Celebrities and Campaigners Unite in Call for Under-16 Social Media Ban
In a significant development ahead of a crucial parliamentary vote, prominent figures including actor Hugh Grant and Esther Ghey, the mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, have signed a powerful letter urging Westminster party leaders to implement a ban on social media for children under the age of 16. The letter, addressed to Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch, and Ed Davey, calls for their support of amendment 94a to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, with peers set to vote on amendments this Wednesday.
Cross-Party Support for Immediate Action
The letter highlights that national polling conducted by the charity Parentkind reveals a staggering 93% of parents believe social media is harmful to children and young people. It argues that amendment 94a stands out as the clearest and most straightforward proposal to address this urgent issue, stating: “No other amendment to the bill on this topic has the same cross-party support or would deliver promptly the change needed to get children off social media.” The signatories emphasise that while other amendments are well-intentioned, they fail to send a strong signal about the harms of social media or adequately support parents.
The letter continues: “On behalf of the millions of parents we represent through our polling and campaigning, we ask you to encourage your peers in the House of Lords to support amendment 94a. This is a moment for leadership. Parents are asking for help and parliament now has a chance to provide it to protect childhood. Together we could make a real difference.” Other notable signatories include actor Sophie Winkleman, adding weight to the campaign’s visibility and impact.
Parliamentary Dynamics and Government Response
Members of the House of Lords will have the opportunity to vote on the outright ban proposed by Lord Nash, a former schools minister. The amendment has garnered support from some Labour peers, and if passed in the Lords, it would proceed to debate in the Commons, where 61 Labour MPs recently wrote to the prime minister advocating for a ban. Lord Nash expressed urgency, stating: “The time for delay and procrastination is over. Without swift action to raise the age limit for social media to 16, we are at risk of a societal catastrophe.” He urged fellow peers to vote for his amendment, which he claims has backing from across major parties, to mitigate the harm social media inflicts on young people.
In response, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall reassured MPs on Tuesday that the government’s consultation, announced the previous day, would conclude within a few months, with a firm position expected by summer. The consultation will include proposals such as overnight curfews and breaks to prevent “doomscrolling,” and Kendall confirmed that evidence-based guidance for parents on appropriate screen time for children aged five to 16 would be produced. Guidance for parents of under-fives is anticipated to be published in April.
Criticism and Broader Political Context
However, the government’s approach has faced criticism. Film director and technology campaigner Beeban Kidron, who plans to vote for Nash’s amendment, condemned the consultation announcement as “an insult to parliament” and accused the government of prioritising party interests over national welfare. She stated: “This hastily pulled together announcement is meant to appease the government’s backbenchers, and rescue it from losing votes in the Lords. Keir Starmer pledged to put country before party, but this is the very epitome of party before country.”
Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch has indicated that the Conservative party would introduce a ban for under-16s if in power, highlighting the political divide on this issue. As the Lords prepare to vote, the debate underscores growing concerns about children’s online safety and the role of legislation in protecting young minds from the potential dangers of social media platforms.
