Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

Thanks very much—the Government Whip agrees with me; that is always nice.

Let us act, listen to the parents and the people out there, and get on it. I know that the Ministers on the Front Bench do not get up in the morning to make the world a worse place, let alone to make children suffer. They are here to try to make children’s lives better, and there is a real opportunity here to do that. I hope that Government Members will consider breaking from the fearsome Whips—we have heard the Government Whip shouting from a sedentary position. Tell him that he is best ignored, and vote with us to make things better for children.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Let me start by saying that I support the Government’s direction of travel on this Bill. The focus on children’s wellbeing, both in schools and out, is obviously right, but let me address Lords amendment 38, tabled by Lord Nash, about social media access; it was accepted back into the Bill, with a large majority. It has cross-party support and reflects growing concern not just in Parliament, but among parents, teachers and professionals working with young people.

The amendment is quite simple: it is about delaying access to certain harmful social media services until children are 16. It is not a blanket ban or a restriction on everything, but targeted measures aimed at services that are not designed with children in mind. That distinction matters, because some criticism has suggested that the amendment would create cliff edges, but we already have age limits in place today. The issue is not whether limits should exist; it is whether they are properly enforced, and whether they reflect the reality of how platforms operate.

There has been a lot of debate about whether age verification actually works. The evidence from countries like Australia suggests that where it is not working, it is often because platforms are not properly enforcing the rules, or young people find ways around the ban through VPNs. That leads to a broader point: the onus must be squarely with the tech companies to implement the safeguards. Where the law sets a clear standard, platforms must meet it consistently and effectively.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member is making an informed speech. Would he agree that the priority for any Government, and any legislator, is to protect citizens from harm? This amendment would protect children from harm. The technical implementation—how we control access—should not be a consideration, given that harm. As he rightly said, that should be the responsibility of the platform owners, who have access to technology that they refuse to use.

[Peter Prinsley]

I agree that we must hold the tech companies to account; they are the ones in control of the situation.

The amendment proposes a higher standard—not simply “reasonable steps”, but highly effective age assurance, and that is meaningfully different. We have heard about movement internationally. France and Spain are taking similar steps, and others are following. We ought to be part of the broader shift in how Governments are approaching online safety for children. Also, this cannot just be about restrictions; of course, there is a role for education. Children need to understand the online environment that they are engaging with, particularly when it comes to the algorithms, data and content driven by artificial intelligence.

We have heard about the consultation, and I support it in principle, but the scale of the issue is already well evidenced. There is a question about what additional insights small trials would realistically add, given the body of research that already exists.

[Damian Hinds]

There are unanswered questions about definitions, what should be in and what should be out, and exactly where the boundary lines are. Parents sometimes talk about social media in a way that professionals might not; parents might exclude certain messaging apps, for example. There are questions to be resolved, but the Government consultation is not just about that; it is about the “whether”, as well as the “how”. By all means, let us consult to get those technical points right, so that the measures are bullet-proof and future-proof, but today is the day that we could say, like those other countries did, “We are doing this. We are going to protect our children—and yes, there is still work to be done on exactly how that will fall out.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Peter Prinsley]

I understand exactly what the hon. Member says.

My position is this: I support the Government, and I support the Bill, but I think the House should take very seriously what the Lords have asked us to consider. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment as it stands, I believe there is a strong case for them to bring forward their own proposal to achieve the same outcome clearly and in a timely fashion. Ultimately, this is about setting the right boundaries for children in a digital world that is evolving quickly. There is a clear expectation, inside and outside this House, that we must act.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

As the mother of four teenage and young adult children, about 50% of my parenting involves placing limits on my children’s phones or devices to limit the time they spend on them. In so doing, I am, like so many parents in my Esher and Walton constituency and across the country, doing battle with a pernicious, invasive and overwhelming force, for which my kids are proxies and against which I can never win. That force has billions and billions of dollars, and the desire and capability to make content more and more addictive every day, so that children spend more time online. The result, as so many studies show, is a negative effect on our children’s wellbeing, mental and physical health, and attention in class and at home. Those tech companies and their algorithmic content are killing kids. It is a public health crisis, and unfortunately, the Government are moving far too slowly to deal with it.

My eldest child was born in the year Facebook began, so my children have spanned the whole Gen Z Instagram generation. My youngest child is part of the TikTok generation. For me, the battle gets harder with each child, but I count myself lucky for not having had an “iPad kid”—a child who receives a device around the age of two. Gen Z children use that pejorative term to refer to younger children who are glued to devices, have short attention spans and throw tantrums when screens are taken away—these are children of two years.

The curious thing about Gen Z and Gen Alpha children is that many of them will say that they wish there were more controls over their screen use and time. They find algorithmic content too much to deal with, and it is having a negative impact on their mental health—so the children are asking us to act too. This generation is growing up with more anxiety and more exposure to harm, and children are less attentive. Every single day it gets worse, so we need to act now.

I have received over 2,600 emails from parents in my constituency asking me to ban social media for under-16s and to address their use of smartphones. I have spoken to school heads about the effect of the technology on their pupils, and parents are overwhelmed and feel completely powerless. A University of Birmingham study has shown that teachers spend 100 hours a week trying to control smartphone use. Headteachers tell me that teachers are doing battle with children as well as with their parents. Children pick up their phones in class to answer calls from their parents. They say, “I have to answer this because my parents are calling me.” That is time away from classroom learning.

Unfortunately, the amendment does not meet those challenges. It gives the Secretary of State optional powers, which they may or may not use, to restrict access to certain online services, and asks only for a six-month progress update. There are no requirements to act, and no timeline for doing so. That is not decisive action; it is a license not to do very much. A delay is being justified through a consultation that is flawed, as many Members have pointed out, and there is a reliance on small-scale pilots when much larger studies already exists. It looks very much like the Government are unwilling to take on the tech giants.