Pressure is escalating within the Labour Party for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to support a ban on social media access for children under 16. This comes despite a strong plea from Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, a teenager who tragically took her own life in 2017. Russell’s advocacy against the ban highlights concerns that it may inadvertently push vulnerable youths into unregulated online spaces.
A letter signed by 61 Labour backbench MPs, led by Fred Thomas, urges the Prime Minister to take decisive action against what they describe as “harmful, addictive” content prevalent on social media platforms. Last week, Starmer indicated that he was considering “all options” regarding a possible ban, which has already been implemented in Australia and is being discussed in various European countries.
The MPs, many of whom are part of the 2024 intake, assert that the UK risks falling behind nations like Denmark, France, Norway, New Zealand, and Greece, which are expected to impose similar restrictions. They point to alarming statistics, noting that over 500 children per day in England are referred for anxiety treatment, with increased social media usage correlating with rising rates of depression among adolescents.
In contrast, Ian Russell, who chairs the Molly Rose Foundation, has voiced his concerns about the implications of such a ban. He argues that a hasty approach could lead to “unintended consequences,” potentially directing young people to more dangerous online environments, including gaming platforms and suicide forums. Russell insists on the need to enforce existing laws more effectively rather than resorting to sweeping bans.
Fred Thomas emphasized the weight of this issue, stating, “We all know the harm social media causes to young people’s mental health.” He reiterated the Labour Party’s commitment to a model similar to Australia’s, placing the responsibility on tech companies to restrict access for users under 16. The MPs cited research indicating that the average 12-year-old now spends 29 hours per week on smartphones, much of it on social media, which often contains damaging content.
Support for a ban has emerged from various political figures, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Even Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and a potential leadership rival within Labour, has expressed agreement with Badenoch’s views on social media usage.
Next week, members of the House of Lords are expected to vote on an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would introduce a ban. This amendment is sponsored by former Conservative education minister Lord Nash and endorsed by other prominent peers, including Baroness Benjamin, a former children’s television presenter, and Baroness Berger of Labour.
Russell’s position is echoed by over 40 charities, including the NSPCC, who caution that while the intent of a ban may be well-meaning, it fails to realistically enhance children’s safety and well-being. They argue that such restrictions could inadvertently create a “cliff edge” effect at age 16, thrusting youths into unmonitored online environments without prior experience.
Anna Edmundson, head of policy at the NSPCC, has highlighted the positive aspects of social media, stating that it can be “vital” for children, offering peer support and access to trustworthy information. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has also acknowledged the complexity of the issue, noting the strong arguments for a ban while recognizing the valid concerns raised by child welfare organizations.
As this debate unfolds, the UK government faces increasing scrutiny over its approach to regulating social media, with calls for more robust enforcement of existing laws rather than blanket bans that could have far-reaching consequences. The conversation continues to evolve, reflecting the urgent need to balance child safety with the realities of an increasingly digital world.
