22 Jun 2026
The Government’s proposed ban on social media for under-16s has been met with cautious responses locally.
The UK will be one of the first countries in the world to put sweeping limits on social media for children by introducing age restrictions on platforms including X, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok.
Media regulator Ofcom will examine how to enforce the ban, which could involve written forms of identification, the number of years a user has spent on a platform and facial recognition tools.
St Albans has been at the forefront of the campaign for tougher restrictions on access to apps and smartphones for young people, since the St Albans Primary Schools Consortium of local primary headteachers issued a joint letter calling on parents not to let their children have a smartphone before they are 14 back in 2024.
The Smartphone Free Childhood initiative has seen dozens of WhatsApp groups created to reflect parents’ opinions and promote the messages of the national campaign.
Harpenden MP and Lib Dem science and technology spokesperson Victoria Collins has previously accused Labour of playing with children’s futures over social media.
She has carried out a Safer Screens Tour of local schools in a bid to engage with students, teachers, and parents to hear their views on how social media, smartphones, and the wider online world impact the lives of young people.
Victoria believes the Government’s proposals don’t go far enough: “First and foremost, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the scale of the problem and it’s finally taking action. Families, teachers and child safety experts have been warning for years about the impact of harmful content and addictive algorithms on young people. Local and national campaigners have done an incredible job of leading the way and pushing the Government into action. “As the tech spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I pushed us to be the first party to force a vote on this issue and have consistently advocated for stronger protections, including raising the digital age, a doomscroll cap, and health warnings. We also pushed for a ban on harmful social media with our amendment in the Lords.
“As we await details from the Government, my concern is that these proposals focus primarily on restricting access to certain platforms rather than addressing the root causes of online harm.
“Unless we tackle the algorithms designed to keep children endlessly scrolling and the broader business model that profits from children’s attention, we risk treating the symptoms rather than the disease. Children deserve a comprehensive strategy, not a patchwork of hodgepodge restrictions.
“In Australia, the Government has been playing a game of whack-a-mole and lacks a framework to clarify what constitutes a harmful site.
“For example, it’s not clear why YouTube is restricted but YouTube Kids isn’t, given that they don’t have to follow the same standards as our children’s TV shows.”
She said the Lib Dems have campaigned for a harm-based framework that puts children’s safety at the heart of how online platforms are designed.
“We have advocated introducing a film-style age ratings for platforms up to 18, stronger age assurance, restrictions on addictive features such as infinite scrolling, and clear standards that platforms must meet before they can be accessed by children.
“Crucially, we need to place the responsibility where it belongs, on the tech companies themselves. For too long, parents have been left fighting a losing battle against platforms engineered to maximise engagement. Just as we expect toys, films and other products aimed at children to meet safety standards, social media platforms should be safe by design and held accountable when they fail.
“The Online Safety Act Network also added that ‘banning children from social media platforms without addressing the underlying harmful, profit-driven design of those platforms will not make them safer’.”
So how can we ensure children don’t move to unsafe and unregulated alternative platforms?
“This is exactly why a blanket ban alone is not enough. If the online environment remains harmful, there is a risk that young people will simply access less regulated platforms where there are even fewer safeguards and even less oversight. That would undermine the very objective of protecting children.
“The Molly Rose Foundation for example, found that in Australia, three-fifths of 12–15-year-olds who previously held accounts on restricted platforms continue to have access to at least one active account. One in seven reports feeling less safe than before the ban came into effect.
“The answer is to deal with the harms themselves, not just individual platforms. By creating a clear framework that applies across the digital landscape, including new and emerging services, we can ensure that safety standards follow the risk rather than playing catch-up with technology. Alongside that, we need digital literacy, support for parents and effective enforcement so that children are protected and empowered online.”
St Albans charity Youth Talk’s chief executive David Barker said through their work they see both the benefits and risks of digital technology.
“Social media can provide connection, creativity and support, but we are also increasingly hearing from young people about the impact of harmful content, online pressures, poor sleep, anxiety and the challenge of switching off.
“While restrictions may have a role to play, lasting change is more likely to come from a balanced approach than prohibition alone. Banning something does not necessarily address the underlying issues.
“Progress is more likely to come from a combination of stronger regulation and accountability of technology companies, better safeguards against harmful content, greater support for parents and schools, and a continued focus on helping young people develop the skills and resilience to navigate the digital world safely.
“Most importantly, young people themselves must be part of this conversation. Decisions that affect their lives should be informed by their experiences, perspectives and ideas.
“At Youth Talk, our priority will always be the mental health and wellbeing of young people. Whilst we are not a campaigning organisation, but we do believe we have a responsibility to speak up on issues that affect the young people we support.
“We will continue to listen to young people, follow the evidence, and share our perspective where it can help inform understanding and improve outcomes for young people.”
Hannah Kokri runs the Herts and Beds branch of Manor Tutoring and is involved in one-to-one SEND support, mentoring and behavioural interventions locally.
She previously wrote in the St Albans Times about the complexities of smartphone use in childhood following the streaming of Netflix drama Adolescence, highlighting the challenges these can cause parents, schools and communities.
“While it is important in recognising the risks that social media present to teenagers, this legislation is likely to be ineffective as we have seen with similar measures in Australia.
“As a society, we cannot rest on our laurels and assume this is a complete solution. Grass-roots community action to support parents who want to limit their children’s exposure continue to be of vital importance, as do developments in communication devices with limited functionality.”
Stacey Turner, founder and CEO of mental health and wellbeing charity It’s OK To Say, said she wanted to take a balanced and thoughtful position on the issue.
The debate is complex because there are genuine concerns about the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, but also recognition that online spaces can provide connection, identity and support.
“The conversation around social media and young people is one we need to approach with curiosity and care rather than fear alone. The digital world is now woven into our everyday lives and forms a significant part of how children and young people connect, communicate, learn and experience the world around them.
“We know that social media can expose children and young people to significant risks, including cyberbullying, unrealistic expectations, harmful content and pressures that can affect self-esteem, sleep and mental wellbeing. These concerns should never be minimised.
“At the same time, for many young people, online spaces are also where friendships are maintained, communities are found and support is accessed. For some, particularly those who may feel isolated or misunderstood, social media can provide connection and a sense of belonging.
“Perhaps the question is not simply whether social media should be banned, but how we collectively create environments where children and young people can develop healthy relationships with technology.
“This includes holding platforms accountable, understanding the implications of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, equipping parents and professionals with knowledge and, importantly, helping young people build critical thinking, emotional literacy and digital resilience.
“You may have seen my recent article about the distressing video of a dog being abused that appeared online without any warning about the content it contained. For many adults, this was upsetting and difficult to process.
“We therefore have to ask ourselves what impact such content could have on children and young people who may encounter it unexpectedly. This is exactly why platform accountability matters. The responsibility cannot rest solely with young people and their families; platforms also have a duty to consider what content is being shared, how it is moderated and whether appropriate safeguards and warnings are in place.
“In Australia, where an under-16 social media ban was introduced in December 2025, early reflections show a mixed picture. Some families report positive changes, including reduced online pressure and exposure to harmful content, while others highlight challenges in enforcement and the risk of young people simply moving to other, less regulated spaces online. It reinforces that this is not a simple solution, but part of a much wider conversation about digital safety, education and responsibility.
“Whatever the outcome of this debate, our focus must remain on understanding their experiences and ensuring their wellbeing remains at the centre of the conversation.”
James Edgar, dad to three young children and one of the early advocates for Smartphone Free Childhood in Harpenden, said: “This shows that people coming together are powerful enough to remake our relationship with technology, whether on a family, community or societal level. The Government’s announcement is a strong social signal, but it is only one part of an even more powerful cultural shift.
“When Smartphone Free Childhood started two years ago the predominant feeling was that you couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle, despite widespread concern about the harmful impacts of having smartphones too early.
“The last two years has shown that does not need to be true and reminded us how much power we have when we talk to each other and work together.
“For me the smartphone campaign has always been about restoring parents’ power to build healthier childhoods and choose when their own children are ready for all different forms of tech. We were stuck in an equilibrium where many parents were unhappy at giving their children smartphones, but felt they had to because that’s where the social networks were now. Step-by-step we are exploring how we, collectively, have the power to remake how this part of childhood works.
“Government action, so long as it is well designed and thought through, is welcome but the movement is about creating alternatives, building healthy social connections and giving our children the skills and resilience to thrive. There’s loads of good material and links on the website for ideas of ways to take a different path than the big tech companies might want us to. The more parents and children who engage with the movement the stronger a cultural shift we can all achieve!”
