Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

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.