The House of Lords debate amendments to the bill that could ban children under the age of 16 from engaging in social media.
Lord Nash makes a case in favour of a ban. He believed that the UK had reached an inflection point. He added that the UK is facing nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many children are addicted to social media.
Nash went on to add that many teenagers are spending long hours—five, six, seven, or more in a single day— on social media. The evidence is now overwhelming as to the damage that this may be causing. The UK may have already surpassed the point of correlation or causality.
There is now so much evidence from across the world that it is clear that by every metric—health, cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, economic productivity, etc.—children are being harmed, said Nash.
Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch has urged Keir Starmer to promptly implement a ban on social media for under-16s, stating that any delay amounts to a duty dereliction that is negatively impacting children’s mental health. She made her comments in a Guardian article published shortly before peers began a debate on an amendment to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill that would ban social media accounts for under-16s. The debate is still current, although a vote was expected shortly.
The former Brexit Party MEP, Claire Fox, countering this proposal, believed that teenagers should have internet access. Fax added that children were clever and devious, so they would be able to get around restrictions, should they be imposed. She added that the Nash amendment was a threat to adult civil liberties and to freedom. She believed that a ban would yield the benefits that the supporters had claimed.
