Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will also endeavour to be brief. Like many who have spoken already, I spent a very large amount of time on the Online Safety Act. I agree entirely with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. This is a cry of pain and anger from this House that I hope the Minister is hearing, but I do not think that banning social media for under-16s is the right thing to do. I will add two reasons that have not been discussed so far.

First, I worry that absolutely nothing will change by implementing a ban. We already have a minimum age of 13; go into any primary school and you will find how effective that is. I urge the Minister to tell us how she is going to implement the minimum age we already have. How is she going to stiffen Ofcom’s backbone to hold tech companies to account? Otherwise, we can legislate all we like, but it will not make any difference.

Secondly, I have huge respect for the eloquence with which my noble friend Lord Nash set out the horrors and harms that social media is undoubtedly doing, but there is one flaw in his argument. He quoted a lot of research that points to the harm that excessive use of social media does to children. A ban, however, is zero use. We must be very careful about that. Social media is part of the modern world; it brings good as well as ill, and to simply ban it is abdicating responsibility.

I worry hugely that we are letting the tech companies off the hook. We have to hold them to account to produce products that are age appropriate. We have done that with every other technology as it has grown up over the centuries, and we should not duck the issue now. That takes me to the right reverend Prelate’s point, which seems like quite a long time ago. I am in the same dilemma, because I am absolutely certain that change has to happen, that the Online Safety Act is not working as those of us who worked so hard on it envisaged, and that Ofcom is not delivering. I doubt that more consultation solves that problem. But I am worried about passing this baton back to our colleagues in the other place. I am worried because a ban on social media has a nice ring to it. I am worried when I hear Ian Russell say that we must not use our children as a political football. We must really work out what the right answer to this problem is.

I ask the Minister to listen to this emotional debate. Those of us who worked on the Online Safety Act can see that there are about hundredfold more people in this Chamber now than there were at any stage of the Online Safety Act. That shows how much we all care about it now—not just that everyone is waiting for a vote. I ask the Minister please to hear the concern, the fury and the need to act. But, my goodness, if we send this back to the other place, I hope it will not translate into a blanket ban on social media for under-16s but into proper action to make the internet a better place for our children.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Front Bench!

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

With respect, everyone else has had an opportunity to speak, but no one from my party has, and I want to make some remarks. The House should draw a level of unity from the fact that, although a variety of solutions are provided by these amendments, common threads run between them: a common acceptance of the level of crisis that our young people face, and a common desire, I think, to provide greater levels of protection for our young people.

On the competing and well-argued cases for the amendments, I am more persuaded by Amendment 94A from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which I believe is cleaner, clearer and bolder. Nevertheless, whichever amendment we settle on, I agree with others that the one thing we cannot afford to do as a House tonight is to prevaricate. I cannot put myself in the mind of the Government. Therefore, I cannot determine whether the proposed consultation is a sincere attempt to engage seriously with this issue or, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, a cynical device to get past the problems internally in the Commons.

There are clear problems with the consultation. First, it does not produce any guaranteed outcome. A lot of us are concerned that, over a prolonged period of time, the muscle of the big tech companies will adjust that to water down whatever comes forward. Secondly, it does not produce swift results. We do not know a timeframe that ultimately will lead to implementation. The longer we delay, the more harm is caused to children. Where possible, we should always be reluctant to ban and restrict but, when we look at the protection of children, we have to make an exception to that. The case for action now is overwhelming.

During the passage of the Online Safety Bill, one of the most moving and significant meetings that I attended was one hosted by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, where she brought in families of children who had died as a result of various online harms. There was a common thread for a lot of those families: they had become victims because of social media. Whether that was issues around self-harm, suicide, sexploitation, bullying or a range of other things, a major danger is out there.

I acknowledge that the gathering mental health tsunami among our young people did not start with social media, but it has been exacerbated by it, and we need to take action against it. Even below that level, we are faced with, as I have seen it put, a “zombification” of our young generation. No one is suggesting in this debate that any solution that we produce will entirely be a panacea or 100% watertight and effective in its nature. But, if we took that approach to its logical conclusion, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, we would simply have no restrictions on young people on any subject or harm. So we need to grasp the nettle.

In conclusion, there is a stark choice before us tonight. We can either embrace the clarion call of the overwhelming majority of parents on this issue and take bold and decisive action to protect our young people, or we can kick the can down the road and neglect our duty to those young people. I hope the House chooses the former tonight.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. I will speak to my Amendments 108 and 110A, and briefly to Amendment 91 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I start by thanking the hundreds of thousands of mums, dads, grandparents, single parents, teachers, et cetera, who have kick-started this campaign. While politicians have not been able to get action, they have swung into action.

If noble Lords talk to any MP of any party in this Parliament, they will tell you that they receive hundreds of thousands of emails and letters. I was talking to our digital lead MP, Victoria Collins, and she told me that, in the last three days alone, she has received 1,500 pieces of paper about this. Why? It is because parents do not trust us to do anything. Of course, with the Online Safety Act, they were promised that we would see a new world, but when they look around they see that nothing has changed. Frighteningly, when I asked the Minister a few weeks ago how many companies have been fined or prosecuted for what they have put online, he did not know the answer. That does not fill us with confidence.

Creating a safer future for our children and grandchildren is at a critical crossroads. Our parents, teachers, experts and even young people themselves are calling for action. I hear from real teenagers talking about their experiences online. One teenager said:

“I look at my younger brother and I’m so worried about how much he seems addicted to screens, we have to do something”.


Another said:

“Help, I just can’t stop”.


When doctors discovered that smoking kills, and when research showed that seatbelts saved lives, we acted. Today presents an opportunity to take a similar life-saving action.

It is clear that everyone here is strongly committed to this end goal—to safeguarding children and protecting them from the risks of the online world. Parents and children are both telling us that they feel powerless in the face of platforms designed to maximise engagement at any cost. We see the evidence mounting in our schools, with rising rates of anxiety and depression among young people. Consultations that kick the can down the road are not enough when we face a public health crisis.

So the question before us is not whether or not we must act but how effectively and how quickly we can act. One approach, that of the the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is a blanket ban on social media for under-16s, as well as on many other areas of the internet. I fully support the intent of this approach. Again, we are all here in the name of children’s well-being and the decisive action that is needed. But, as we have heard, we have heard from over 42 charities and experts, including the Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC, the Internet Watch Foundation, the Centre for Protecting Women Online, and 5rights, and they all have major concerns about this approach. These are the experts—I am not an expert, noble Lords are not the experts, but they are and they deal with this every day, and yet they have concerns about this approach.

We can look to Australia and see why. When Australia banned social media for young people, it took an approach similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, creating a specific list of prohibited platforms. What was the result? Within 24 hours of TikTok’s ban, the company launched a new platform under a different name, one not on the banned list. More fundamentally, this list-based approach ignores the broader digital landscape: the harms presented in online gaming, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, does nothing about; AI-generated content; and countless other platforms that fall outside these narrow definitions.