Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind words and for the statement. I thank the Government for their active engagement in the matter of social media, albeit rather last-minute, and for making a binding commitment to impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16, to be focused on addictive features, harmful, algorithmic-driven content, and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy and have led to so much harm and a number of deaths.

This is very welcome to the millions of parents, voters, teachers, health professionals and others who have been asking for it, and it is exactly what my amendment would have achieved. I would just ask the Government to get these lines to all Ministers, so that when they are on the airwaves, they stick to them, rather than giving long and rather confusing answers—because it is to this statement that we will be holding the Government to account to deliver on as soon as possible.

I thank all noble Peers from across the House who supported my amendment, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger, Lady Benjamin and Lady Cass, who put their names to it originally. I also very much thank my team, Ben and Molly Kingsley of Safe Screens, Bella Skinner and Becky Foljambe of Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Simon Bailey and Ed Oldfield. I also thank Annabelle Eyre and Henry Mitson, who have advised me on the process. Having taken five Acts through your Lordships’ House as a Minister, I have discovered how different the gamekeeper-turned-poacher process is. I also thank Susannah Street and Connie Walsh in the Public Bill Office for being so available to help me navigate the intricacies of the amendment process.

Above all, I thank the 27 bereaved parents who have campaigned so tirelessly alongside me, particularly Ellen Roome. They did not have to do this; they did it so that no other family would have to live through what they have lived through, and they have ensured that, as a result, every child in the country will be safer because of their work, and I thank them for it. I do hope that the Prime Minister will meet with them, as they have requested, very soon.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I share the noble Lord’s concern about timescale. I see no reason why the Government cannot act faster than the longstop they have allowed for, and I understand and have heard their statement that they intend to do so. I also share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about Ofcom. Having met recently with Ofcom and heard the long-winded and convoluted process it has to go through before it can stick anything on the social media companies, I was confirmed—if I needed any confirmation—in my view that we have to put the onus on the companies to get their houses in order by restricting children’s access to harmful features, rather than hoping we can regulate our way out of this problem.

However, we need to improve substantially the Online Safety Act and to strengthen Ofcom’s ability—and, if I might say so, its capacity and boldness. It is disappointing that the rumour is there will be nothing in the King’s Speech which would enable us to do this. I hope we can live together to fight this battle another time, but so far as this Bill is concerned, I feel the moment has passed.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for listening to the voices of concern, including those of the bereaved parents, for our children’s safety to be at the forefront of all our minds.

As we move forward to the next steps, it might be a bit late in the day to make this suggestion, but I have an idea to throw into the mix. It may sound radical, but it is for the tech companies and IT platforms to require a licence from Ofcom to operate in this country. It may sound like a crazy idea, but radio and TV companies need a licence, so why not tech companies and social media platforms? If they do not comply then their licence will be taken away from them or they will be fined huge sums. This is one way to get them to be focused. Are we bold or intrepid enough to do this? It could be the answer to keeping them focused and to keeping our children safe. Age assurance is the key which they need to operate to keep our children safe. As we move forward, I hope that everyone will make it their responsibility to do just that, in every way possible. Ofcom is vital to all this. I look forward to working with the Government on this important issue and to us keeping the focus of our minds on our children’s safety, happiness and contentment for the future.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, here we are again. It feels a bit like doomscrolling to keep returning to this subject. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and all those who have supported him for pushing water uphill successfully, defying gravity. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for appropriating, with her permission, the Motion moved yesterday by my noble friend Lady Kidron.

I thank the Minister for having moved. However, I take issue with her description of where we are today as a “landing point”. Rather than us being at a landing point, I hope that we all feel that we are at a launching point, because we need to go a great deal further. One of the things that one has learned throughout this process is that there is a body of knowledge on this issue among some people in both Houses of Parliament that is quite considerable. There is a very high level of knowledge of some of the issues, some of the potential solutions and the faults with some of those potential solutions. There is no perfect answer.

For many of us who have been quite closely involved with the genesis of the Online Safety Act and what has happened thereafter, there has been an apparent lack of interest and engagement from some in the current Government and the departments involved to co-operate and collaborate with those Members of both Houses who have extensive knowledge and to tap into that knowledge. There is a loose collection of those involved in this. We are called the “tech team”—a nice tautology. The members of that team want to help the Government and be behind or alongside them. We do not wish to be constantly harrying the Government and encouraging them to do more. Yesterday I was wearing a tie which had some acrobatic, leaping elephants, because it required a level of noise and drumbeats to get the Government’s attention. Today, I am wearing a tie which has a series of sheep jumping over a hurdle, because those of us on the tech team need to summon our inner sheepdogs to manoeuvre the Government in the right direction.

Motion A1 is not, as the Minister said, about creating restraint on the Government. It is about creating focus. What is contained in Motion A1 is a very clear description of what can and should be done at speed, without restraint, to get the ball rolling. I do not think that anything that comes out of the consultation will tell us anything that we did not know. If anything, it may get slightly more confusing because I suspect that it will be quite unfocused. I appeal to the Government to listen to those involved in this who perhaps have the most history, the most bruises, the most insight and the most knowledge about what is going on internationally, not just in this country, to work together for the benefit of children.

I will support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if he decides to test the opinion of the House—more in hope than in expectation of a great victory. However, I appeal to the Government to listen and to work with us and not, as it occasionally feels, against us.