As a mother to two primary‑aged children, the negative impact of social media dominates conversations among friends, fellow parents and WhatsApp groups. For too many, it feels as though our children’s childhood is being poisoned.
In my local area of Barnet, a campaign was won last year to ensure no smartphones are allowed at all in primary schools, alongside strong advice for no smartphones before 14 and no social media before 16. Barnet is the first borough in the country to set this guidance. I am determined that it becomes the standard for every child.
In the absence of genuine safety‑by‑design, no young person under 16 should be on these platforms. Back in January, I sponsored a cross‑party amendment in the House of Lords to raise the minimum age for social media use to 16.
I welcome the Government’s announcement this week on banning children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images. If delivered, it will be a world first. But it is only the start. Raising the minimum age to 16 is the only viable response to the wider harms.
A growing mountain of evidence is exposing the long‑term physical and mental damage caused by social media. Parents, and children, have almost no control over the content pushed onto their screens or the addictive features engineered to keep them hooked.
Recently, while scrolling on TikTok, I came across a painfully thin influencer urging young women to wear high heels to “burn more calories”. I had stumbled into “skinnytok”, a hashtag filled with videos that prize thinness above all else. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Algorithms push the most extreme content to the most vulnerable users in pursuit of attention and profit.
A study last week showed that girls with additional needs are far more likely to be served harmful content than their peers: 22% have been shown self‑harm content, compared with 16% of boys; 30% of the most vulnerable girls have been shown hateful content such as racism or sexism, compared with 24% of boys. Social media harms these children far more than any connection it claims to offer.
The consequences are real. Since 2016, the year Instagram introduced infinite scroll, there has been a 477% rise in children’s contact with mental health services. Eating disorders among 17‑ to 19‑year‑olds have risen sixteenfold.
These are not cases of children accidentally clicking on something inappropriate. Social media companies have designed their platforms to be addictive. Evidence from a recent landmark California case revealed an internal Meta memo stating: “If we want to win big with teens, we have to bring them in as tweens.”
Livestreaming and disappearing messages pose constant risks to children’s safety. Autoplay and infinite scroll keep eyes glued to screens. Teachers now report students emailing them at all hours, unable to switch off. A 2023 NHS Digital survey found that one in five children aged 11 to 16 wake at night to check notifications, time lost not only from rest, but from real‑world friendships and healthy development.
Strangers can contact our children at any time. Police forces are arresting increasing numbers of paedophiles for messages sent to children on social media and the grooming that ensues.
Just the other week, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges compared social media to tobacco, stating that “the harms associated with social media use are now of a scale comparable to those caused by smoking”. And just as we do not allow children to smoke, we should not allow them to use something we know is actively harmful.
Australia’s implementation is very new. The law was introduced only at the end of last year. We cannot expect perfection from day one. We have also seen tech companies in Australia attempting to recast their refusal to meet legal obligations as evidence that the policy itself is flawed. These companies do not want our children living full, healthy, off‑screen lives. They profit when children stay online.
In the UK, we must learn from the Australian experiment, not copy it blindly. From day one we need proper enforcement in place, tougher penalties for companies that refuse to comply, and serious consequences for those that actively harm children. I am clear these are lessons to be learned – not reasons to avoid acting.
Many other countries have already recognised the scale of harm. Australia acted in December 2025. Malaysia follows in 2026. Brazil’s Digital Statute is already law. Norway is legislating. Portugal has mandated parental consent. Austria, Poland and Greece are moving. France, Spain, Italy and Denmark are jointly testing age verification. The European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly for 16 as the minimum age. This week, Canada joined them.
Raising the minimum age for social media to 16 is not a perfect solution. It may not work immediately or be foolproof. But we can learn from the countries ahead of us and institute a cultural rest as we say enough to the unfettered experiment on the next generation.
