Lords Chamber

Monday 27th April 2026

(began 2 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
None Portrait Oral questions: Implementation of the Supreme Court judgement in the For Women Scotland case within Government departments
-

service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and seek legal advice where necessary,
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
None Portrait Business of the House Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-

My Lords, that concludes our questions for today. >> My Lords, I thought it would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thought it would be useful to update noble Lords on the plan for business today and plan for business today and tomorrow after the brief business. The name of the Senior Deputy Speaker. Today, the House will consider the messages from the House of Commons on the crime and policing and children's wellbeing and schools bills. Noble Lords will then debate some regulations and an associated motion in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, before taking questions on a statement from the.

For the House of Commons on a recent. On recent antisemitic attacks during the course of today I expect we will also receive messages from the Commons on the English devolution and community empowerment and the pension schemes bills. They will also be considered today after debates on the chemical regulations and the planned statement. Once the messages have arrived and are available in the printed paper office, noble Lords will have one hour to table any motions. The precise deadlines for tabling will be advertised on the Annunciator and via the usual channels.

Once they are known. I would, however, strongly encourage any noble Lord considering tabling to discuss this in advance with the public Bill office. I expect that once the statement concludes, we will be ready to consider the message on the devolution Bill, followed by the message on the Pension Schemes Bill. But if that needs to change, I will update the House via the Annunciator and make further announcements in the chamber as necessary. This may include a burning during pleasure. Also, we await debate.

The messages. Tomorrow, noble Lords will have an opportunity to further scrutinise messages from the House of Commons on all bills left in play after today's debates. Have we sent either the crime of policing or the Children's Wellbeing School Schools Bill back to the other place today? I expect they will be. We will consider those bills and return them to our House later today. The deadline for tabling motions on both these bills will therefore be 11 a.m. tomorrow morning, and they will be considered after Oral Questions.

A further consideration on the devolution of pension Schemes Bill is needed tomorrow. I'll update labour laws and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

plan tomorrow after questions. Lord Roe City of London Markets

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Roe City of London Markets Bill Senior Deputy Speaker My Lords, I beg to move that the. Motion in my name be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion in my name be agreed to. The question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of their opinion will say, content contrary, opinion will say, content contrary, not content The contents have it. This may be an appropriate moment for those who wish to do so to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration Consideration of Consideration of Commons Consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the Crime and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Policing Bill. The Lord Hanson of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason and amendments be
15:23
None Portrait Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill – consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
-

now considered. >> The question is that the Commons
15:23
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
>> The question is that the Commons reasons, reason and amendments be now considered as many as are that opinion will, say content. The opinion will, say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Motion a Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a in my name, that this House do not insist on its amendment. Two H to insist on its amendment. Two H to Commons amendment two f and its amendment two J to Commons amendment two G, and to agree with amendment two G, and to agree with the Commons and their amendment two K to comment amendment two F and amendment two L to Commons amendment two L to Commons amendment two G in lieu. If that's all clear, I will also speak to all clear, I will also speak to motion B.

My Lords, I very much hope we've had just over 18 months in both houses on this bill, and I very much hope that we're debating now the Crime and Policing Bill. For the very last time. Your Lordships House has quite properly discharged its role as a revising chamber on a number of occasions. We have now asked the Commons to consider and reconsider the two outstanding issues before us today not once, not twice, but on three occasions. The Commons, as it is right, has made its views perfectly clear on the 14th of April, the 20th of April, and again on the 22nd of April, and on each occasion it has rejected the Lords amendments by majorities exceeding 100.

I would suggest respectfully to your Lordships House that the time has come to heed the clearly and repeated, expressed views of the elected House. Now, I know the issue of fixed penalty notices has been one of importance, and I've listened very carefully to the well-made arguments put forward by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones. Indeed, we've acknowledged some of the concerns he's raised about the actions of some contractors. We've now indeed enshrined in the bill a requirement to issue statutory guidance about the use of fixed penalty notices to enforce public space protection orders and community protection notices.

And we're also committed, and again, thanks to the pressure from the noble Lord and others to issuing such guidance within six months of Royal Assent. And indeed, I've said already, I will share the guidance with the noble Lord before it's issued. And I know the noble Lord is disappointed we've not gone further, but we have concerns, as amendments would effectively terminate the legitimate use of private contractors to enforce anti-social behaviour, civil orders to the detriment of the safety and security of local communities who want to see effective action to tackle anti-social behaviour.

And I also welcome, if I may say so, that when the Bill was again debated in the Commons last Wednesday, Max Wilkinson, speaking for the Liberal Democrat frontbench, indicated that he would not press the issue further. I don't know what the noble Lord will do today, but I hope the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones would similarly now agree to be content and agree. Motion a. Now turning to prescription of the IRGC again, we've had several opportunities to discuss the stall on this matter, and there is little more to be said.

I've been very clear that amendment 439 is not one that the government can accept. But I've also been very clear that this government has and will continue to take strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account by sanctioning Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC, as well as placing Iran on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. And indeed, the Prime Minister reiterated last week that we're also committed to introduce legislation to provide for a prescription like power to address the threat of hostile activity posed by the state and state linked bodies.

Work on this legislation is well underway. And again, without pre-empting the King's Speech, your Lordships can expect to see more soon. As I've said, the Commons has now endorsed the government's position in voting to reject the Lords amendment on three separate occasions over the past two weeks. There can be no doubt about where the elected House stands on this issue, and I respectfully submit that there is nothing to be gained from sending the amendment back to the Commons. And I hope the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower and the whole House will agree to motion B, but in doing so, I also hope that he will recognise that the government has a strong view on the situation in Iran and on the Iranian regime, and I've outlined what that view is, and I hope with those comments that I beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the motion in my name. The question. Is that motion A be agreed to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that motion A be agreed to? I rise to respond to the government's motion A regarding the government's motion A regarding the issuing of fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. My Lords, I do thank the Minister for all his I do thank the Minister for all his efforts. He's, throughout this process demonstrated goodwill, but process demonstrated goodwill, but without making any great classical allusions, my Lords, this felt very
15:27
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
much like pushing a boulder uphill. At each stage of this bill's passage. We've had to push the government incredibly hard to recognise the sheer scale of the problem regarding the cowboy enforcement economy that has been enforcement economy that has been preying on the public. However, I am pleased to say that this persistence has finally paid off and genuine progress has been made by accepting the government's latest amendment. Today, we are securing the necessary safeguards through statutory guidance, which must be delivered within six months of Royal Assent, to make sure that local authorities cannot incentivise private contractors to fine for the breach of public space Protection Orders and Community Protection notices.

For far too long, the system has allowed a revenue collection industry to masquerade as justice, with private companies retaining the vast majority of fine income and aggressively targeting people for anodyne actions. With this amendment now in place, our citizens will be much better protected against the cowboys who've sought to abuse these enforcement powers for their own financial gain. Now, my Lords, while the journey to get here has required relentless pressure from these benches and across the House, and I sincerely thank the conservative benches for their solid support throughout.

The outcome is a significant victory for fairness and proportionality in our justice system, and I am content, therefore, to accept the government's latest amendment today. And my Lords, I was pleased to hear that the. From the Minister that the government will share the draft statutory guidance before it is issued. We know roughly what wording the Home Office have in mind that of the DEFRA guidance on litter, but the consultation process on the new guidance will be important, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Home Office will consult not only with local government, but also with those who have been instrumental in raising this finding for profit issue during the passage of this bill, such as myself and the campaign for Freedoms in Everyday Life, formerly the Manifesto Club.
15:30
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes. >> My Lords, on the question of prescription of the IRGC, despite everything that the noble Lord, the Minister has said, I think we're now in something of an Alice in Wonderland world. The Prime Minister has told the media in Minister has told the media in recent days that the government proposes to introduce further legislation to address state threats. Such legislation has been reported by the BBC, among others, as enabling government to ban state related organisations such as the IRGC and the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister says the King's Speech next month will commit to such legislation. Yet the Terrorism Act already permits such a ban by section one four of that act. Terrorist action includes action outside the UK. The public affected includes the public of a country outside the UK and the government affected means the government of another country as well as the government of the UK. So terrorism is specifically international. Section three, as we know, permits the proscription of terrorist organisations without limiting them to UK organisations or UK terrorism, and the government knows this.

As we heard last week, the Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, and the present foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, herself a former home secretary, both specifically called for proscription of the IRGC while in opposition. Just as we on these benches have consistently called for it as well, and nobody, but nobody has said that there has been no power to proscribe the IRGC because it is state related. The EU, led by France and Italy, Australia, the United States, Canada and several of the Gulf states have all proscribed the IRGC.

Yet the government, despite previous labour policy, has promised Parliament only an anodyne statement about. And I quote the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the Secretary of State's powers under section three. My Lords, last week the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower called that patronising. My Lords, it is worse than that. Despite their previous policy, the government rely only on the repeated mantra that they will not give a running commentary on decisions on prescription.

My Lords, the IRGC is connected on very substantial evidence, not only to the appalling pressure, oppression and murder of protesters in Iran in December and January, but also to multiple acts of terrorism in the UK and abroad. There are clear links with antisemitic attacks here and elsewhere in Europe and the world, including on synagogues. The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre, responsible for monitoring and assisting international shipping, has reported on large numbers of attacks on cargo ships in and around the Straits of Hormuz, which are carried out by the IRGC or their connected entities.

We recognise, of course, that the government does have a strong view on the Iranian regime, as the noble Lord rightly said. Yet it is said to Parliament that we are not entitled to an explanation of why the IRGC is not to be prescribed, that we must wait for further legislation targeted as state related organisations for such prescription. Yet if indeed the new legislation is to involve the implementation of the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC. In his recent report, updated in January that was aimed at improving legislation on state threats under the National Security Act and the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act for the prescription of the IRGC under section three of the Terrorism Act, such new legislation is unnecessary and a red herring.

We should continue to demand a proper and timely explanation of what the government intends to do and when subject. We agree, of course, to the provision of confidential information being restricted to the Intelligence and Security Committee. So we support the conservative motion B1 and if the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower does wish to test the opinion of the House, we will vote for his motion. Yeah. The Lord Donoughue.
15:34
15:36
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we. Return to this >> My Lords, we. Return to this highly important. Matter once again. >> I know the. >> Government will not appreciate this, but it is our duty in this this, but it is our duty in this House to hold them to account for their promises. The Labour Party committed one in opposition to prescribing the IRGC. They have now voted against this six times. On Wednesday, the Minister for Policing and Crime, Sarah Jones, said, and I quote, we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill, unquote.

My Lords, I take particular exception to this. It is wrong and entirely incorrect to claim that this House is somehow acting inappropriately. There is nothing out of the ordinary for this House to insist on an issue as important as this. And I remind the noble Lord, the Minister, how many rounds of ping pong we had on the safety of Rwanda. Bill. This House sent the bill back to the Commons five times. That is not criticism, but a fact. It is this House's right to do so.

What is not acceptable is to have Ministers in this government seeking to delegitimize the important work of this House, and I hope the government will reflect on that. There has been a consistent thread of criticism of this amendment from the government that I would like to address. The noble Lord, the Minister said last week the government do not provide a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for prescription, but this completely misunderstands the argument. I am not asking the noble Lord, the Minister, to give a running commentary on prescription.

I am not asking the government to air sensitive information in public. All I'm asking is for the government to actually get on with it and prescribe the IRGC. The Minister does not need to provide a running commentary. He just needs to agree the amendment. I do note that there has been some progress. Now, the Prime Minister himself said on Friday that the government will move to prescribe the IRGC in a new session. So it seems the Prime Minister is now willing to give us a running commentary on organisations being considered for prescription.

That is good news, providing he remains in post, of course, and I do welcome. The government has finally remembered the promises they made in opposition. It is testament to the determined campaigning on this matter from organisations around the country and from opposition parties in this Parliament. However, why has it taken the government so long? It is an incomprehensible position. They have had ample opportunity now, during the passage of this bill, to simply say what the Prime Minister said on Friday. This is disappointing, but regardless of that, the government has said that they will now move to proscribe the IRGC and all that remains is to press the Minister on timelines.

This cannot wait for months and months. We are all united in our support for this. I have sought an assurance from when the government will bring forward the legislation. Unfortunately, the government have refused to tell us when they will do this. My Lords, this is completely unacceptable at a time when we need strong and decisive leadership in the national interest. We have a government and a Prime Minister who take months to make a decision, and once they have made that decision, then can't even commit to a basic deadline.

We have seen this time and time again with the government refusal to give Parliament even the most basic of assurances on when they will do things they had promised to do. So, my Lords, it is time for the government to put its money where its mouth is and get on with the promises they made. And it is with some trepidation that I accept what the noble Lord, the Minister has said. But be sure that we will hold the government to account again.
15:39
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I wasn't quite sure at the end >> I wasn't quite sure at the end of that whether the noble Lord was intending to press his amendment or intending to press his amendment or not, but the noble Lord said he'd let me know in a moment. It's very, very gracious. I'll. I'll keep. I'll keep an eye out for it. I'm pleased in some way that we've made some progress. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Clement-Jones for his pragmatic approach. I know he would have liked the government to have gone further on the issue of fixed penalty notices.

I know they'll be holding me to account on the question of statutory guidance and the monitoring, but I hope we've we've achieved some form of settlement, and I'm grateful for him for agreeing that form of settlement today. Now, on the question of prescription, I'm not quite clear whether the noble Lord intends to push his amendment. But let me just say to him this. The elected House has made its views known on a number of occasions now by significant majorities. It has made its views known, supporting the arguments that I've deployed in this House.

The arguments I've deployed are that we don't give a running commentary on prescription, and I just point in aid, if I may. The noble Lord Pannick has just said a moment ago that the Prime Minister said last week, we understand the need for action. The second session starts very shortly, and we will be looking to bring forward this legislation as soon as we can. And by this legislation he means the legislation, which is not the running commentary on prescription under 2000 powers.

It's on the potential for a revised state threats prescription like regime, as recommended by Jonathan Fisher QC, a KC Jonathan Hall Jonathan Hall. I've got my fingers in my holes. I've Jonathan Hall KC in his report to the government recently, so we can't anticipate what the King's Speech is going to say. But I'm saying to the noble Lord today that the Prime Minister has said, and I'll just repeat for clarity, we understand the need for action. The second session starts very shortly, and we're looking forward to bringing legislation forward.

I say also to the noble Lord Marks of Henley that he's made his strong case for prescription. But I put to him that the government has made its view clear. The government will share information with the ISC in due course on the state threats, but we're not going to comment on prescription on a random deadline set by a motion in this House, without the full facts being examined in a public way as to what the government want to do on this particular issue, as we have in the past on organisations for prescription, we've tabled motions in both Houses of Parliament.

We've argued why we've wanted a table, those motions, and we've done that with no foreknowledge to the organisations we're seeking to prescribe. That's under the 2000 act. My noble. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said what he said on the visit to the synagogue last week, and I would hope that the noble Lord Davies of Gower will give the government the opportunity to fulfil that, because, as the noble Lord Pannick has said, we will be held to account on a article of faith in relation to what the Prime Minister has said in due course, but I cannot today in this House either give an agreement to proscribe the IRGC within the timescale that the noble Lord has put in his motions.

Nor can I pre-empt the King's speech, because that is what the King's speech is for later next month. So I would hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord Davies of Gower would not move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his amendment. And again, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. The question is that motion A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content. The opinion will say content. The contrary not content, but contents have it motion B, the Lord Hanson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it motion B, the Lord Hanson of Flint. I just. Motion be. And yes, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion be. And yes, my Lords, I've already spoken to motion B that this House do not insist on its amendments four three, nine E and 439 F and do agree with the Commons in their amendment 439 C and 439 D and I beg to move.
15:44
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
The question is the motion be be agreed to motion B one the Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies of Gower. Also wish to thank the opposition parties for their opposition parties for their support in this, and particularly the Liberal Democrats, for their unswerving support and appreciation unswerving support and appreciation of the seriousness of the issue. I would have preferred to have had something more positive from the something more positive from the Minister. However, as I say, we will hold government to account, but for now I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question, therefore, is that motion be be agreed to as many as are that if anyone say content, the contrary not content, the contents have it. Again. Consideration. Thank you so much. Consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Baroness Smith of Malvern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is not present. My Lords, as we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as we. Are, I think are still awaiting the Minister. We move a little fast on that bill and we were expecting. on that bill and we were expecting. So perhaps we might adjourn on pleasure for a five minutes until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister arrives. Question is of the House. Do adjourn during pleasure for five adjourn during pleasure for five minutes. As many as of that opinion they. Content of the contrary, not
15:45
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure until 15:50
-

15:51
15:52
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - consideration of Commons amendments Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-

its amendments. 38 V to 38 X to Commons amendment 38 J, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do the Commons have disagreed, and do propose amendments 38 Z 1 to 38 z nine to Commons amendments 38 J and nine to Commons amendments 38 J and 38 K in lieu of amendments 38 V to 38 X, and I'll also speak to motions A, one, A, two, B, C and C one. My Lords, in this group we will be debating amendments made in this House and in the other place relating to a social media ban for under 16 seconds mobile phones in schools and school admissions.

And before getting into the details of the motions and amendments before us, on behalf of my noble friend, Lady Lloyd of Effra myself, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have engaged with US ministerial colleagues and departmental officials throughout the bill's passage, and particularly can I say, during this rather fast paced bit of ping pong that we are now engaged in. We are, of course, at the. 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, is 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 a ministerial office holder in the other place. That House has now spoken clearly on the matters before us on multiple occasions, endorsing the government's alternative proposals. But I do recognise now that I'm a member in this place, that that perhaps one of the advantages of noble Lords is the ability to scrutinise in detail and to push successfully for revision of government proposals.

And I think we have seen that throughout the course of the consideration of this bill because, for example, for each of the issues we are debating again this afternoon, the government has recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place, and we have responded on each one. I want to start by setting out the important package of amendments that the government has 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 Lordship's concerns about urgency, scope and parliamentary scrutiny, and 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 government has now also committed to a timeline. On the face of the Bill. I am aware that there has been some commentary on this proposed timeline over the weekend, and I would therefore like to set out our position very clearly to inform the debate that is to follow. My Lords, this government is committed to moving as quickly as possible on this important issue. The timeline set out in our power is a ceiling, not a target.

I recognise there are particular concerns regarding the inclusion of an option for the Secretary of State to further extend the timeline. To be clear, this extension would only be deployed in exceptional, unforeseen circumstances that prevent the government from meeting the original deadline. This is not a means of delaying regulation, but a measure of last resort, only to be used if absolutely necessary. Noble Lords should therefore think of the implementation timescale as 24 months at the outside, rather than any longer, and remain mindful of my earlier remarks around this being a ceiling, not a target.

We have also listened carefully to concerns about harmful and potentially addictive design features. As noble Lords will know, the consultation seeks views on restrictions to addictive features and functionalities, and we have therefore tabled a further amendment, specifically requiring the Secretary of State to have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power, ensuring these risks are properly addressed. On the face of the legislation, I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these changes demonstrate the government's determination to proceed with this work and to do so in a manner that meets the concerns raised across both houses.

They provide certainty of action, a clear timetable and stronger recognition of harmful and addictive design. This is a balanced, evidence led approach that protects children now and remains fit for the digital challenges ahead. I hope that noble Lords will recognise this as a credible and responsible landing point, and support the government's amendment to deliver strong, effective and decisive action. Turning now to motion a one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which insists on the same amendment that was brought to the House last week and amends government amendment 38 J.

It requires the Secretary of State to restrict under 16 s from accessing user to user services, or restrict specific features or functionalities. When making these regulations. I want to thank the noble Lord again and his supporters for this sustained focus on these vital issues. Protecting children online is not a point of difference between us. It is a shared priority and one this government is determined to deliver on. I welcome the progress already made and the constructive way in which noble in which the noble Lords amendment now reflects the government's approach.

However, the government consultation and the legislative means in the government's amendment are the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes for children that will last. The noble Lords amendment also specifies the age of 16 for restrictions. We cannot place an under 16 age limit on the face of the Bill. Doing so would require the government to act before the evidence gathering process is complete, and would pre-empt the consultation. A consultation that has already received over 55,000 responses demonstrating the public's desire to shape the government's approach.

And it is right that we listen to them. We recognise that many restrictions may be appropriate for age 16. There may also be specific interventions better suited for those over 16. Many members of this House have rightly recognised that children of different ages interact with these services differently, and this is why the government power now specifically acknowledges this. The noble Lords 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. We agree that it is something we must get right. And let me reassure your Lordships House. The government's amendment provides the most effective way to secure robust and lasting protection regarding the part of the noble Lords Amendment on supporting children's understanding of user to user services. 214 C as I think I. I emphasise 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 ensure that they can identify and challenge mis and disinformation.

Media literacy will be embedded in the new primary citizenship curriculum and strengthened across relevant subjects. Recent updates to relationships, sex and health education guidance now 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 actually be used in schools from this September September 2026. Turning to motion a two proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. This amends 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 Lady for her continued commitment to children's safety and rights, and the government shares her desire to ensure children can have safe and age appropriate experiences online. The noble Ladies Amendment actually highlights many of the areas which the government has sought views on through its 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 which would pre-empt the consultations outcomes while supporting the noble Lady's aim to support children's
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page