That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38Z12 to 38Z21.
38Z12: 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”
38Z13: 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”
38Z14: 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”
38Z15: 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”
38Z16: 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”
38Z17: 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.”
38Z18: 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.”
38Z19: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38K, in subsection (1), leave out “six” and insert “three”
38Z20: 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 12 months beginning with the day on which the statement is laid under subsection (1).”
38Z21: 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 six 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 Motion A1. On this group, we will debate amendments made in this House and in the other place relating to restrictions on social media use for children. Once again, before getting into the detail of these Motions and amendments, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself I thank all noble Lords who have engaged so constructively, not just throughout the Bill’s passage but on these issues in particular. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the collaborative engagement of noble Lords across the House, I believe we have now reached a landing point that reflects our shared aims and that should command support on all sides.
I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash. His commitment to the cause of children’s safety and well-being is profound. He has spoken passionately in the interests of children, parents and carers across this country, and I am grateful for his willingness to engage constructively with the Government on this critical issue. I also acknowledge the many noble Lords across the House who have shared their expertise and passion throughout this debate. The sincerity with which noble Lords have advanced their argument has been evident throughout and it has materially shaped the Government’s approach as we look beyond the consultation.
Good legislation is very often the product of exactly this kind of dialogue. The Government’s power now reflects the commitments we have made repeatedly in this House: it is a question of how we act, not if we act. Following the consultation, the Secretary of State now must, rather than may, use this power. To reiterate what my honourable friend Minister Bailey said in the other place yesterday,
“the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism, which is the right thing to do, but we are clear that under any outcome we will impose some form of age or functionality”
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”
20 of 51 shown
restrictions
“for children under 16. I can also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to that, not instead of it. As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said, we are focused on addictive features, harmful algorithmically-driven content and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/26; col. 699.]
Recognising our shared determination for the quickest possible action, the Government have further tightened the timeframe for its delivery: a three-month progress report, followed by a 12-month timeline for making regulations, with the possibility of a single six-month extension, to be used only in exceptional circumstances. In recognition of the concerns about harmful and addictive design, we have further specified that the Secretary of State must have due regard to such features when making future regulations.
This is a serious and responsible approach. It preserves the integrity of the consultation, which has now received more than 55,000 responses from parents, children and those with direct experience of these harms. It also responds, rightly, to the concern that has animated much of the debate in this House: that children cannot wait, and that government must be held to a clear and demanding timetable.
I hope the House will recognise this for what it is: a collective effort from Parliament and government on one of the most important issues facing children today. The House has pressed, rightly, for urgency. The Government have maintained, rightly, that we must do this in a way that allows decisions to be informed by the consultation.
Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would amend the Government’s regulation-making power by requiring the Secretary of State to have further due regard to Ofcom’s codes of practice and the Information Commissioner’s children’s code, as well as specific risk factors such as “contact from strangers” and “loss of privacy”. It would also require due regard where representations from the general public are received in relation to a child facing
“imminent danger arising from their contact with an internet service”.
The Motion also proposes that the review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers is brought forward and tightens the timelines further, specifically that regulations must be made only six months after the three-month progress report, as well as shortening the potential extension period from six months to three months.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his continued commitment to child safety and rights. The Government share his determination to ensure the robust and urgent protection of children online. The noble Lord highlights many areas on which the Government have sought views through their consultation. While we recognise that these factors are important, prescribing an extensive list of specific “due regard” requirements, as the Motion does, is unnecessary and risks creating too much rigidity, reducing the flexibility the Secretary of State needs to respond to harms.
The consultation also makes it clear that the Online Safety Act will remain the foundation of our work on online safety; it forms a strong baseline from which this Government can build. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Online Safety Act’s statutory review will consider the effectiveness Ofcom’s enforcement powers, which are currently being manifested through 100 enforcement investigations that are currently under way. Introducing a review before all the duties have come into effect would risk being incomplete and ineffective.
On the timeline for action that we have discussed in this House over recent days, this Government have already gone a long way in ensuring that regulations are brought forward as quickly as possible, following the consultation. As I have said throughout, we will act as quickly as possible, and the DSIT Secretary of State has set out an ambition to make real progress on the regulations by the end of the year. Given all of this, I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, not to press his Motion.
This Government have made clear our intention to Act, and I know that many across both Houses will follow the outcomes of the consultation with great interest. It is in all of our interests to agree the Government’s Motion today, so we can start the important work of preparing to act on the consultation and keep children safe online.