service; (c) restrict access by relevant children to a service or to a feature or functionality of a service by virtue of which—(i) a user of the service could receive unsolicited contact from a person who is not known to the user;(ii) a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by a person who is not known to the user;(iii) a person who is not known to a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by the user;(iv) a person who is not known to a user of the service could identify the actual or approximate location of the user.(5) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(c) includes provision for a requirement to be an enforceable requirement for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 7.(6) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a feature or functionality of an internet service, in different ways.(7) Regulations under this section may—(a) make provision applying any provision of this Act (with or without modifications);(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions;(f) make consequential provision.(8) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(f) may amend or repeal primary legislation.(9) ofcom must, so far as reasonably practicable—(a) carry out such research or provide such advice as the Secretary of State may request for the purposes of making regulations under this section, and(b) do so by such time, or within such period, as the Secretary of State may specify in the request.(10) As soon as reasonably practicable after providing advice under subsection (9), OFCOM must publish the advice.(11) In this section—“primary legislation” means—(a) an Act of Parliament,(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or(d) Northern Ireland legislation;“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.”(3) In section 225 (parliamentary procedure for regulations), in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) regulations under section 214A(1),”.”
38K: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—“Progress statement(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—(a) what progress has been made towards making the first regulations under section 214A(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (inserted by section (Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services) of this Act) (“the first regulations”), and(b) a timeline for making the first regulations. (2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply where the first regulations have been made before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1).”
38L: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—“Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
38M: Clause 65, page 123, line 36, leave out “This Part extends” and insert “Section (Progress statement) and this Part extend”
38N: Clause 66, page 124, line 4, at end insert—“(aa) section (Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services);(ab) section (Progress statement);(ac) section (Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services);”
38P: Title, line 9, after “schools;” insert “about preventing or restricting access by children to internet services; about the age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data in relation to information society services;”
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Minister of State (Education), Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) , The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall also speak to Motions A1, A2, D and D1. In this group, we will debate amendments on restricting social media for under-16s, digital literacy in the school curriculum and mobile phones.
I turn first to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which disagrees with Amendments 38J and 38P and proposes new Amendments 38Q and 38U. I will also speak to Motion A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Amendment 38Q would require social media services to set their own minimum age of access based on their children’s risk assessment under the Online Safety Act. Amendment 38R would amend UK GDPR, so that the digital age of consent is raised from 13 to 16 for some social networking services. Motion A2 seeks to amend government Amendments 38A to 38C, requiring the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Nash, and other noble Lords for their sustained commitment on these vital issues. Let me be clear that it is a commitment that the Government share; protecting children online is as much a priority for this Government as it is for noble Lords. The question is not whether but how and what action will be taken and who is involved in making sure that that action is right. It is to facilitate this that the Government launched their consultation in March.
I am pleased to see that the noble Lord’s revised amendment considers the variety of measures on which we are seeking views through the consultation. It acknowledges that there are numerous approaches to securing the safety and well-being of our children: a blanket ban for under-16s to access social media; restricting specific “addictive” features or functionalities and risky features; and raising the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR. This is what our consultation is focused on. This shows that the noble Lord agrees with the Government that it is important that we take not only swift action but the correct action. Let me be clear that the government consultation, and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment, is the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes that will last.
The Government’s amendment allows for clear and decisive action. Amendment 38Q, while well intentioned, may give too much discretion to services in setting age restrictions without considering the evidence from the Government’s consultation. Amendment 38R would change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR only for social networking services, whereas the Government’s consultation asks whether this change should also apply to other online services.
In thinking about how we go about this and who is involved, this is a good opportunity to remind the House that our consultation seeks views from those affected most by the issues we are discussing today: parents and children themselves. We have already received over 50,000 responses, with over 30,000 from parents and more than 7,000 from children. From the organisations that have responded, nearly half are educational organisations. That level of engagement demonstrates that this consultation is, above all, about putting children first and is engaging a broad range of people and organisations in getting it right.
However, we have listened carefully to the strength of feeling expressed in both Houses and have reflected seriously on the concerns raised about pace, scope and scrutiny. That is why the Government have strengthened their approach since coming to this House and made clear changes to the proposed legislative powers.
First, on timing, we are determined to move at pace. That is why we have tabled legislative powers to ensure that we can act quickly, grounded on the evidence of the consultation. We have now also placed a firm commitment in the Bill to report to Parliament within six months. This progress report will set out both our intended course of action and a clear implementation timeline.
Secondly, we have strengthened the scope and clarity of the power. We have been explicit about the purposes for which it can be used, stipulating that it can only be exercised for protecting children from online harms. In addition, we recognise that children of different ages experience the online world in different ways. That is why we have also made an amendment that makes clear that any future regulation must take that into account, ensuring that protections are properly targeted and proportionate.
Finally, to strengthen scrutiny, we have committed to share any future draft regulations with relevant Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople, prior to them being laid before the House.
Regarding the part of Amendment 38X from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, on supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services, proposed new Clause 214C, the Government’s response to the curriculum and assessment review sets out how the revised curriculum will take forward recommendations to strengthen media literacy to enable young people to critically engage with the messages that they encounter through different media channels and ensure that they can identify and challenge misinformation and disinformation. Media literacy will be embedded in the new primary citizenship curriculum and strengthened across relevant subjects. Following recent updates to relationships, sex and health education guidance, it now includes content on AI and deepfakes. It explains how social media works and provides guidance on countering sexual health misinformation. The updated guidance will be used in schools from this September.
We have listened and acted, and we believe that these amendments respond directly to the concerns raised. They strike the right balance between urgency and effectiveness and set out a clear and deliverable route to stronger protections for children online. We have been clear that it is not if we act but how.
I move on to Motion D, relating to Amendment 106, and Motion D1 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which insists on the amendment. The amendment is unnecessary. Our guidance is clear that all schools should be mobile phone-free by default. In making that clear, I acknowledge that we share the same policy intent as the noble Baroness as well as many other Peers in the House today to make sure that schools are mobile phone-free environments. That is why we have published strengthened guidance. We have asked our network of attendance and behaviour hubs to provide support to schools and, from this month, Ofsted will inspect schools’ mobile phone policies. We all want to protect children from the disruption and distraction caused by mobile phones throughout the school day and to create calm, focused school environments that support learning, behaviour and well-being. We are all in agreement on this.
We have listened carefully to Parliament, and we recognise the strong and widespread feeling across the House on this issue. That is why the Government commit to putting forward an amendment in lieu in the other place, which will place this guidance on a statutory footing. In doing that, we will create a clear, legal requirement that the guidance must be followed unless there is a legally justifiable reason for schools not to do so. That amendment in lieu will respond directly to concerns raised by noble Lords, including directly in discussions with me, by placing that guidance on a statutory footing and providing clarity and consistency for schools across the country. In doing that, we will reduce unnecessary burdens on head teachers and send a strong message to parents, giving head teachers clear backing to create and maintain the mobile phone-free school environments that our revised guidance makes clear should exist.
This reflects the intentions of the noble Baroness’s amendments, the concerns that have been expressed directly to me by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and the Government’s concerns. It will allow us to support schools in creating the calm, focused and safe learning environments that we all want to see. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Deputy Chairman of Committees, Deputy Speaker (Lords)
3:30,
20 April 2026
My Lords, in calling Motion A1, I must inform the House that, if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Motion A2 by reason of pre-emption.
Secretary of State was originally the title given to the two officials who conducted the Royal Correspondence under Elizabeth I. Now it is the title held by some of the more important Government Ministers, for example the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services.
Ofcom Web Site http://www.ofcom.org.uk
The House of Lords. When used in the House of Lords, this phrase refers to the House of Commons.
The Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
