Social media ban for teens is 'part of the solution,' says Lisa Nandy who admits leaving X 'has made me a healthier person'
The Culture Secretary revealed that time off X, formerly known as Twitter, has made her 'a better politician' ahead of Starmer's restrictions announcement
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has insisted that an Australia-style social media ban for under-16s is 'part of the solution' ahead of Sir Keir Starmer's announcement on Monday.
Listen to this article
Speaking with Lewis Goodall on Sunday, the Labour MP has revealed that leaving social media "has made me a better politician and a healthier person".
It comes as she insisted that tech firms have had "more than enough time to get their house in order", with the Prime Minister expected to unveil plans that go further than an Australia-style ban for under-16s on Monday.
The Culture Secretary admitted Labour has "never thought it was the only solution, but we felt— when we started the consultation about how we keep young people safe online — that it may be part of the solution.
It comes after a Public Policy Research (IPPR) survey found that in a study of over 2,000 adults, 51% trust parents to decide which platforms are appropriate, 49% trust an independent regulator, 22% trust schools, 16% trust technology companies and 15% trust Government ministers.
Read more: Starmer to publish government's defence investment plan ahead of NATO summit next month
Read more: UK heading towards ‘poisonous’ politics of US, says Andy Burnham
Speaking on Sunday, she revealed: "I think, without preempting the Prime Minister's announcement tomorrow, the overwhelming view of people who responded to that consultation was that it is part of the solution.
"The evidence from Australia, which we've been watching very closely as it unfolds, is not that it stops all young people under 16 from being on social media. It doesn't. And there will always be ways that young people will find to get around that.
"But it changes the presumption so that at a very young age, you know, 8, 9, 10, 11, at the moment there is a presumption that young people will be on these social media apps when they're just not ready for it emotionally and intellectually.
"They're just not ready for what they're being exposed to. And I think that that is the power of what Australia has done, and the Prime Minister will have more to say about that tomorrow."
Touching on Elon Musk's influence on British democracy via hate speech on platforms such as X, she continued: "I don't like some of the things I've seen Elon Musk saying on social media, I think it does have a damaging effect on our country".
Adding that removing government accounts from X is "something I've been thinking about".
This comes following widespread expectation that a ban on under-16s being able to access harmful social media sites will be announced by the prime minister.
This follows a government consultation which received 116,000 responses, making it the second-largest government consultation in history, after the equal marriage consultation in 2012.
The YouGov poll found that 44% support the banning of under-16s from social media, while 39% supported tighter restrictions.
Just over one in 10 participants believe social media should not be banned or more strictly regulated.
Nudity, exposure to strangers, algorithms learning user behaviour and recommending content were among the harmful age-inappropriate content features highlighted.
The research has led the IPPR to call for a blanket ban on social media for under-16s, but not just to protect children from harmful content.
Associate director at the IPPR and a former teacher, Avnee Morjaria, said: “Having spent years teaching in secondary schools, I saw first-hand how childhood has changed.
“More and more of children’s lives are now lived through screens. Previous generations had the freedom to make mistakes, experiment and move on. Today’s children are growing up under constant scrutiny, where every insecurity can be amplified and every mistake permanently recorded.
“A blanket social media ban for under-16s is the only effective option. Not because technology is inherently bad, but because we are allowing childhood itself to be shaped for the worse by algorithms.
“Childhood should be defined by real-world experiences, friendships and opportunities to grow, not by an endless competition for attention and approval. The greatest loss of the smartphone age is not privacy; it’s childhood itself.”
If enacted, the social media ban would follow in the footsteps of Australia, a country which implemented the policy in 2025. However, some groups have warned that a ban might only create superficial benefits.
The Molly Rose Foundation, set up in memory of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017 after viewing harmful content online, has warned that an Australia-style ban might offer only “the perception of security”.
According to polling published in April, three in five Australian children aged between 12 and 15 still have access to one or more online accounts, which should have been restricted since the law came into force last year.
A spokesperson for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said: “We have been clear that we want to get this right and ensure children can grow up safer online.
“That’s why we launched a national conversation on the future of children’s online safety, which received over 110,000 responses – one of the largest consultations under this Government.
“We will set out our next steps imminently, and we will do so in a way that is proportionate, evidence-led and puts children’s safety at the heart of our approach.”