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.

Student Loan Repayment Plans

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for introducing the debate. This is an issue of intergenerational inequality, of which we should all be ashamed. My university cohort and I graduated without debt. We entered a housing market that was accessible and over time we accumulated assets, property, pensions, savings and security. I served 40 years in the NHS, until that was interrupted by an astonishing election result. Now, the landscape has changed. I see the difference in my own family. My two older children studied under plan 1; their repayment terms were short and less onerous. My youngest fell under plan 2 and she has a huge debt, which is growing despite the fact that she is paying it off.

This debate is about aspiration, which, as my hon. Friend said, simply cannot compete with compound interest. It is about whether young people begin adult life with opportunity, or decades of liability. Let us sort this out. Let us increase the repayment thresholds, ensure that interest does not outpace realistic repayment capacity, explore tax-deductible repayments similar to pensions, and improve transparency so that students fully understand what they are signing up for. Education should expand opportunity, not entrench intergenerational unfairness. That is a reality we must confront, and a duty we must uphold, as we deal with this utterly iniquitous system.

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Undoubtedly, “consistency” is a key word. It is about how we ensure that these issues are dealt with, through universities or associated support services, in a proper and consistent way, no matter where someone is at university. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend’s all-party parliamentary group came to that conclusion.

It is clear that more and more students are seeking to be open with universities about their mental health challenges and are seeking support. Over the past decade, the proportion of students disclosing mental health conditions to their university has risen sharply, from under 1% in 2010 to nearly 6% in 2022-23, and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the figure is rising yet again. It is also recognised and accepted by universities that poor mental health is associated with higher drop-out rates, poorer academic outcomes and weaker graduate prospects.

I welcome the work that this Government and the previous Government have done with the university sector to respond, including through the work of the higher education mental health implementation taskforce. However, although the scale of demand for mental health support from universities has risen sixfold, the law has yet to catch up with the very different set of circumstances and our increased understanding. At present, no statutory duty requires universities to take reasonable care to protect adult students from foreseeable harm. Instead, obligations arise in a fragmented way, through health and safety law, equality legislation, human rights law, contract law and voluntary guidance issued by sector bodies.

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

I am concerned about medical students. If they have problems at university, there is a duty of care for them; if they are outwith the university, at a general practice or in another clinical setting under the aegis of the NHS, there appears to be no statutory duty of care. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must sort that out, particularly in respect of the sexual harassment of students?

[James Naish]

I will go on to mention the British Medical Association and its latest survey and work on the issue, but my hon. Friend is right to make that point. The patchwork of duties does not amount to a clear or proactive framework for student protection. That needs to be addressed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I know that she is incredibly passionate about improving the SEND system, and this Government share that passion. We are not only determined to restore the trust of parents by ensuring that schools and local areas can better identify and support children; we are also working with parents and families to create that system, which we know will improve outcomes for children and their families.

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

21. What steps she is taking to support young people into apprenticeships.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

Labour is rebalancing opportunities towards young people, giving them the skills they need to get on. Apprenticeship starts, achievements and participation are all up under this Government. From August, we are introducing foundation apprenticeships to support young people into careers in critical sectors, such as construction and health and social care.

[Peter Prinsley]

I feel sure that the Minister is aware that the outstanding West Suffolk college in Bury St Edmunds, with more than 10,000 enrolled students, is part of the outstanding Eastern Education Group, under the leadership of Nikos Savvas. Does she agree that West Suffolk college is an outstanding candidate to be awarded the status of being the construction technical college of excellence for the east of England? That would boost skills in construction, which are crucial for the new West Suffolk hospital and the Sizewell C construction site, which is the largest construction site in Europe.

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and, indeed, for his lobbying. Labour’s technical excellence colleges will be crucial to our plans to rewire our school system to unlock opportunity for young people and drive growth for our country. My hon. Friend is right: West Suffolk College is an outstanding provider, and I am sure that its remarkable achievements will be considered during the selection of our technical excellence colleges.

Educational Opportunities in Semi-rural Areas

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Sir Edward. That is very kind.

Far too often, people who leave the academic track at 16 are not provided with an alternative. Apprenticeships and skills education were neglected by our predecessors, so I am glad that in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket we have some fantastic businesses, such as British Sugar and Greene King, providing high quality apprenticeships. We also have excellent technical education providers such as Nikos Savvas, principal of the outstanding Abbeygate sixth-form college in Bury St Edmunds and CEO of the Eastern Education Group, who has been visionary in championing the value of effective technical skills, extending all the way from early years to adulthood.

It has never been more important to have a proper system of technical education. We will soon see a wave of major infrastructure projects in the east of England, and we will need thousands of workers. We must ensure that we are educating people quickly enough to fill those jobs. Anglian Water reservoirs, offshore wind farms, East West Rail, Sizewell C—the success of these vital projects depends on a constant supply of technically trained people. The Eastern Education Group has suggested a formal network of “further excellence” technical colleges, a suggestion that I strongly commend to the Government.

I recently visited Hinkley Point C, the model for Sizewell C, and met outstanding nuclear technicians who started their careers with apprenticeships. They went straight into well-paid jobs and will eventually operate nuclear power plants. What matters most, they explained to me, was being a SQEP—a suitably qualified and experienced person. Whatever your academic background, it is important simply that you can do the job, so let us SQEP up our society and invest in technical education and apprenticeships across the country, especially in rural areas where it is so sorely needed. We will train the generation that will rebuild Britain.

Universities: Funding and Employment

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I should like to speak this afternoon about the vital but vulnerable role of clinical academics. These are the people who combine frontline work in the hospitals with teaching and research at the universities. They are essential to the success of life sciences, and central to the training of the future NHS workforce.

Clinical academics are employed by the NHS and higher education institutions jointly. Their pay follows the NHS consultant contract, which was updated last year after national negotiations. Universities, however, were not part of those negotiations, and are now required to implement that contract without having received any additional funding. The result is deeply worrying. I understand that 20 out of 26 medical schools may be preparing to offer redundancy to clinical academics because they simply cannot afford them. That would be a disaster. We cannot afford to lose the very people who train the future NHS staff and carry out the medical research that underpins all the innovation in our health service. As the Government rightly expand the number of medical school places, we will depend even more on clinical academics to educate the next generation of doctors. Their numbers are declining.

Clinical academics now make up just 5.7% of the consultant workforce—down from 8.6% in 2011. Over the last decade or so we have seen a 6% fall in medically qualified researchers, and a 24% decline at the senior lecturer level. We are marching towards a cliff edge. More than a third of clinical academics are over the age of 55 and approaching retirement, so universities need to provide incentives to get younger clinical academics to come.

We did solve this problem previously. When the consultant contract changed in 2003, the then Department of Health provided £15 million to support the medical schools with the implementation of the consultant clinical academic contract. That funding was later embedded in the baseline grants to the universities. That is a model for solving this problem. Unless we act now, we will lose this vital workforce altogether at the very moment when we need them most, and we simply will not be able to run our medical schools.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in this area. She will know that the proposed exascale supercomputer is one programme that the Government are considering. We are currently assessing the best way to take this forward. The previous programme was announced under the last Government, for which full funding was not allocated. We are committed to developing a strategy setting out a 10-year plan for our country’s needs. That plan will be published in the coming months alongside the spending review, but I will ensure that officials in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology pick up her concern and that she receives a full response.

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

5. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help retain clinical academics in universities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

As autonomous institutions, universities are responsible for their staffing decisions, including recruitment and retention. Where the Tories left universities on the brink, we have acted decisively to secure the future of the higher education sector. We remain committed to restoring universities as engines of growth, opportunity and aspiration.

[Peter Prinsley]

The number of clinical academics is in worrying decline. These are the people who teach our doctors in universities and are conducting groundbreaking research. Consultant clinical academics’ contracts with universities give them pay parity with the NHS. However, the universities do not have the funding to match the costs of the new NHS pay structure for consultants. I have heard that, unable to retain them, 20 out of 26 medical schools in the country are offering voluntary redundancy to their staff, and sometimes not voluntary. Does the Minister agree that we must do all we can to support medical education and research in this country?

[Janet Daby]

I am aware that my hon. Friend has extensive knowledge in this area, and I seek to reassure him that the Government recognise the vital role that clinical academics play in research and education in the NHS. Although universities are independent and therefore responsible for decisions on pay, we are committed to working closely with education partners to ensure that clinical academia remains an attractive career choice for all, including students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

SEND Provision: East of England

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this debate. Despite councils losing about 98% of tribunal cases, there seem to be no real consequences of their failures to act in the first place. Families are left to navigate a tribunal system that is overwhelmed, delaying the help their children desperately need. There seems to be a failure of accountability.

My constituents are frustrated and tired of fighting a system that should be working for them. The time has come for stronger enforcement mechanisms. Local authorities must surely face penalties for failures, particularly when they fall short of their legal duties. The public demand some change. My constituent Thomas Howard led a petition signed by more than 16,000 people calling for mandatory neurodiversity training in universities. That shows the breadth of concern about the lack of support across all levels of education, from primary schools to universities.

The call for accountability is not just about individual cases; it is about making the system work for everyone. This debate is an opportunity for us to push for real change in the east of England. Without stronger accountability, we will continue to let down children and families we are meant to serve. We must ensure that local authorities are not only meeting their obligations but are in some way held responsible when they fail to do so.