Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 92, 93 and 94A, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Cass, Lady Benjamin and Lady Berger. As this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I should draw attention to my registered interests, particularly the fact that I am chair of a multi- academy trust and an investor in a number of companies, including tech and software companies.

I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 94A would raise the age limit for access to social media to 16. In fact, this amendment would do rather more than that; it would do five things. First, it would raise the age limit. Secondly, it would require social media companies to put in place highly effective age assurance—currently, many, if not most, social media companies have no really effective age assurance at 13. Thirdly, the amendment would direct the Chief Medical Officer to prepare and publish advice to parents and carers on the use of social media by children—so, if you like, the start of a public awareness campaign. Fourthly, the amendment would send a message that draws a line in the sand for parents, carers and others to use when discussing social media with children, which they are crying out for. Fifthly, it would allow 12 months for implementation.

We have reached an inflection point. We face nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media. Many teenagers are spending long hours—five, six, seven or more a day—on social media. The evidence of the damage this is causing is now overwhelming. We have long passed the point of correlation or causation. There is now so much evidence from across the world that it is clear that, by every metric—health, cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime and economic productivity—children are being harmed. I have sent noble Lords an evidence document prepared by health professionals which sets out over 50 studies from around the world showing a clear link between excessive use of social media and harm to our children. Jonathan Haidt now calls this a “mountain of evidence”.

We are facing a health emergency confronting our children. Since 2016, there has been a 477% increase in children’s contact with mental health services, and eating disorders among 17 to 19 year-olds have risen sixteenfold. There has been a sevenfold rise in young girls admitted to hospital with eating disorders, and the evidence is clear that there is a strong link between this and the substantial increase in rates of ADHD, suicide, depression, anxiety and self-harm among teenagers with overexposure to social media.

Our teachers say that it is the number one cause of disruptive behaviour, and, in their view, it will be the biggest source of pressure for students in the future. Our children are turning up at school sleep deprived. It is clear that many are going to sleep in the small hours on many nights of the week. The NEU and NASUWT are in favour of raising the age limit to 16, as is the chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver.

Social media is at the centre of county lines and radicalisation, so much so that, in 2025, the heads of MI5, Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Crime Agency issued a summer holiday warning urging parents to keep their children safe online. More young people than ever have been arrested in recent years for terrorism offences. Children are increasingly seeing real-life violent content, which only 6% of them initially look for. The evidence is clear that people who watch or discuss violent images are, unsurprisingly, much more likely to commit crime, including knife crime.

I know that some are concerned that a 16 age limit would be to the detriment of particular groups of often vulnerable children, but it is the most vulnerable children who are the most susceptible to influence by social media. The police who specialise in child sexual abuse material and radicalisation say that it is precisely the help forums for groups such as LGBTQ+, those with eating disorders, those with ADHD, et cetera, where the worst abusers hang out and target children.

Social media is being used extensively for sextortion. There are even widespread cases of children hosting live sex shows for payment from their bedrooms on social media. So-called com groups are using social media to trap vulnerable children in games such as cutting games, where the person who cuts the deepest wins; choking games, which have proved fatal; or even games which encourage rape or suicide. One survivor attested to having seen multiple suicides.

Polling demonstrates overwhelming support. The vast majority of parents—75% of adults, including 75% of Labour voters—support raising the minimum age to 16. Most strikingly, young people themselves recognise the harm: 78% of Gen Z say they would try to delay their child using social media for as long as possible. Polling published today shows that 60% of 16 to 24 year-olds—those who have most recently had the experience of social media as teenagers—support a 16 age limit. Over half of 13 to 24 year-olds say that social media is fairly or completely responsible for increasing misogyny or violence against women and girls.

There is global momentum for this. Australia has raised the age limit to 16 and Malaysia is doing so. Many other countries, including Denmark, France, Norway and New Zealand, are considering restrictions. In November, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly for 16. Why 16? Because the teenage years between 13 and 15 are when teenagers are the most vulnerable to influence and have a very high risk profile. Some people call this a cliff edge. I do not see that. The amendment seeks merely to give teenagers a few more years to mature so that they can deal more effectively with social media, distinguish fact from fiction and exercise better judgment.

I know that some charities, including those involving bereaved parents, would like to see an approach which favours using the Online Safety Act and Ofcom more effectively. While we must try to improve Ofcom’s approach, the OSA catches harmful content only once it has been seen, often by children. With 70 million child sexual abuse images out there—and more being created every minute—beheading videos, et cetera, there is no way, even with the best will in the world, that all this content can be taken down and taken down fast enough. Our children will see it. We just want them to see it at a later age.

Nine bereaved families, many of whom are here today, wrote to the Prime Minister on Monday in support of my amendment. Of course, this approach would not deal with the grooming of children on social media channels. Others have proposed that we wait to see what happens in Australia, but what are we waiting for? We know our children are being harmed. We know that tech companies can put in place highly effective age assurance. That is what they are doing in Australia, with a high degree of accuracy—well above 90% at the initial age gate. By tracking the traffic and activity on social media, which they do for all of us, they can tell when a child has slipped through the net. There is a myth that children will get round age assurance, but that has grown up because hitherto there has been no generally effective age assurance at 13. There is concern that children will move to other sites. My Amendment 94A allows for these to be brought into scope. It also allows 12 months for implementation —plenty of time to learn from Australia.

This is going to happen. The only question is when. We have the opportunity to do it now, in this Bill. With every day that passes, more damage is being done to children. We must act now.

I turn to the Liberal Democrat amendments: Amendments 108, 94B and 94C. Well intentioned though they may be, they have been rushed out at the last minute. Surprisingly, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, has just said, they bring into scope Wikipedia, WhatsApp, Tripadvisor, all gaming apps, and many special interest and health forums, with no ability to exclude them; whereas my Amendment 94A has that facility, which would almost certainly be used. Amendment 108 has no enforcement mechanism if social media companies do not comply with the 16 year- old age limit.

Amendments 108, 94B and 94C seek to avoid scrutiny by your Lordships’ House and the other place on which apps are in or out and seek to delegate this function to Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner, apparently sometimes acting jointly—I do not quite know how that would work—and acting on the basis of vague criteria, creating a huge amount of work for an already overworked body and massive scope for litigation. My Amendment 94A leaves that scrutiny firmly with Parliament. As well intentioned as these amendments might be, they are fundamentally flawed and, therefore, if they are sent back to the other place, as opposed to my Amendment 94A, it will be easy for the Government to knock them out on those grounds. My Amendment 94A has been well thought through and subject to scrutiny in Committee.

I turn to the Government’s proposal for a consultation, which they tell me will last for three months or so. First, the announcement of it on the eve of the vote is unfortunate. When will the actions arising from this consultation be published? We are still waiting for those in relation to the consultation on gender identity in schools nearly two years after the consultation closed —and that issue, complicated though it is, does not involve technology or multibillion-pound tech companies with all the lobbying at their disposal. The consultation talks about exploring ways to improve assessing age assurance. As I have already said, highly effective age assurance already exists. The Government are well behind the A ball. They want to assess the current age of digital consent. This is in fact only one means, and not the most usual means, by which social media companies lawfully collect personal data. Again, the Government are behind the A ball. They want to explore further intervention to support parents. Parents are arguing with their children daily about screen and social media time. They want a line in the sand now. The Government’s consultation is, in my view, unnecessary, misconceived and clearly a last-minute attempt to kick the can down the road.

My Amendment 92 seeks to raise the age of access to VPNs to 18, as it is clear that some children are using VPNs to get round age restrictions for gambling and pornography and might well use them for social media, so it is closely linked to Amendment 94A. On Amendment 93, I have had a constructive discussion with Ministers on this issue and more discussions are in progress, so I will not push that to a vote today. I urge noble Lords to vote for my Amendment 94A on social media and Amendment 92 on VPNs.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. When I was president of the paediatric college, an important part of my job was urging Government Ministers that protecting and investing in children is the only way to protect the future of our country because, as I believe I have said before in this House, children are 25% of our population and 100% of our future. If we fail to protect them, it is not just a moral issue but a financial disaster.

There are two questions we need to ask ourselves when we think about how social media is impacting our youth. First, are they at risk? Secondly, how do we eliminate, or at least minimise, that risk? With regard to younger children, I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and I too welcome the planned guidance. I ask the Government to give careful thought to that guidance particularly in relation to vulnerable and disabled children. They may be more limited in their abilities for alternative physical activities so screen time is, understandably, an easier default, and advice for those families is particularly important. It is also important to think about how to reach those harder to reach families or marginalised families who may not easily access the guidance. A final thing I would say, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about who will be in the group, is that the input of speech and language therapists will be particularly important, given their obvious involvement in early language development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I have followed these issues closely through my work on the Online Safety Act, first as a member of the Joint Committee, then on the Opposition Front Bench and now on your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee. I added my name to Amendment 91 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and I am delighted that that Government are listening and hope that Ministers can give the noble Baroness the reassurances that she seeks.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, I first thank him for raising these important issues and detailing the harms so compellingly. The harms caused by social media are clear, both in terms of the harmful content and that they are addictive by design. The algorithms operate in a moral vacuum; platforms’ algorithms do whatever it takes to keep us on screen. I am attracted to the Government’s proposal in the consultation around banning addictive design rather than a blanket age ban. That could see a huge reduction in harm for all of us, as today’s University of Sussex research about doomscrolling demonstrates.

However, it is our children whom we most want to protect. My 14 year-old at home is time-limited on her phone; she is not allowed her phone in her room overnight and is limited to two social media accounts. This is difficult to parent, but it is our responsibility as parents to navigate it with our children. Incidentally, the two social media accounts she chooses are WhatsApp and Pinterest. Both are allowed under the Australian social media ban. One keeps her connected to family and friends, and the other she needs for her GCSE art. Under Amendment 94A, on my reading of it, it seems pretty categorical that it would include all social media platforms and she would be banned from both.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I am interested to hear from a Labour politician, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that there are parents who can control their kids, but it is the most vulnerable kids and the least advantaged kids who live in households in which there is no discipline who are the most exposed.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I debate with great respect and friendship. My reading of

“regulations made by statutory instruments require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly effective age-assurance measure to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users”

is that this is categorical.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, is that it would be up to the Government, approved by this House and the other place, which apps are in and out. Clearly, it would be possible for those apps suitable for children to be excluded, as would WhatsApp and Wikipedia. The Lib Dems have drafted their amendment in such a way that it would include everybody, and it would be up to this very complicated procedure with Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner to work this out—which, frankly, would be a nightmare.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I will move on. I will try harder to read further to get to the same place as the noble Lord, Lord Nash—but I doubt it.

Pinterest was implicated in the suicide completed by Molly Russell. Molly’s father, Ian, is thoughtful, brave and inspiring. I listened to him talk on the BBC this week about why he and countless other expert children’s charities are against a blanket ban on social media for under-16s. They worry about the unintended consequences for children’s safety. A blanket ban is likely to lead to under-16s finding less regulated platforms to connect to online, such as gaming platforms or the dark web. It is worth noting that according to recent Internet Matters research, boys spend significantly more time on gaming platforms than on social media platforms.

Children may also turn to VPNs, which would then undermine the child safety gains of the Online Safety Act. The VPN amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tries to address this, but age-gating VPNs may be extremely problematic. My phone uses a VPN, following a personal device cyber consultation offered by this Parliament. VPNs can make us more secure, and we should not rush to deprive children of that safety. A blunt, blanket ban—it is a struggle not to call it a Blunkett ban—would also deny young people the positives of some of the less addictive social media.

Young people will continue to want to connect with each other. They will want to share music, their photos and videos, and their creative content. I was of the mixtape generation, now replaced by the shareable playlist. Young entrepreneurs will want to market their products: will they have to use an adults account on an adult’s phone, and be exposed to the risks of adult content as a result?

When I speak to young people in my capacity as president of Young Citizens, I am struck by how well informed they are. They find out what is going on in the world through social media. Is it right that we lower the voting age to 16 and simultaneously prevent access to news for 15 year-olds when we want them to become well informed?

The arguments for doing something urgent and meaningful about the dangers to children of social media are compelling, but so are the arguments for doing it in a more sophisticated way. For that reason, we should back the Government’s consultation. I note that this is a three-month consultation. Can the Minister please reassure us that action will follow within the 12-month timeline suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash?

We should at the same time urgently review how the Online Safety Act is working. We need to retain the risk-based approach to regulation in the Act. But Ofcom’s current stance of treating all children, all the way to 18, as the same is flawed. We need age-appropriate design, and we should give Ofcom the unambiguous requirement to ensure that age restrictions and guidance about social media access are rigorously enforced. This in turn requires mandated, robust age assurance. We must develop this, sensitive to the digital rights of children and mindful that we do not want unwittingly to require big tech to hold sensitive data about our children. I also echo Ian Russell’s call for us to listen to children and young people as we make these changes. That is one of the really good reasons why we should go ahead with a consultation.

I conclude by urging Ministers to act swiftly and to listen to parliamentarians, but also to experts and young people, and then to act robustly, platform by platform, to deliver the ambition of the Online Safety Act to make this country the safest place in the world for children to grow up.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 108 offers a framework that commands broad support from numerous child safety experts. It is evidence-based and built to last, to keep our children safe online. The technology will continue to evolve and new platforms will emerge, but the principles at the heart of this amendment will endure: that we assess risk based on evidence of harm; that we hold platforms to account; and that we protect our children, while preserving their access to the beneficial aspects of the digital world. Amendment 108 would provide a solution that I believe would be more effective. A blanket ban may be the simple option and—to use an understandable phrase—a call to action. I understand that, but the evidence is clear: it can be improved. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been trying to work with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to reach consensus, highlighting the flaws in Amendment 94A and working together to ensure that our children are protected by the best possible legislation.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I must take objection to that. We had a meeting on Monday. I made some proposals, and then the noble Lords went away and I heard nothing. They came back with their amendment. I think that is slightly glossing over the facts.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

92: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Action to prohibit the provision of VPN services to children in the United Kingdom(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must, for the purpose of furthering the protection and wellbeing of children, make regulations which prohibit the provision to UK children of a relevant VPN service (the “child VPN prohibition”).(2) Regulations under subsection (1)—(a) may make provision for the provider of a relevant VPN service to apply to any person seeking to access its service in or from the UK age assurance which is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not that person is a child;(b) must apply the child VPN prohibition to the provider of any relevant VPN service which is, or is likely to be—(i) offered or marketed to persons in the United Kingdom;(ii) provided to a significant number of persons;(c) must make provision for the monitoring and effective enforcement of the child VPN prohibition.(3) OFCOM may produce guidance for providers of relevant VPN services to assist them in complying with the child VPN prohibition.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) For the purposes of this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18;“consumer” means a person acting otherwise than in the course of a business;“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet;“UK child” means any child who is in the United Kingdom.” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote and protect children’s wellbeing, and to further support child protective measures in the Online Safety Act, by prohibiting the provision to children in the United Kingdom of VPN services which can facilitate evasion of OSA age-gating processes.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

94A: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Action to promote the wellbeing of children in relation to social media(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, for the purposes of promoting the wellbeing of children— (a) direct the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom (“the UK CMOs”) to prepare and publish advice for parents and carers on the use of social media by children at different ages and developmental stages, and(b) by regulations made by statutory instrument require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly- effective age assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users.(2) Any advice published under subsection (1)(a) must have regard to—(a) the paper published on 7 February 2019 entitled “United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on 'Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews'”, and(b) any scientific or other developments since the publication of that paper which appear to the UK CMOs to be relevant.(3) Any regulations under subsection (1)(b) must be treated as an enforceable requirement within the meaning of section 131 (and for the purposes of Part 7) of the Online Safety Act 2023.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)(b) or subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) For the purposes of this section—“the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom” means the Chief Medical Officers for—(a) England,(b) Wales,(c) Scotland, and(d) Northern Ireland;“regulated user-to-user services” shall have the meaning given to it in the Online Safety Act 2023, subject to any modification, addition or exclusion as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations made by statutory instrument under this subsection.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to their use of social media by commissioning advice from the Chief Medical Officers and introducing regulations to prevent under 16s from accessing social media.