Last-Minute Powers

Powers being granted

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is in the final stages before becoming law – known as Ping Pong. Amendments added at this point are not scrutinised in the same way.

“Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services”

New clause LA37 added by Government in Ping Pong
House of Commons: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill,(Motions relating to Lords Amendments)

The first part of the new clause (read in full)

The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring
providers of specified internet services—

(a) to prevent access by children of or under a specified age to
specified internet services which they provide, or to specified
features or functionalities of such services;
(b) to restrict access by children of or under a specified age to
specified internet services which they provide, or to specified
features or functionalities of such services.

“the power would allow Ministers to require providers of internet services to impose restrictions on any “specified internet service” for children under a “specified age”.

This could extend far beyond social media. In theory, it would allow restrictions on any designated website or category of websites, as well as services such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) or AI tools. The amendment provides no detail about the types of restrictions that could be imposed.”

Bulletin 9 March 2026
Hansard Society

“Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services”

“Article 8ZA Child’s consent in relation to information society services: age verification”

New clauses added by Government in Ping Pong
House of Commons: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill,(Motions relating to Lords Amendments)

Analysis from Defend Digital Me
Leading children’s privacy and data protection experts Defend Digital Me sound the alarm that a last-minute government amendment to the Children’s Bill – framed as raising the digital age of consent for children – actually undermines core data protection principles and will mean more data will be processed.
While raising the age of consent sounds reasonable and like it protects children, in fact this amendment will expand the amount of data collected. From more parents, across more years, for a far wider range of services.
Consent must be freely given to process data. Instead this amendment will result in mandatory identity and age verification and linking of parent and children’s personal data.

“This approach risks undermining core data-protection principles. Consent must be freely given, informed and unbundled from access to a service. If identity or age verification becomes a mandatory condition of access, consent cannot be freely given.”

Defend Digital Me: Scrap the UK Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 

Democracy Fail!

Henry VIII powers
Powers are very broad, instead of detail they grant the Minister for Department for Science, Innovation and Technology powers to use guidance. There is much less Parliamentary oversight over this. These powers are granted for the current minister and any future minister.  

Added in at late stage
Raise parliamentary questions about safeguards, clarity
of definitions, and the impact on disabled children and
their families.

Seek assurances that home visits will be carried out sensitively, by specialists trained in SEND and
trauma-informed practice.

Push for transparency around the new data sharing
powers, to ensure children’s rights to privacy and family life
are not undermined.

Work closely with local authorities, encouraging them to adopt supportive rather than punitive approaches when the
Bill comes into force.

“The proposed provision therefore embodies two undesirable legislative practices.

First, it introduces an extensive new power at the final stage of the Bill’s parliamentary passage, when opportunities for debate and amendment are already constrained.

Secondly, when Ministers come to exercise that power, the resulting Statutory Instrument would itself be subject to limited scrutiny and could not be amended by Parliament.”

Bulletin 9 March 2026
Hansard Society

“It is also a misuse of the legislative process after the Bill scrutiny and devolved nations’ approval have already been passed. The detail “to be specified” in secondary regulations, can only be accepted or rejected not amended, giving any government of the day unprecedented powers.”

Defend Digital Me: Scrap the UK Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 

Children’s Right to Be Heard?

As with other parts of the Bill – notably Clause 4 duties to share information and to use a consistent identifier – the Government intends to consult only AFTER the powers have been granted.

“Article 12 of the UNCRC – the right of the child to be heard – is at the core of the work of the Foundation. It is deeply concerning that this legislation repeatedly disregards the right of the child to be heard in matters impacting them.”

The Victoria Climbié Foundation UK

Reality of age gating

Discussion around restricting children’s access to the internet, whether to social media or more widely, has focused on the harms. However it often fails to address the dangers of the proposed solution or of the impact on children’s rights.

Open letter from hundreds of privacy and computer security scientists

An open letter signed by over 400 of the world’s leading experts addresses the impact on privacy and increased risks for children as a result including being LESS safe online. They call for a moratorium until the risks can be understood.

“Lack of understanding of harms. The public discourse assumes that age-based access control to online services will greatly increase the safety of minors online. Yet, there is no discussion on the harms that such controls could cause to both minors and adults.“

“Two critical issues have not been addressed: whether age assurance is efficacious and what the potential damages to general security and privacy are.

We believe that it is dangerous and socially unacceptable to introduce a large-scale access control mechanism without a clear understanding of the implications that different design decisions can have on security, privacy, equality,and ultimately on the freedom of decision and autonomy of individuals and nations.”

Joint statement of security and privacy scientists and researchers on Age Assurance

Impact on children’s rights

There are dangers for children in digital spaces but access to it is also vital. It is deeply concerning that the Government intends to grant the powers before there has been any consideration of the impact on children’s human rights.

The Government is asking for sweeping powers first BEFORE explaining how measures could possibly be compatible with human rights under the Convention. 

“If DSIT Secretary of State decides they wish to exercise this power, then they will consider carefully how to ensure that any regulations do not unlawfully interfere with the ECHR rights which are engaged. The Secretary of State is required under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act in a way which is compatible with ECHR rights.“

Department for Education: CHILDREN’S WELLBEING AND SCHOOLS BILL
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS SUPPLEMENTARY
MEMORANDUM

“Keeping children safe online is a goal we all share. But we shouldn’t have to give up our privacy to achieve it. If we let this ban set the precedent, we risk creating a digital world where surveillance is the norm and we trade privacy for participation. That’s not the digital world that I want for my kids – or for any of us.“

Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner
Australian Human Rights Commission: Keeping kids safe shouldn’t mean a loss of privacy for everyone

 

What MPs would like to ban

There was only a brief debate about handing the DSIT Secretary of State the powers to ban children from any part of the internet.

Only one MP – Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrats) – addressed the dangers of granting Ministers sweeping open-ended Henry VIII powers. Only one MP – Toby Perkins (Labour) addressed the balance of parents v State in decisions about the raising of children.

There was wide-spread support from cross party MPs for banning a wide range of things.

“The [shadow Secretary of State] believes that she is far better placed, as are many Members in the House of Lords who do not know how to take a photo on their phone, to tell people how to parent their children.

Does she acknowledge that many parents recognise that their children have positive experiences on social media?”

Toby Perkins MP (Labour)

“This is a safeguarding issue, and we have always taken steps when it comes to safeguarding young people.“

Laura Trott MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Education (Conservative)

 “I feel very strongly that self-published is inappropriate for under-16s. I do not think that content that is not regulated, that has not gone through any supervision and that has no legislative or regulatory framework surrounding it should be allowed to be fed to our children in any way.“

Lola McEvoy MP (Labour)

“There is no way that children under 16 should be able to contact or be contacted by strangers of any kind—end of. We would not allow it in the real world, and we should not allow it online.“

Lola McEvoy MP (Labour)

“This is not about the ability of parents; it is about recognising that social media platforms are being weaponised by algorithms—let alone by hostile states—to make children addicted to them. 

It is impossible for parents to protect their children who do not have the critical thinking skills before 16. Having worked in counter-terrorism, I know that it is critical thinking that stops people from getting on planes to blow themselves up in foreign countries.

The No. 2 cause of stroke in women under 40 is being strangled during sex. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is because they have been told on the internet that they can be safely strangled? They cannot. We have to protect our children, because it is impossible for them to police things or have the critical thinking skills to protect themselves when they are on the internet.“

Alicia Kearns MP (Labour) 

“I have heard Ministers argue that vulnerable children or children who are isolated need to find their community online, and I want to put that argument to rest once and for all. All the evidence shows that these children are the most likely to be exploited, groomed and harmed by social media. If a child is scared or isolated, the last thing we should do is put them on social media. It is a terrible argument, and I hope it is not repeated today.”  

Laura Trott MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Education (Conservative)

“I appreciate that we do need to pick an age, but I feel very strongly that there are dangers that young people and children are coming to at their own hand, and that they make mistakes of which they would not want to leave a footprint—a permanent record—for the rest of their lives. It is inappropriate risk tolerance that I do not think we should have.“

Lola McEvoy MP (Labour)

“If we ban YouTube, what happens if a kid wanders into a room and watches YouTube that is playing on the TV via the PlayStation? Who is responsible for that?”

“I have spoken to DSIT officials and as many people as I possibly can about this. I am very glad about some of the changes that the Government are bringing forward—for example, to ensure that livestreaming cannot be accessed by young people.“

Kirsty Blackman MP (SNP)