Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words about my amendment, which is about a slightly different area but attached to the same part of the Bill.

School activity has taken rather a pounding of late. If you link sport, arts, music, culture, youth clubs and so on only to a school, so they happen only in a school setting, they stop when school stops. If you make it just about education—sport is a very good example of this—dropout ages are 16, 18 and 21, because that is when you leave your educational institution. I hope that here we would have an opportunity to get the voluntary sector back talking to and helping young people.

On the amendments I tabled, subsection (2A) in Amendment 185 is at least as important, because it means providing voluntary activity in schools so they can identify with and get in contact with these groups outside. The groups outside want to make contact. Their survival and the survival of their activity depends on getting new people in, and they are giving something positive back. Anybody who has had any experience with anything from an am-dram group to a rugby team knows there is a social network that is interdependent and builds up a sense of community and purpose, and helps that group and those people in it, effectively providing almost a family group at times. It is a place where you can find jobs, structure, help, support and purpose; it is all there.

Apart from a diatribe that amateur sport will save the world, it is a fact that we are going to very solid, well-established ground here. I do not think anybody is going to disagree that these things are beneficial. We talk about the health aspect and the need for a good diet, but it is possible to put on weight on healthy food if you do not move. Let us look at how we can expand education not just through the education establishment. We should look to people who are doing positive things on a voluntary basis and helping you get out there.

Just to cast an eye on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we are about to discuss, this is another good amendment. I know the noble Lord well, and I have no doubt that he will have more to say on it. He refers to me as his “friend in sport”, and I am glad to carry on that one. Basically, if we do not encourage these formal lines back into our education system—unfortunately we have broken, or at least damaged, the informal ones—we are going to lose this contact with somewhere where you go on to do something positive. I look forward to the Minister’s answer, and to her answer on the amendments led by my noble friend Lady Walmsley.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, while we are still on breakfast clubs, I hope I can jump in to speak to Amendment 184, which relates to the additional costs of breakfast clubs in primary schools, combined with the quality of food expected. The amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, who is sorry that he cannot be in the Committee right now. Like others in this group, this is, to a certain extent, a probing amendment to understand how much the Government understand about the whole-of-service costs that this part of the Bill will impose on schools and how they plan to meet them, based on conversations with those currently involved in making breakfast clubs work.

I support breakfast clubs. I have previously declared an interest as a mum whose daughter goes to breakfast clubs, and I am a big fan of their provision. For me, they provide hugely valuable additional childcare that allows me and my partner to meet our work commitments, but I also recognise the role that they play in ensuring that no child starts school hungry and unable to learn.

Turning to the practical implications, let us assume that a breakfast club in a primary school is taken up by 50% of the children in that school. A two-form entry school would require oversight by seven members of staff, and a school with a single form would require four members of staff. This does not include the catering element. That ratio is set out in regulations, so it is not advisory. A single-form entry primary school is highly unlikely to have sufficient unused non-teaching staff resource to handle the new obligation without drawing on directed teacher time.

That brings us back to the vital concept of the hard cap on directed time. If, for example, a teacher now has to be diverted for an hour a day to support and supervise a breakfast club, that is around 170 hours a year out of 1,265. Some 15% of the time, they will no longer be available for other duties—most significantly teaching. How are the Government going to account for this?

To the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I say that I completely acknowledge the additional money that has been put into schools through last week’s spending review settlement, and previously, but, when we take into account increased eligibility for free school meals—which is welcome—increased SEND costs, teacher pay awards and increased national insurance costs, my understanding is that there is currently no additional funding to meet the costs of a national rollout of breakfast clubs. That is a question that remains unanswered. The same applies to non-teaching staff: more hours will be required, so how will it be paid for?

Currently, schools can charge parents for early delivery of children before the academic day begins. As I have said, this enables working parents to drop their children off on their way to work, and it works well. I pay £3 for 45 minutes, including breakfast. This will rise to £4 pounds in September, but with provision extending to an hour. For me, it is fantastic value. Many schools deliver this provision for free or at a lower cost for children in receipt of free school meals, with the costs covered by the pupil premium income that a school receives.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 184 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seeks to probe the cost of free breakfast clubs and how that will be met. I recognise the intent behind this amendment: no one wants schools left out of pocket. We have been clear that we do not expect teachers to run breakfast clubs, which is why we have tripled investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million for the financial year 2025-26. Early adopters have already received a start-up grant to support the setting up of their breakfast clubs and will receive additional funding to cover food delivery and staffing costs. The amount that schools receive is dependent on take-up of the breakfast club and school characteristics. From the early implementation, we have learned that targeted funding works best when it is adaptable, allowing schools to tailor resources to their needs and build on what is already in place, and we will continue to learn as this scheme develops. I can assure noble Lords that we are committed to supporting schools properly but through flexible funding, not rigid statutory guarantees that assume a particular model of delivery. Further information about funding for the national rollout will follow in due course.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I appreciate the detail that the Minister has gone into and that further information about the national rollout will happen in due course, but we have just had the comprehensive spending review, so can I ask whether the funding for the national rollout is included within the DfE’s settlement from the comprehensive spending review or whether there will be additional funding on top of that settlement to fund the national rollout? I am not asking how it will work but whether it is in the CSR settlement or whether there will be more, in addition, at a later point.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What we have announced as part of the spending review settlement is separate to the funding for the national rollout, about which we will bring forward information.

On Amendment 505B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, early adopters are key to ensuring that we get implementation right before national rollout. This learning will help develop our statutory guidance. More information will be made available, including on the exemptions process, to Parliament and in the public domain.

On that exemptions power, in relation to Amendments 186B and 186C, I understand that there may be extreme and, critically, individual circumstances that could prevent individual schools meeting their duties to provide breakfast clubs. The exemption power is designed to address this on a case-by-case basis. That is why schools would be expected to apply and to be able to demonstrate their exemption eligibility under one of the criteria set out in the legislation. Our expectation is that any school seeking an exemption will actively engage with its school community, the local authority and the department to ensure that it has done all it can to meet its breakfast club duty.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The point I made was that I and the Government disagree with my noble friend that there should be a sort of all-flowers-blooming approach to breakfast clubs. I set out the reason why the Government believe there should be a basic set of conditions and criteria for breakfast clubs. Of course, it is completely possible that schools may well then decide to put on other provision alongside the basic provision laid out in the criteria set out for breakfast clubs in legislation—this is one of the things that we will look at in the early adopters scheme—but the Government are not favouring the idea that there would be a variety of different routes. That is because of the points I made about this being about the provision not just of food but of the club and of the 30 minutes of childcare. Those things are quite an important basis of what is being delivered through the breakfast club programme.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I just have one more question for the Minister before we move on from breakfast clubs. I really appreciate what she said about the pathfinder schools being used to understand how, for example, the very clear provision that the Government want would work alongside existing provision or extended provision and to learn from that. Can the Minister commit to publishing the findings of those pathfinder schools and that initial work and laying those findings before the House before we consider the regulations that would come subsequent to this legislation, so that we can see and fully understand what has been learned and taken on from those initial 750 schools when moving to a national rollout?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have already made clear that monitoring and evaluation are a fundamental part of the early adopters scheme. That will not only enable us to work out how to develop the scheme further in terms of a national rollout but allow noble Lords and others to analyse the extent to which the model is working and what some of the challenges may be around issues raised by noble Lords this afternoon.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

To be really specific, will the outcomes of that monitoring and evaluation be made available before the regulations are laid to implement breakfast clubs nationally? That is my question. If the Minister’s answer is no, that is fine. Maybe she has been clear, but I would hope it would be yes—that is what I would like to know.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

On 9 July at 1 pm, in a Committee Room in the other place, there will be a screening of a very short, 15-minute film by Fabio D’Andrea starring Peter Andre, which powerfully displays the danger of smartphones and social media. If any noble Peer would like to attend, please let me know. I beg to move.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 183CA and 183CB in this group. Before I do so, I will add my support to Amendment 177, from my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Barran, and Amendment 458.

It is odd that, while we are legislating in this Bill for the provision of breakfast clubs, of which I have previously said I am a fan, legislating for the use of social media by teenagers and the use of mobile phones in school seems to be a step too far for a Bill that is focused on children’s well-being. That is despite the wealth of evidence, to which my noble friend just alluded, about how disruptive phones can be to children’s well-being and learning.

It is not good enough to say that 90% of secondary schools report having a policy in place to ban the use of phones in the school day—which, by the way, means that one in 10 allows access to phones in the school day. What matters is how effective those policies are, and the evidence shows that, in too many cases, they are not effective enough. Around 80% of secondary schools surveyed by the Children’s Commissioner allow children to keep their phones on them in the school day, with the expectation that it is not seen or heard. However, the evidence shows that that is not working. The National Behaviour Survey in 2022-23 found that 36% of secondary school teachers reported phones being used without permission in at least some of their lessons in the past week, while 59% of pupils reported the same.

When the previous Government introduced guidance on mobile phones in schools, they said that they would keep the approach under review and move to introduce statutory guidance if the situation had not improved. A key milestone for assessing that was the publication of this year’s National Behaviour Survey. When I asked the Minister in January when she expected it to be published, she said that it would be in the spring. I may have missed it—I do not think that I have—but could she update the Committee on when we can expect the results of the latest behaviour survey?

My amendments, in a sense, follow on from my noble friends’ Amendment 177, which I support, but they specifically focus on the advice and guidance for parents, teachers and carers of preschool-age children. To be clear, unlike many who have participated in this Bill so far, I am no expert in this area; I am working hard to ensure that I am across, and understand as best I can, the evidence in this area. However, to some extent, that is the point of my amendments: if you are a parent, childcare professional or teacher of preschool children, there is no clear summary of the available evidence and no clear advice on the best approach to children’s use of screens and technology in their early years, yet such screens and technology are ubiquitous.

A good starting point for both amendments would be the Chief Medical Officer’s advice provided for in Amendment 177, which crucially specifies that it should differentiate by age. I could not find any public guidance from the Government or Ofcom that really reflects that. In fact, much of the guidance that is available is inappropriate for very young children and may give parents a misleading understanding of how they can best navigate this tricky area for preschoolers.

In my experience—I declare my interest as a mum of two preschool children—there is nothing mentioned by your GP, by your health visitor or at children’s centres: so many of those important touch points in the early years of a family. The same absence of advice or guidance extends to early years childcare and education settings too. I could find no reference in the early years standards framework to the appropriate and safe use of screens in early years settings, and that surprised me. My amendments simply seek to fill these gaps to provide proper guidance to parents and early years settings. So I would be keen to hear from the Minister about what work the Government are doing in these areas.

Within the Government’s opportunity mission, they have set themselves a milestone of

“75% of five-year-olds reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage assessment by 2028”—


an increase from 67.7% currently. With screens so ubiquitous in children’s and parents’ lives, and excessive screen use shown to impact on so many of the early learning goals, including communication and language, physical development and social and emotional development, this must be an essential part of the Government’s plans here.

Research shows that significant proportions of younger children have access to smart devices, including phones, and spend significant time online. Ofcom’s Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2025 shows alarming trends, not just on the scale of use but on the pace of change. One in five three to five year-olds have their own mobile phone, extending to 85% of their age group using any device to go online. More than half use messaging sites or apps and half use livestreaming. The proportion of parents of three to five year-olds who say that their child uses social media apps or sites has significantly increased in recent years, from around a quarter in 2021 and 2022, rising to three in 10 in 2023, and almost four in 10 this year. Over a third of parents of three to five year-olds whose child uses social media use it on their children’s behalf, and over four in 10 say that they use sites and apps together with their child. However, two in 10 of these parents indicate that their child uses these apps independently.

Many of the debates we have had about keeping children safe online focus on teenagers, which is not surprising given that the legal age for accessing social media is 13—it is older for some apps currently—and many of the observed harms are particularly acute in teenage years, as we have heard. But what constitutes appropriate use of devices and an appropriate amount of screen time will vary wildly for a two year-old compared to a 12 year-old, and we must reflect this.

So, more specifically, can the Minister say whether my understanding is correct that there is currently no guidance for preschool settings in the early years standards framework on the safe and appropriate use of screens, and if that is the case, do the Government have any plans to introduce such guidance? Can she also say what plans there are not just to produce guidance based on the best available evidence specifically for parents of preschool children, but on how they plan to disseminate this? For example, are there any plans to integrate guidance into the Start for Life campaign, or to provide tips and information for new parents through the health visiting programme?

I end by emphasising that this is not about judging parents or telling them what to do. I use screens and my kids use screens—both of us, sometimes or often, too much. It is not about moral panic either. It is about recognising that the ubiquity and nature of screens in our lives has changed. If we equip parents, caregivers and teachers with clearer information and tools, we can help them navigate this ever-changing environment with more confidence and support. It is important that the Government recognise this, particularly for early years development. I look forward to hearing their plans in this area.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first substantive contribution in Committee, I declare my education interests as chair of E-ACT multi-academy trust, of STEM Learning, of Century-Tech and of COBIS. I also own half of Suklaa Ltd, which has a number of education clients.

Amendment 458A in my name is an amendment to Amendment 458 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I am seeking to add an exemption for educational purposes to the exemptions from the policy of smartphone bans in schools proposed by her amendment. I have read Jonathan Haidt’s Anxious Generation, Christine Rosen’s Extinction of Experience and Jenny Anderson and Rebecca Winthrop’s excellent Disengaged Teen. I know that our children are losing out on the vital developmental impact of unstructured outdoor play, thanks to the distractions of technology.

We are all losing the multisensory benefits of engaging with real-life experiences because we are too busy on our phones, including in this Chamber, and we are losing empathy as a result. The overconsumption of violent online content is increasing the bystander effect that distinguishes us as communities of people.

Our children are increasingly disengaged from learning, partly due to boring content at school and partly due to diminishing attention spans, thanks to too much time scrolling short-form videos on TikTok and Instagram. I am only too aware that social media is addictive by design and is the main culprit in this complex set of problems. Multiple systemic reviews and surveys confirm that excessive smartphone use is associated with poor sleep quality, increased depression and anxiety and lower life satisfaction among teens, something that this country has a particular problem with and that cannot be solely blamed on phones and social media.

This month, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a large study tracking more than 4,000 adolescents and finding that the smartphone risk to youth mental health is primarily linked to the addictive use of smartphones, social media or video games. Those who reported compulsive use were two or three times more likely to experience suicidal thoughts or self-harm by the age of 14, compared with their peers. The study found that it was the addictive behaviour that was the strong predictor, not the amount of screen time per se.

I therefore have some sympathy with Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I compliment him on the way he introduced his amendment—echoing, almost word for word at times, the speech he made on the very first group of amendments in this Committee. However, I am unpersuaded that Chief Medical Officers are the right people to lead on this. I am concerned that Ofcom may not be as rigorous as I had understood when we passed the Online Safety Act in enforcing the terms and conditions of platforms relating to their minimum age limits. It may well be that this House should look to another opportunity in the next Session to toughen Ofcom’s responsibilities and duties in this regard, once we have seen a little more of the impact of the Act as Ofcom is implementing it. Amendment 183CA from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seems quite sensible, and I think Amendment 183CB should be pursued by the DfE, but in close partnership with Ofcom as the regulator.

Amendment 458 clearly has merit. Most schools have adopted such policies to ban or control smartphones following the previous Government’s guidance. At E-ACT we are now piloting the use of signal-blocking pouches that pupils are required to store their phones in during the school day. The early findings are that this has had a really positive impact on the schools concerned in terms of learning and behaviour. I am told by a friend who is a parent of children at Westminster School, over the road, that it is using geofencing technology so that when pupils enter the location, phones’ functionality is changed to turn off social media but to retain their use for emergency broadcasting, due to the security risk related to their proximity to Parliament.

In all these schools, children are benefiting from having a rest from their phones. Teachers benefit from the lessening of distraction and the absence of a back channel of conversation going on through lessons. In some other schools that have done this, there is even a reduction in playground fights because pupils are no longer able to film and share them online.

However, I am also working hard on issues related to media literacy, in part as a member of your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee. The issues relating to social media addiction are now being amplified by the ease of creating highly credible false content using generative AI. The algorithms will not only continue to be addictive but feed content that is misleading, upsetting and disturbing, as any of us can now create images, audio and video, at will, of anything that we can imagine. This needs a more sophisticated response than simply a ban. This needs education, in schools and for adult parents and grandparents. It was clear from the committee’s witnesses that just relying on a knowledge-rich teaching of media literacy will not work. If we just tell young people what is dangerous and harmful, what to look out for, we will fail. Children do not want this to be yet another thing that we tell them off about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, the noble Lord added considerably to his speech there. I did not use some of the arguments that he suggested were used in this Chamber about porn. I was not in this House so I do not know what arguments and debates went on. Nor did I suggest that there are not considerable issues around young people’s use of social media and the amount of their screen time. The noble Lord is very clear that he believes there should be a complete ban on social media for young people aged under 16. I do not know whether that carries a majority in this House, to be honest. Given that, it is important to demonstrate, as I attempted to do, the action that the Government are already taking to address all those issues, whether it is screen time, the impact of social media on young people, or mobile phones in schools. The Government are taking action on all of them, without necessarily thinking that there is one single silver bullet of a ban that can solve all those problems.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I will be brief. I really appreciate what the Minister said on early years. I think it goes a bit beyond safeguarding, but I will look really carefully at what she said. On the evidence point, she referred to the Children’s Commissioner’s work on the policies, but we need to know the effect of those policies. That is where the national behaviour study comes in. The Minister previously told me it was due in spring, but she said it would be later this year. It would be great to understand why there is a delay, if there is one. Could she be more specific about when we will see that study of what is going on in our schools? I will be happy for her to write.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, I said more than safeguarding; I hope she can go back and look at the record to see that. I was pretty sympathetic to the points she made, and I said much more than safeguarding. I share her frustration about when the survey will be published. That is all I can say about it.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Penn]

91: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on the use of screens and communication with parents and carers in early years settings(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, update the early years foundation stage statutory framework for children aged 0 to 5 in early years settings to include guidance on— (a) the appropriate and safe use of screens and digital technology in early years settings, and(b) effective communication with parents and carers about screen use and digital technology.(2) The guidance must draw on advice from education and health professionals, researchers and academics including on the following areas—(a) the benefits, harms or risks of harm associated with the exposure of children of differing ages, including children with special educational needs or disabilities, to screens and other digital devices,(b) the balance between screen-based and non-digital activities for children in early years development and play,(c) age-appropriate limits for screen time for children in early years settings,(d) safeguarding policies for the use of personal devices and other screens in early years settings,(e) the impact of carers’ and parents’ use of personal devices and screens on child wellbeing and development,(f) the importance of screen-free times and environments, such as during meals, bedtimes, and outdoor play, and(g) practical examples and communication strategies for early years practitioners to share with parents and carers to support healthy screen use and promote positive parent–child interaction, including alternatives such as reading together, helping with daily tasks, and engaging with the natural environment.”

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 91, in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and Amendment 106, also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

I am conscious that I am the warm-up act for the debate on Amendment 94A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash, which is also in this group. However, it is right and appropriate that, before we discuss the issue of teenagers and social media, we think first about the early years. Ofcom data shows that the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from 25% in 2022 to 37% in 2024, with one in five of those using it independently of their parents. That data is reported by Ofcom but without any comment or action associated with it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response as to whether the high-quality age verification that may accompany Amendment 94A in my noble friend’s name would be welcome in restricting use among our very youngest children also.

It is not just social media. Some 85% of three to five year-olds go online, with one in six owning their own mobile phone, while 98% of two year-olds watch television, videos or other digital content on a screen on a typical day, averaging around two hours each day—double the WHO recommendation—and among the top 20% of two year-olds that figure averaged five hours per day. Such levels of usage go against everything we know about what is needed for good development in the early years, where adult-child interaction is paramount. It goes against everything we know about how much physical and active play our youngest children need, the importance of outdoors activities and the development of healthy eyesight.

The reason this is so important is that we know that the early years are an important time for a child’s development and impact them much later on in life. That is why this Government have rightly placed so much emphasis on their early years strategy. In that context, the Government’s announcement last week that they will produce guidance for parents and carers on the screen time of preschoolers was incredibly welcome, if overdue. However, this will have a positive impact only if the high-quality guidance reaches parents and helps to change their behaviour. Can the Minister provide any more detail on the early years screen time advisory group that the Government are forming to develop this advice? We have the chairs and the terms of reference, but group membership and planned meetings remain to be updated “in due course” on the government website. Given that the guidance is being published in just three months, it would be useful to know more detail on that.

What plans do the Government have to publicise this advice once it is drawn up to reach parents where they get their information and ensure join-up across government, particularly with the Department for Health and Social Care so that it is integrated into the healthy child programme and available through health visitors and GPs, not just through Best Start Family Hubs? Given the importance of joint working in this area, would the Minister be happy to commit to a joint meeting between the two departments and experts to develop this further?

I turn to Amendment 91. The welcome action on guidance for parents makes the lack of any proper guidance and policy within early year settings an even greater outlier. There is policy around the use of technology in schools, but, in nurseries, often the most tech-rich environments as practitioners use tablets to log so much of a day’s activity, there is currently nothing. This is deeply problematic. It is problematic from a child development point of view, as the use of YouTube in early years settings has been described by one expert as “ubiquitous”, not just replacing the all-important adult-child interaction but using content that is too fast paced for children to learn from. This actually stimulates their fight or flight response, capturing their attention but in a way that is associated with hyper-alertness, hyper-wakefulness and later-life affective disorders. It is problematic from a safeguarding point of view, most starkly illustrated by the tragic case of Operation Lanark, where 18 nursery-issued devices were among the almost 70 seized from the home of a nursery worker charged with the most horrendous cases of abuse.

I am incredibly grateful that the Minister and her colleague Liv Bailey, the Early Education Minister, met me to discuss this and the parental guidance issue discussed earlier. I am really pleased that the Government’s intention is to update the voluntary guidance for settings on the help for early years platform, and, as part of their review into the non-statutory curriculum guidance, Development Matters, to not only include information on screen time and digital literacy but to include it in the next update to the statutory early years foundation stage framework. I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat this commitment today and give a clear timeline for when the amendment to the EYFS will be made.

In undertaking this work, will the department consider the impact of screen time and the wider use of technology and devices in early years settings, by children and practitioners, as well as child development and safe- guarding issues? Screen time is important but, based on research published about current levels of screen time use, “less is better” is an important message. The evidence shows that context and content matter too, and I hope the Government can commit to incorporating this in their approach.

I should be absolutely clear that those settings which choose not to use screens or tech should be free to do so. Tech is not needed for good child development in the early years. If it is being used, it should be informed by our understanding of early years development and accompanied by robust safeguarding practices and clear policy within the setting.

It is essential we get this right. I know a host of education, health and research professionals stand ready to support the Government in their work. I thank Katy Potts at the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group, Professors Rachael Bedford, Tim Smith and Sam Wass, Birth to 5 Matters and Health Professionals for Safer Screens. These are among the many dedicated people who have been generous to me with their time and worked so hard in this area.

Finally, I should probably explain why it is so important to get clear reassurances from the Minister on this now. I first tabled amendments on this in May last year, but there was no mention of digital technology or screen time in the Government’s early years strategy published in July. Guidance for parents of preschoolers was announced only in January, with no accompanying detail of a campaign to reach parents. On the incorporation of guidance into the early years statutory framework, the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group wrote to the previous Early Education Minister over a year ago calling for this to be incorporated into the update to the EYFS that went live last September. That call was rejected, although I have never been able to find out why.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to action now and believe it is genuine, but I need reassurance that, once the spotlight has moved on, work will not stop and delivery will happen at pace, in particular on making a substantive change to the early years foundation stage statutory framework this year; otherwise, a two year-old who started nursery when we first debated this issue will have left for school before any change is made. I beg to move.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the two amendments in my name, which are both amendments to Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. These are necessary if this House is to respond to the online harms that children face in a way that is effective, proportionate and grounded in evidence.

To be clear from the outset, I share the concerns across this House about the real harms that children face online. These range from exposure to age-inappropriate and damaging content to the disturbing prevalence of grooming and exploitation. Parents are right to be worried and Parliament is right to intervene. However, as the NSPCC made clear in its briefing to us, a complex safeguarding problem demands a risk-based response, not a blunt one-age ban.

My Amendment 94B would introduce a mechanism for limited and tightly controlled exemptions to a blanket minimum age requirement. Crucially, such exemptions could exist only where they demonstrably improved child safety, not where they weakened it. Any exemption would be jointly specified by Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner. That joint responsibility is deliberate and important. It would ensure that decisions were made independently of commercial interests and rooted firmly in regulatory expertise and the statutory duty to act in the best interests of children.

The amendment sets out a high evidential bar for platforms. Providers would have to show compliance with Ofcom’s risk-based guidance on minimum age, have full regard for UK GDPR principles and give explicit consideration to children’s rights as recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. They would also be required to assess impacts on children’s mental health, examine whether their platform’s design or features encouraged addictive or compulsive use, and scrutinise the role of algorithms in content recommendations and targeted advertising for any products or services, including, for example, gambling content marketing. Importantly, any exemptions would be subject to periodic reviews, with powers for amendment or revocation if Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner were no longer satisfied that adequate protections were in place. This would place a burden squarely on the platforms to prove safety on an ongoing basis, rather than leaving children exposed to unmanaged risk.

The NSPCC, the 5Rights Foundation, the Molly Rose Foundation and 39 children’s rights and online safety organisations have warned us this week that

“blanket bans on social media would fail to deliver the improvement in children’s safety and wellbeing that they so urgently need”.

We already know that age limits are not meaningfully enforced, and these organisations are well respected up and down this country. The NSPCC estimates that, in the UK, more than 2.5 million children under the age of 13 are currently accessing social media. Raising the minimum age to 16 does not solve that problem. Indeed, it risks pushing children into less regulated and higher-risk spaces, including encrypted platforms, anonymous forums and unsafe gaming environments. Children who bypass age checks are likely to register as adults, placing them in an environment with weaker safeguards and a higher exposure to harm. There is also a real risk of unintended consequences. Safe, age-appropriate use of social media such as family group chats, peer support networks and access to services like Childline could be lost, particularly for vulnerable children. Bans may also deter children from reporting harm for fear of being punished for being online at all.

Briefly, Amendment 94C would ensure that the definition of “regulated user-to-user services” was aligned with the Online Safety Act 2023. This House invested significant effort in establishing a risk-based regulatory framework under the Act, and it is essential that this Bill operates coherently within it.

These amendments would not dilute child protection but strengthen it. They would move us away from a blunt, one-size-fits-all ban towards a proportionate, evidence-based approach that respected children’s rights, held platforms accountable and generally reduced harm. The public out there have sent a clear message that they want us to act. It is now up to us in your Lordships’ House and down the Corridor in the other place to act on this. We need to heed the warnings of these respected organisations that have written to us all and to say, “We hear you that there is a need for a ban, but we think we can look at a much more sophisticated model than just a simple, one age limit ban”.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government have shown willingness, desire and, importantly, action in going further on issues relating to children’s online safety, wider well-being and screen time. The Online Safety Act and its enforcement, early years and older children’s screen time guidance, the consultation, national conversation and the VAWG strategy demonstrate this. Rest assured, we will continue to act to keep protecting our children, as noble Lords have asked for today. There is nothing more important and this Government are determined to deliver on that.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. My only plea to noble Lords, as we take this issue forward beyond today’s debate in the Chamber—as I have no doubt that we will—is that we keep the interests of our very youngest children in mind. If we think that companies and the regulator take this seriously, how can it be that the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from one in four to nearly 40% in just two years, since the Online Safety Act was passed? If the fact that one in five two year-olds is spending five hours a day on average on a screen is not a call to arms then I do not know what is.

On my Amendment 91, I welcome the commitments from the Government. The gap is now small, indeed it narrowed by a further few months during the course of this long debate, and I will hold them to account for delivering on it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 91.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.