I have received a significant volume of correspondence about proposals to ban social media for under 16s as part of the Government’s “growing up in the online world” consultation. Given the strength of feeling on this issue, I wanted to set out my position clearly, and to explain how I have reached it based on engagement with children, young people and parents across Dunfermline and Dollar.
Over recent months, I have led an extensive local consultation, holding focus groups with primary pupils, secondary pupils and parents across the constituency. What struck me most throughout these conversations is that for young people today, being online is not separate from their daily lives. It is an indispensable part of how they communicate, learn and express themselves. Social media allows them to stay connected with friends and family, access educational material, follow current affairs and pursue their interests, often through global communities.
At the same time, participants were equally clear about the risks. Young people spoke about the pressure to be online constantly, the impact on sleep, and the anxiety driven by fear of missing out. Both young people and parents highlighted concerns about “doomscrolling”, exposure to harmful content, and the influence of highly addictive design features such as infinite scrolling and algorithm-driven recommendations. Parents in particular were concerned about the impact on attention spans, mental wellbeing and long-term development.
It is clear to me, therefore, that this is not a simple question of whether social media is “good” or “bad”. The reality, as reflected in the views gathered in Dunfermline and Dollar, is that the benefits and risks are closely balanced.
On the central question of a ban for under 16s, I cannot support a blanket prohibition. None of the young people I spoke to supported a minimum age of 16, and many raised legitimate concerns about how such a policy would work in practice. There is a real risk that a total ban would simply drive activity underground, push young people onto less regulated platforms, or encourage workarounds such as VPNs. In doing so, it could reduce oversight and make young people less safe, not more.
Instead, I believe the evidence points clearly towards a more proportionate and practical approach.
Firstly, there was broad support, particularly among young people themselves, for maintaining a minimum age of access at 13, which aligns with the transition to secondary school and a natural point of increasing independence. However, this must be accompanied by stronger protections.
Secondly, there was strong and consistent support for the introduction of “restricted” social media accounts for under 16s. This approach would allow young people to access the benefits of being online while limiting exposure to the most harmful features. Participants identified a number of high-risk functionalities that should be restricted, including disappearing content, location sharing, live streaming, and the ability to contact strangers. There was also significant concern about addictive design features such as autoplay, notifications and infinite scrolling, which many described as difficult to disengage from.
Thirdly, both young people and parents were clear that social media companies must be held more accountable. There is a strong sense that, left unchecked, platforms will prioritise profit over safety. Improving content moderation, reducing exposure to harmful material and addressing the design of addictive features must be central to any meaningful reform.
Alongside regulation, there was strong consensus on the need for education. Participants emphasised that restrictions alone will not solve the problem. Young people want to understand how to use social media safely and responsibly, and parents want the tools and knowledge to support their children. A nationwide awareness campaign and better digital literacy education are essential to making any changes effective.
Finally, one of the most important findings from this consultation was that children and young people want to be part of the solution. They understand the risks they face and can articulate them clearly. I believe it is vital that their voices continue to be heard, not just through one-off consultations, but through ongoing engagement such as youth advisory groups and parent forums.
As your representative, I must weigh the need to protect children online with the importance of ensuring they can access the opportunities the digital world provides. Having listened carefully to constituents of all ages, I believe the right approach is not a blanket ban, but a balanced framework: proportionate age limits, safer default settings, stronger regulation of technology companies, and a renewed focus on education and awareness.
I know that reasonable people will disagree on this issue, and I recognise that for some, a full ban will feel like the safest option. However, based on the evidence I have gathered locally, I do not believe it is the most effective or workable solution.
My focus will continue to be on ensuring that any action the Government takes is practical, evidence-based, and shaped by the lived experiences of the children, young people and families it is designed to protect.
Read my submission: “Growing up in the online world – a national consultation“
Recent Comments