Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Commons Reasons and Amendments

Motion A

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do propose Amendments 38Z1 to 38Z9 to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of Amendments 38V to 38X—

38Z1: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (1)(a), leave out “features or functionalities” and insert “functionalities or other features”

38Z2: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (1)(b), leave out “features or functionalities” and insert “functionalities or other features”

38Z3: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (4)(a), leave out “feature or functionality” and insert “functionality or other feature”

38Z4: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (4)(b), leave out “feature or functionality” and insert “functionality or other feature”

38Z5: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (4)(c), leave out “feature or functionality” and insert “functionality or other feature”

38Z6: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (6), leave out from “to” to the end and insert “— (a) the different ways in which an internet service of a particular kind is used, including functionalities or other features of the service that affect how much children use the service, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children, and (b) the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a functionality or other feature of an internet service, in different ways.”

38Z7: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), after inserted subsection (8) insert— “(8A) The Secretary of State— (a) must exercise the power under subsection (1) so as to make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate following the conclusion of the consultation entitled “Growing up in the online world: a national consultation” launched on 2 March 2026 (command paper numbered CP 1528), and (b) must, in exercising that power, have regard to the responses to the consultation.”

38Z8: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38K, after subsection (1) insert— “(1A) The timeline must provide for the first regulations to be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the statement is laid under subsection (1).”

38Z9: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38K, after subsection (2) insert— “(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)— (a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and (b) before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament. (4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions A1, A2, B, C and C1. With this group, we are debating amendments made in this House and the other place relating to a social media ban for under-16s, mobile phones in schools, and school admissions. Before getting into the details of the Motions and amendments before us, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with us, ministerial colleagues and departmental officials throughout the Bill’s passage, and particularly during this rather fast-paced bit of ping-pong that we are now engaged in.

We are, hopefully, at the very end of this parliamentary Session and today brings us to the third round of ping-pong on this important Bill. That is beyond the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord True, has generally seen as the juncture at which the unelected House should give way to the House of Commons. Noble Lords will be familiar with my history as a Member of and ministerial officeholder in the other place. That House has now spoken clearly on the matters before us on multiple occasions, endorsing the Government’s alternative proposals. I recognise, however, now that I am a Member of this place, that perhaps one advantage of noble Lords is their ability to scrutinise in detail and to push successfully for revision of government proposals. We have seen that throughout the course of consideration of this Bill. For example, for each of the issues that we are debating again this afternoon, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place, and we have responded on each one.

I will set out the important package of amendments that the Government have tabled to better protect children online. Once again, I am grateful for the constructive debate and committed engagement of noble Lords on this. In light of these discussions, we have strengthened our position, responding directly to your Lordships’ concerns about urgency, scope and parliamentary scrutiny. To put beyond any doubt that this Government will act in a way that responds to the concerns of your Lordships’ House, we have now gone further still. Under my Motion, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the consultation. This removes any question of whether action will follow, while rightly allowing the detail of that action to be shaped by the evidence and by those most affected: the parents and children who have already responded to the consultation in their thousands.

The noble Lord’s amendment would therefore limit the scope of the protection we can deliver on. That said, there is now significant common ground: we agree on the direction of travel; we agree on the need for urgent and responsible action to protect children online; and we agree that it is something we must get right. Let me reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government’s amendment provides the most effective way to secure robust and lasting protection.

As for the part of the noble Lord’s amendment on supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services, proposed new Section 214C, as I emphasised the last time we discussed this, 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 they encounter through different media channels and to 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. Recent updates to relationship, sex and health education guidance also include content on AI and deepfakes. It explains how social media works and provides guidance on countering sexual health misinformation, for example. The updated guidance will be used in schools from September 2026.

Motion A2, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would amend the Government’s power to require age restrictions to be placed on all providers of internet services if a number of specific requirements are not adhered to. It also proposes changes to the national curriculum; new criminal offences for non-compliant services; a new legal right for a child to not be subject to harm; and a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness for her continued commitment to children’s safety and rights; the Government share her desire to ensure that children can have safe and age-appropriate experiences online.

The noble Baroness’s amendment highlights many of the areas on which the Government have sought views through their consultation, including features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and communication with strangers. The cumulative effect of the factors requiring restriction and the heavy penalties for failure to comply mean that, in effect, children under the appropriate age would be taken off the internet entirely. As I have already explained, the Government cannot accept proposals that would pre-empt the consultation’s outcomes. While supporting the noble Baroness’s aim to support children’s understanding of how to be safe online, the Government already have a programme of work on this through media literacy and the curriculum. Moreover, her proposals to create new criminal offences for failure to comply risk creating unnecessary legal complexity that overlaps with the existing regime under the Online Safety Act, which already includes criminal offences for senior managers in specific circumstances.

The Government also consider that the enforcement of any new regulatory requirements should be for a regulator, rather than for parents and guardians to seek through the courts. Placing responsibility for enforcement will be complex, cumbersome and expensive, and it will also benefit only the few children who have parents or guardians willing to spend the significant resources required to pursue these claims. When potential criminal activity is being threatened and there are imminent risks, that is also a matter for the police.