The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill assembles a mix of long‑running school‑policy measures and new child‑safety powers for the digital age. Key elements in the Lords amendments (some disagreed by the Commons) range from tightened sign‑off for ending child protection plans for under‑5s, requirements for multi‑agency pilots to be evaluated before certain provisions commence, and proposed duties on schools around allergies, uniforms and smartphone use.
The Lords also sought to add fresh online powers — a blanket prohibition on VPNs for children and mandates that regulated social platforms and internet service providers (ISPs) put robust age‑assurance and access‑restriction systems in place.
Why it matters: the Bill gives ministers and regulators wide-ranging discretion to shape how children access digital services and places new operational and financial requirements on local authorities, schools, health bodies and online companies. Several Lords measures would have imposed new statutory duties; the Commons either rejected them or offered alternative regulatory powers that vest decision‑making with the Secretary of State and OFCOM, raising practical and legal questions about enforcement, privacy and proportionality for industry and public services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Bill (as amended in the Lords and then subject to Commons disagreement) would: allow the Secretary of State to require ISPs and specified services to restrict or limit children’s access to online services and features; permit the Secretary of State to change the age for digital consent under the retained GDPR regime (subject to parliamentary approval) and to require age verification; and contains several Lords proposals imposing school policies (allergy plans, smartphone bans, uniform price limits) and child-protection sign‑offs that the Commons mostly rejected or replaced.
Who It Affects
Schools and school leaders (policies on uniforms, allergies, smartphones and admissions), local authorities and Directors of Children’s Services (child protection sign‑offs, multi‑agency teams), online platforms, ISPs and VPN providers (age assurance, access restrictions), and regulators (OFCOM and the Secretary of State) who would be tasked with research, rule‑making and enforcement.
Why It Matters
This Bill is notable for transferring discrete but powerful rule‑making capabilities to ministers and OFCOM over how children access digital services and for attempting to graft online‑safety enforcement onto school and children’s services policy. Compliance officers, school finance leads, ISPs and platform legal teams should watch the Bill for broad delegated powers, affirmative parliamentary procedures on key points, and possible new operational and cost burdens.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Lords inserted a range of child‑safety and school‑focused measures into the Bill. Several would impose operational duties on public bodies and private providers — from requiring a senior sign‑off when child protection plans for under‑5s end, to mandating school allergy policies and on‑site adrenaline auto‑injectors, to banning pupils’ smartphones during the school day.
The Commons, in the text before us, mostly disagreed with those Lords insertions citing existing guidance or cost implications, and in some cases offered alternative, broader regulatory powers rather than the specific operational mandates the Lords proposed.
On online safety, the Lords sought two major interventions. First, a clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations within 12 months to prohibit the provision of commercial VPN services to children in the UK (including duties to require highly effective age assurance and to provide for monitoring and enforcement).
Second, a clause directing the UK Chief Medical Officers to publish advice for parents and requiring regulated user‑to‑user services to use highly effective age assurance so children under 16 cannot be users. The Commons disagreed to those Lords amendments but tabled amendments in lieu that take a different approach: they add to the Online Safety Act 2023 a new statutory power allowing the Secretary of State to require ISPs to restrict access by children to specified internet services or features (including limiting time of use), and separately propose power to amend the retained GDPR Article 8 age threshold (between 13 and 16) with affirmative parliamentary procedure and to make age‑verification rules for information society services.Procedurally, the Commons’ in‑lieu approach favours wide delegated powers and regulatory mechanisms governed by OFCOM and by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for sensitive changes (for example any change to the digital age of consent).
Practically, that means ministers could set technical standards, carve out exceptions, and specify enforcement as ‘enforceable requirements’ under the Online Safety Act, while OFCOM would be asked to carry out research and provide advice to underpin regulations. The text leaves many substantive details to secondary legislation and regulator guidance — for example the definition of “specified internet services,” the age thresholds by service, and the technical means of reliable age verification.Other Lords proposals — such as statutory reviews of adoption support funding, requiring joint health‑funding arrangements for certain looked‑after children, and tightening the tests an adjudicator must apply before reducing a school’s published admission number — were all met with Commons disagreement on grounds ranging from cost to perceived redundancy with existing guidance or frameworks.
Where the Commons rejected a specific operational mandate (for example mandatory school policies on allergies or smartphone bans) it often relied on existing statutory guidance or said the measure would create charges on public funds.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Bill (via new section 214A inserted into the Online Safety Act 2023) would let the Secretary of State by regulation require ISPs to prevent or restrict access by children to specified internet services or features, including limiting daily time and times of day.
A government amendment would allow the Secretary of State to change the retained GDPR Article 8 age of digital consent between 13 and 16 and to make regulations requiring age‑verification measures for information‑society services — both subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
The Lords proposed a categorical prohibition on commercial VPN services for any child in the UK, including mandatory age assurance and statutory enforcement; the Commons disagreed and instead drafted broader ISP‑restriction powers in lieu.
Lords amendments would have required schools in England to adopt allergy/anaphylaxis policies, hold in‑date adrenaline auto‑injectors and train staff, and to have policies banning smartphones during the school day; the Commons rejected these as either costly or unnecessary given existing guidance.
Several Lords amendments sought tighter statutory controls on local‑authority practice (senior sign‑off before ending child protection plans for under‑5s, and delaying parts of the Families First rollout until pathfinder evaluation); the Commons argued that existing guidance or ongoing reviews make those statutory hooks unnecessary.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Senior sign‑off for ending child protection plans for under‑5s
The Lords inserted a clause requiring any cessation of child protection plans for children under five to be signed off by the Director of Children’s Services or the Head of Social Work Practice. Mechanically that elevates the decision to a named senior official and creates an auditable sign‑off point. The Commons rejected this amendment arguing existing statutory guidance already governs ending plans and that multi‑agency decision‑making is being strengthened through other routes; the practical effect of rejection is to keep the policy in guidance rather than statute, which preserves local discretion but reduces a uniform national standard for sign‑off and inspection.
Delayed commencement unless Families First pathfinder is evaluated
The Lords sought to suspend parts of Clause 3 until the Secretary of State publishes a report assessing Families First pathfinders against specific child‑protection objectives and lays it before Parliament, with commencement regulations only after that report and with affirmative resolution. That mechanism would have made implementation contingent on empirical findings and parliamentary approval. The Commons disagreed, saying the government’s own learning will inform regulations and that a statutory delay would unnecessarily slow multi‑agency child‑protection team creation; in practice this leaves the government freer to commence provisions on its timetable and to use non‑statutory evaluations to guide implementation.
Adoption support review and sibling contact amendment
The Lords proposed a one‑month statutory review of per‑child funding from the adoption and special guardianship support fund, and a targeted change to care‑plan regulations to emphasise promoting contact between siblings not living together. The Commons rejected both, citing an ongoing public consultation on support services and the view that the sibling wording would not change core local authority duties. The takeaway is that funding and sibling‑contact policy remain matters for departmental guidance and existing regulations rather than new statutory review obligations.
Joint funding duty for health authorities when arranging accommodation
Lords amendment 21 would have required specified health bodies (NHS England, integrated care boards, trusts and the Secretary of State in certain functions) to make joint funding arrangements for children’s accommodation in particular circumstances. The Commons disagreed on grounds that it would alter the financial arrangements established by the Commons, leaving the existing financial framework intact. If reinstated, the amendment would redistribute funding responsibilities across NHS entities and central government; as rejected, funding responsibilities remain as set elsewhere in statute or guidance.
Online controls: VPN prohibition, social‑media age limits, ISP powers and age‑verification
The Lords inserted two complementary internet‑focused clauses: one commanded regulations to prohibit provision of commercial VPNs to UK children (including compulsory age assurance and enforcement), and the other required UK CMOs to publish social‑media guidance for parents and required regulated user‑to‑user services to block under‑16s through highly effective age assurance. The Commons disagreed to those specific prohibitions but tabled in‑lieu amendments that create broader delegated powers: a new section 214A in the Online Safety Act would let the Secretary of State require ISPs to restrict access by children to specified services or features (including time limits), and separate amendments would let ministers change the domestic digital‑consent age (Article 8) between 13 and 16 and require regulations to verify age for information society services. Those in‑lieu clauses concentrate decision‑making power in regulations (often subject to the affirmative procedure) and instruct OFCOM to assist with research and guidance, but leave technical standards and definitions to secondary legislation.
Uniform cost cap and broader background checks
The Lords introduced a proposed monetary cap on branded uniform items that schools can require pupils to buy, with the Secretary of State to set separate amounts for primary and secondary pupils via affirmative regulations. They also sought to broaden checks/disclosure points in Clause 30 to capture histories of section 31, section 17 services and section 47 enquiries. The Commons opposed the uniform cap as potentially counterproductive, and rejected the expansion of checks citing public‑fund cost implications. The effect of the Commons’ response is to retain existing statutory contours for school uniform policy and safeguarding disclosure obligations while signalling Parliament’s sensitivity to fiscal and operational consequences.
Admissions adjudicator tests, allergy duties, and smartphone bans
The Lords sought limits on the adjudicator’s power to reduce a school’s published admission number by adding necessity, proportionality and educational quality tests, and to require the adjudicator to consider reorganisation alternatives. Separately, they proposed mandatory school allergy/anaphylaxis policies with auto‑injector stock and staff training, and a statutory prohibition on pupils’ possession/use of smartphones during the school day (with limited exemptions). The Commons disagreed to all three amendments, primarily on grounds that the adjudicator’s remit is already framed by regulations and statutory guidance and that allergy and phone policies are matters for guidance rather than new statutory obligations that would entail public expenditure.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children and parents concerned about online harms — the Bill’s online provisions (if implemented) create statutory routes for the government to restrict children’s access to risky services, require age‑assurance and let regulators demand limits on time or features aimed at children.
- Regulators (OFCOM) — the Bill explicitly tasks OFCOM with research and advisory duties, increasing its central role in setting technical standards and enforcement guidance for age verification and child‑targeted access restrictions.
- Schools and inspectors seeking clarity about school organisation decisions — Lords amendments attempted to tighten tests for admission‑number reductions and promote consistent policies (e.g., allergy plans), which, if adopted, would have created clearer statutory expectations for school governance.
Who Bears the Cost
- ISPs, platforms and VPN providers — the proposed new powers would require technical age‑verification systems, access‑restriction mechanisms and ongoing compliance monitoring, imposing development, operational and legal‑compliance costs.
- Schools and local authorities — while many Lords operational mandates were rejected by the Commons, any future statutory duties (e.g., stocking auto‑injectors, training staff, or enforcing phone bans) would impose procurement, training and administrative costs, and could increase safeguarding liabilities.
- Central government and regulators — requiring OFCOM research, developing technical standards, and enforcing new online restrictions would demand civil service and regulator resources; affirmative regulations on sensitive matters also increase parliamentary workload.
- Children’s services budgets and health commissioners — the Lords’ proposed joint health‑funding duties for certain accommodated children (rejected by the Commons) would have altered commissioning and budgetary responsibility, and elements that remain in guidance could still shift costs to local budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The Bill attempts to protect children by giving ministers and regulators wide delegated powers to control online access and to prescribe safety practices, but doing so risks concentrating difficult technical and value judgments in secondary legislation — creating trade‑offs between swift, uniform action to reduce harm and the need for transparent, proportionate, privacy‑protecting rules that are technically enforceable and fiscally sustainable.
The Bill mixes policy prescription with broad delegated powers, and that combination creates practical and legal frictions. Many of the most technically demanding proposals — effective age verification, time‑based access limits, and a potential ban on commercial VPNs for children — are left to regulations and regulator guidance.
That raises immediate questions about feasibility: robust age verification that respects privacy, avoids discrimination, and cannot be easily circumvented is technologically and legally difficult; mandating it without precise technical standards risks inconsistent or legally vulnerable implementation. Equally, giving the Secretary of State power to alter the domestic age of digital consent (a retained‑law version of GDPR Article 8) shifts a normative judgment about children’s digital autonomy from Parliament into delegated instruments, albeit with an affirmative procedure for the most sensitive changes.
Another tension is fiscal: Lords’ operational prescriptions for schools and local authorities (allergy stock, staff training, mandatory policies, and expanded disclosure checks) carry recurrent costs. The Commons repeatedly invoked cost or existing guidance to resist these measures.
The net effect is procedural uncertainty for practitioners: policy aims are clear, but whether duties will appear in statute, guidance, or regulation — and who pays — remains unsettled. Finally, enforcement against online circumvention (VPNs, age‑false attestations, device sharing) pits effective child protection against risks to digital privacy, potential overreach on adults’ internet access, and cross‑border enforcement limits.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.