Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I will move on. I will try harder to read further to get to the same place as the noble Lord, Lord Nash—but I doubt it.

Pinterest was implicated in the suicide completed by Molly Russell. Molly’s father, Ian, is thoughtful, brave and inspiring. I listened to him talk on the BBC this week about why he and countless other expert children’s charities are against a blanket ban on social media for under-16s. They worry about the unintended consequences for children’s safety. A blanket ban is likely to lead to under-16s finding less regulated platforms to connect to online, such as gaming platforms or the dark web. It is worth noting that according to recent Internet Matters research, boys spend significantly more time on gaming platforms than on social media platforms.

Children may also turn to VPNs, which would then undermine the child safety gains of the Online Safety Act. The VPN amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tries to address this, but age-gating VPNs may be extremely problematic. My phone uses a VPN, following a personal device cyber consultation offered by this Parliament. VPNs can make us more secure, and we should not rush to deprive children of that safety. A blunt, blanket ban—it is a struggle not to call it a Blunkett ban—would also deny young people the positives of some of the less addictive social media.

Young people will continue to want to connect with each other. They will want to share music, their photos and videos, and their creative content. I was of the mixtape generation, now replaced by the shareable playlist. Young entrepreneurs will want to market their products: will they have to use an adults account on an adult’s phone, and be exposed to the risks of adult content as a result?

When I speak to young people in my capacity as president of Young Citizens, I am struck by how well informed they are. They find out what is going on in the world through social media. Is it right that we lower the voting age to 16 and simultaneously prevent access to news for 15 year-olds when we want them to become well informed?

The arguments for doing something urgent and meaningful about the dangers to children of social media are compelling, but so are the arguments for doing it in a more sophisticated way. For that reason, we should back the Government’s consultation. I note that this is a three-month consultation. Can the Minister please reassure us that action will follow within the 12-month timeline suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash?

We should at the same time urgently review how the Online Safety Act is working. We need to retain the risk-based approach to regulation in the Act. But Ofcom’s current stance of treating all children, all the way to 18, as the same is flawed. We need age-appropriate design, and we should give Ofcom the unambiguous requirement to ensure that age restrictions and guidance about social media access are rigorously enforced. This in turn requires mandated, robust age assurance. We must develop this, sensitive to the digital rights of children and mindful that we do not want unwittingly to require big tech to hold sensitive data about our children. I also echo Ian Russell’s call for us to listen to children and young people as we make these changes. That is one of the really good reasons why we should go ahead with a consultation.

I conclude by urging Ministers to act swiftly and to listen to parliamentarians, but also to experts and young people, and then to act robustly, platform by platform, to deliver the ambition of the Online Safety Act to make this country the safest place in the world for children to grow up.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight. Like him, I have been involved in debating online safety issues—from the internet safety Green Paper through to the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, and then seeing the Online Safety Bill become an Act. I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation.

I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley’s Amendments 94B and 94C, which are amendments to Amendment 94A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. In doing so, I urge the House to strengthen his proposal by transforming it from a blanket ban into an effective, harms-based approach to social media regulation that can actually be implemented and enforced within the same timetable.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D on the phone ban. The Minister talked about strengthening guidance and Ofsted being able to inspect schools’ mobile phone policies, but I speak as a parent as well as a teacher when I say that parents do not understand statutory footing; they understand a legal ban. If the Government want to reduce unnecessary burdens on head teachers then, from what we have seen over and again, that has to mean an outright ban in the Bill.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley in his Motion A1. We are united across this House and, indeed, across Parliament in our desire to protect children from the significant harms of the online world, but, as we consider these amendments in lieu, we are presented with three rather different legislative strategies.

The Government’s proposal in Motion A asks this House to grant sweeping, enduring Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State, allowing them to amend or repeal primary legislation via secondary regulations. The Government’s amendments remain completely silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government are fighting big tech with one arm tied behind their back, regulating, as we have heard today, the user rather than fixing the product.

I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his tireless and principled campaigning in this area, and I welcome the fact that his Motion A2 attempts to rein in the Government’s executive overreach by applying a two-year sunset clause to these Henry VIII powers. I recognise that his amendments are no longer a blanket ban, but his core proposal remains a blunt instrument. Although well-intentioned, this approach is built entirely on exclusion. It risks creating a dangerous cliff edge for young people: rather than helping children to safely develop digital resilience, it would potentially suddenly expose them to the unfiltered internet the moment they turned 16.

Motion A1, by contrast, offers a far more precise, workable and future-proof alternative. Instead of handing unchecked powers to Ministers or trying to build an impossible wall around the internet, it places direct statutory duties on tech companies to clean up their platforms. As we have heard, that is essential. Under our Amendment 38Q, where any user is identified as being under 16, the platform must apply proportionate measures to limit the supply of addictive design features and prevent access to harmful content. As my honourable friend, Munira Wilson MP, stated in the Commons:

“This needs to be big tech’s seatbelt moment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/26; col. 920.]


Recent US court cases, which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, mentioned, have exposed internal documents showing that tech executives deliberately designed these platforms to keep children hooked. Motion A1 would dismantle this addictive architecture, preserve parliamentary sovereignty and spark a race to the top for safe, enriching online spaces. I urge the House to support that approach.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend’s Motion A2 and my Motion D1. My noble friend has once again laid out the arguments in favour of his Motion A2 most eloquently and elegantly and the Minister in her opening remarks talked about it being

“not whether but how and what action will be taken”

by the Government. Her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today have at different times made a commitment to act. But that is not what we have in the Government’s amendment. Their amendment is not a commitment to act; my noble friend’s amendment is. I hope that the Ministers opposite will forgive me for pointing out that the only charities they ever quote are those which have caution about the approach that my noble friend is advocating. As he said, over 40 charities have signed the principles document that has been developed with them. Of course, that gives those of us on this side of the House reason for real concern as to why no other charities are ever quoted in interviews by the Government.

My noble friend’s amendment has several material advantages over the Government’s current approach. First is the simplicity in that the commitment to act is in the Bill. Your Lordships are very familiar with the risks posed by putting everything in secondary legislation, particularly secondary legislation with an enormous Henry VIII-shaped power. Secondly, it puts into effect the Prime Minister’s commitment but also allows the Government to use the consultation to shape the “how”—including on enforcement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly pointed out, and in relation to breadth and scope—but it sets out very clearly at proposed subsection (4)(a)(i) to (iv) the principles that would be followed in relation to addictive behaviour, serious harm and exploitation, illegal content and loss of privacy; your Lordships, I know, will have read the amendment. Thirdly, with great simplicity, it also sunsets the Henry VIII powers, which I think we can welcome across the House.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Motion A2. Before I do, however, I wish to say that if the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, decides to divide the House on Motion C1, I will support her. I hope, though, that some other accommodation has been made.

Motion A2 is deliberately drafted so that a successful vote for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, will automatically pre-empt it. That is intentional, and I wish to be clear at the outset that I will vote for Motion A1 alongside the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Indeed, we can be seen as a bit of a double act, with the noble Lord’s Motion capturing the urgent need for action, and my Motion providing a more comprehensive outline of what action should look like.

We are at something of an endgame this week. I have in front of me a chart that compares Motions A, A1 and A2; I would be very happy to send it to any noble Lord who wishes to see it. It shows clearly that government Motion A fails to address key risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks and does not totally tackle additional risks identified by the companies themselves. It shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the fundamental issue of enforcement, without which none of this really matters, because Ofcom will get more duties without having the power to enforce them.

The chart shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the need for parents to have somewhere to go when their child is at imminent risk of harm. I was very disappointed to hear the Minister talking in her opening remarks about parents going to the police when I explained at such great length, when the Government overturned the chatbot amendments, that when a family goes to the police, the police say there is no perpetrator and that they cannot deal with chatbots. It also shows clearly and quite astonishingly that the Government have no sense of urgency. The government Motion gives them three years to introduce measures. If that was not so egregious, it would be quite funny: they have given themselves their entire term of office to bring forward duties that we then do not believe are possible to properly enforce, and all with no role for Parliament.

As I said to the House last week, the online world is more dangerous for children than it was two years ago, yet the Government have refused to engage with the substance of my concerns. Motion A2 offers a guide for what they should be doing. It is bound by the scope of the Bill, but it would be a phenomenal start. The Motion builds on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which will rightly pass again today. Every aspect of the noble Lord’s Motion is also covered in Motion A2. Equally, there is nothing in it that precludes the Government using what they learn from their consultation. In effect, Motion A2 offers the Government something meaningful to offer in lieu of what I hope and believe will be the triumph of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, today.

The Government say that they need the timeline to perfect the details and get this right, but this is a double standard. They have no such concerns for the detail when rolling out data centres, AI in classrooms, giving away creators’ copyright, and putting valuable datasets and government services straight into the pockets of US companies. But when it comes to children, they are overwhelmed by caution and deaf to the cries of pain from parents and teachers, and the demand of children themselves for action. The Minister said in her opening statement that these are matters on which the Government’s amendments would make changes now. Which now? Which change? They have given themselves 30 months to make those changes.

Motion A2 is not aspirational; it sets out the provisions we need for children to be safe online. It requires action within eight months; the prevention of sycophantic, manipulative and exploitative features; compliance with Ofcom’s and the ICO’s children’s codes; that all risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks or additional risks identified by its services are mitigated; that there is no safe harbour; and mandatory data access for researchers and education for under-16s. It would allow 17 year-olds—a particularly vulnerable group as they go out into their adult life—to have some consideration from Parliament, Ofcom and government as to their safety, and it would bring in executive liability for senior individuals within companies, injunctive relief so that parents have somewhere to go when their child is at immediate risk of harm, individual redress, and a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers, including its business disruption powers, within six months.

Again, I say to the Minister: if the review is within scope, bring it forward and make it happen. There has been a single fine, of £50,000, paid under the OSA. Please do not tell the House that enforcement is going to work as it does now.

If we are not here to protect children, why are we here? Whose moral compass are we following? Whose interests are we serving? What outcome are we all working towards? I am a Cross-Bench Peer who, on this issue, sadly, does not enjoy the support of the Official Opposition in the other place nor of the Government in power. Both those facts are a source of immense disappointment. But it is not me but children who are going to pay this price.

I said to the House during the debate on chatbots that if we failed to protect children, we would see more children die. We have failed. Today, I put this on the record so that each one of us understands the price of our inaction.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I speak in strong support of Motion A2 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As I said the last time we debated the Bill, we are united in this House in our objective to protect children online, yet we still differ on how to achieve it. The noble Baroness’s amendment represents the precise, workable and robust framework that our children so desperately need.

We on these Benches welcome recent concessions—and I thank the Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Lloyd of Effra, for their engagement—such as the “must” rather than “may” duty, but the Government’s core approach remains flawed. The Government continue to cling to sweeping Henry VIII powers that will allow them to amend primary legislation via secondary regulations, bypassing full parliamentary debate. We need a sunset clause to ensure that this power is not abused in the future. The current proposal of up to three years, possibly, to implement regulations is simply unacceptable. We on these Benches believe that the timeline is the critical issue. Our aspiration is a six plus six model—six months for a progress statement and six months for regulations—rather than the protracted window currently offered.

The Government are focusing on regulating user access, rather than addressing the toxic nature of the platforms themselves. We recognise the new references to “features or functionalities” in the Government’s amendments, but they avoid referring to addiction and do not include a list of prohibited features, nor manipulative features such as penalties for non-engagement or interaction with AI companions. Finally, we are concerned about the enforcement of the Online Safety Act and whether these provisions would be robustly enforceable. Will the Government promise a review?

The last time the Bill was in the House, I expressed our considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his campaign. However, his central mechanism is a near-blanket ban for under-16s. We on these Benches favour a more proportionate approach. A total ban of this sort would risk creating a dangerous cliff edge—where children are suddenly exposed to an unfiltered internet at 16, without having developed digital resilience—and accidentally blocking essential and safe services, such as educational platforms or Wikipedia.

Motion A2 offers the safety by design alternative, which we on these Benches strongly endorse. These amendments would require tech companies to fundamentally rewrite their code to remove harmful features. The key strengths of Amendment 38Z10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, include specific prohibitions, explicitly targeting addictive design features that hijack a child’s attention, including infinite scrolling, autoplay, AI companions, and push notifications during the school day or at night. It moves beyond assessing risks to explicitly identifying and banning the architectural hooks of social media. It introduces a private right of action, as the noble Baroness explained, allowing children who suffer harm to seek court orders against non-compliant providers. It mandates a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers to ensure that it is fit for purpose in protecting children.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

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.”

--- Later in debate ---

38Z25: As an amendment to Commons Amendment 38Z21, in inserted paragraph (3)(b), leave out “six” and insert “three””

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as we reach these final stages of ping-pong on the Bill, I will first express the profound regret and disappointment of the Liberal Democrat Benches at the posture now being adopted by the Conservative Opposition. I have immense respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the tireless campaign he has waged to protect children from online harms. Yet, last night in the Commons, the Conservative Front Bench effectively laid down their arms, deciding that it is now “reasonable” to give the Government some time. By caving in at the 11th hour, the Conservatives have chosen to accept a compromise that leaves our children waiting far too long for meaningful protection.

We on these Benches acknowledge that the Government have moved their position, and I thank Ministers for their engagement throughout. We welcome the change to a “must” duty and the introduction of a timeline in the Bill. However, when we look at the reality of the Government’s latest proposals, passed in the Commons yesterday, the fatal flaw remains that timeline. The Minister in the Commons outlined a timeline that consists of a progress report in three months, 12 months to lay regulations and a further six-month buffer for so-called “exceptional circumstances”, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, has outlined today. As my honourable friend Munira Wilson pointed out in the Commons last night, this adds up to 21 months before we might see any real action. Let us be absolutely clear: giving platforms nearly two years to comply is simply unacceptable and unsellable to the parents whose children are suffering at this moment.

Because the Conservative Opposition have backed down, this is our last opportunity to stand for the robust measures that so many parents, experts and civil society groups have been crying out for. Therefore, we have tabled these short, very clear amendments to do a few vital things.

First, our Amendments 38Z24 and 38Z25 would slash the Government’s bloated timetable down to a strict three plus six plus three-month framework. They demand a progress report in three months, would give the Government just six months to lay regulations and would allow only a tight three-month extension if absolutely necessary. Secondly, our Amendments 38Z22 and 38Z23 would incorporate the principles championed so expertly throughout the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We must regulate the product, not just the user. Amendment 38Z22 would mandate strict compliance with Ofcom’s codes of practice and the ICO’s children’s code, which of course was enabled on to the statute book by the noble Baroness. It explicitly demands that regulations protect children from the risk of serious harm, manipulation, sycophancy, exploitation and unsolicited contact from strangers.

Crucially, Amendment 38Z23 would ensure that the Government cannot ignore the voices of parents. It would force the Secretary of State to have regard to representations made by the public regarding children in imminent danger arising from their contact with internet services. Furthermore, it demands a strict six-month review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers, forcing the Government to formally consider whether the regulator needs stronger teeth, specifically evaluating the need for business disruption measures, injunctive relief and individual redress. We cannot allow the tech giants to use this 21-month window to continue business as usual. We must act decisively and we cannot let this moment pass without making the strongest possible point that our children’s safety cannot wait. We must send a clear message to the public that there are still those in this House who will not compromise on a tight, workable timeline to dismantle the addictive architecture of big tech. Because the timeline is the critical issue and because we believe that this House must hold the Government’s feet to the fire, we give notice at this point that, at the conclusion of this debate, it is very likely that we will wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his openness, his campaigning and his extraordinary ability to bring different views together. This morning, he and I agreed that, whatever the outcome of this particular conversation, we would work continuously and ferociously for child safety in the future.

I support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in its entirety. However, I will draw attention to two particular matters. The first is new subsection (8A)(b) inserted by Amendment 38Z23, which states that, when making regulations, the Secretary of State must give consideration to representations

“by members of the public in relation to children in imminent danger arising from their contact with an internet service”.

For well over a decade, I have responded to requests for help from families of children at risk of serious harm or, in far too many cases, when it is already too late. It is an enormous privilege, but it is also a tragic one, and it is a sad indictment of our current regime that those parents feel compelled to turn to me rather than to government, the regulator or the police.

Yesterday, the Minister said:

“When potential criminal activity is being threatened and there are imminent risks, that is also a matter for the police”.—[Official Report, 27/4/26; col. 946.]


My heart sank when I heard that. I have repeatedly warned, both on this Bill and the Crime and Policing Bill, that the police will not accept complaints where a child is being manipulated, groomed or threatened by a chatbot, because there is no human perpetrator. Equally, in cases of self-harm or threats that do not meet the threshold of a criminal offence, Ofcom has no role.

The Government have resisted every attempt to provide a route for parents in crisis. They have, on several occasions, whipped heavily to prevent the creation of an individual reporting mechanism, a route to the courts or an offence to which the police could respond. New subsection (8) effectively requires DSIT to establish a mechanism through which the public can inform the department directly about children in imminent danger. Of course, I would far prefer a comprehensive regime, but perhaps if cases of individual imminent danger come regularly to the department’s attention, Ministers may yet come to a different conclusion about the need for an individual complaints mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

It has been a huge privilege to argue for the transformational measures in the legislation during that time, but I very much hope that this is the last time I will need to do so. That is not because I do not think that these are enormously important issues but because it is now time to put the work of this legislation into action: it is time for free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England; to cut the cost of school uniforms; to ensure that phones do not disrupt a single second of the school day; to keep our children safe online; to ensure that there are excellent teachers in excellent schools; to stop children falling through the cracks between local services; to transform child safeguarding arrangements and to support children in care; and to lift 100,000 children out of poverty with our record expansion of free school meals. This Bill ensures safety and opportunity for every child in this country, so that every child has the best start in life. Its measures are desperately needed. We cannot afford to wait a moment longer. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on Motion A1. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who have done so much to contribute to the way this debate has moved forward. I thank the Ministers for their engagement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who I know will be missed from the Opposition Front Bench. She is always gracious, even under fire. I thank and pay tribute to all the bereaved families, without whom we would not have had the representations that we have had, and all their supporting charities.

I heard the exhortation from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, to exercise our inner sheepdog, but all I can display is my inner Dobermann, and so, at the end of the day, despite all the thanks and tributes to all those who have taken part, I wish to test the opinion of the House.