Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.