‘I would have done social media ban consultation sooner’ – Ofsted boss

The chief inspector of the schools watchdog has said he would have consulted on a social media ban for under-16s sooner, as he shed light on how inspectors will check phones bans in schools are being enforced.

It comes as peers in the House of Lords are set to debate an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Wednesday, to raise the age limit for social media users.

Speaking at the Bett UK conference, Ofsted chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver said while he welcomed the Government’s consultation, he thought it was “a little bit late”.

The Government announced earlier this week Ofsted inspectors would be tasked with checking mobile phone bans are being properly enforced in schools.

From April, inspectors will ask every school what its policy is on mobile phones, Sir Martyn told Bett UK.

“We’ll ask the children, we’ll ask the staff, and of course, if we see it contributing to poor behaviour, to bullying, we will pull that thread, and we will have an opinion about how that and how leadership is responding to that,” he said.

“I want children to live their childhoods. I don’t want them to watch it on a screen, and it’s really pervasive.

“And I equally welcome the consultation on the social media ban. I think it’s a little bit late, I would have done it sooner, but the fact that that’s now happening, and it’s going to be evidence-led – I think that’s fantastic, and I’m really looking forward to seeing the outcome.”

Former schools minister Lord Nash, who tabled the amendment peers will debate, warned that without “swift action to raise the age limit for social media to 16, we are at risk of a societal catastrophe”.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall this week announced a three-month consultation on a ban, looking at the advantages and disadvantages as well as possible overnight curfews and actions to prevent “doom-scrolling”, reporting back in summer.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told the Commons on Wednesday the consultation will “look at expert and international evidence to get this right”, including restrictions on age and addictive features as well as screen time use by under-fives.

Lord Nash has insisted the consultation simply represents more delay, arguing the evidence is “overwhelming” for a ban, with support from “medical professionals to our police and national intelligence community, from our teachers to hundreds of thousands of parents”.

He warned: “The time for delay and procrastination is over.”

Hollywood star Hugh Grant is one of the signatories in a letter to Sir Keir, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, backing the amendment.

The letter is also signed by Esther Ghey, whose 16-year-old daughter Brianna was murdered by two teenagers in 2023.

Ms Ghey has previously said her daughter had a “social media addiction” and “desperately wanted to be TikTok famous”, putting her “in constant fear about who Brianna might be speaking to online”.

Other signatories include singer Peter Andre and actor Sophie Winkleman, while the letter is also backed by Parentkind and Mumsnet.

It states: “Children are being served up extreme content without seeking it out. Parents know this has to stop. But they cannot do this alone, and they are asking for politicians to help.”

It adds: “The safeguarding of children is an issue that must always rise above politics. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill offers a real chance to protect childhood and support parents with clear, practical measures. We must act now, and not delay. Parents are asking for action, and your peers in Parliament can deliver it.”

Signatories argue clear age limits “send a strong signal and would be the single most effective way to help parents manage their children’s digital lives and keep them safe”.

Lord Nash’s amendment has been co-sponsored by Labour peer Baroness Berger, Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Benjamin and independent crossbench peer Baroness Cass.

Campaigners for the ban have argued social media is fuelling catastrophic harm to children’s health and driving radicalisation and crime, in addition to an epidemic of mental illness.

But not all campaigners are supportive of a ban, with some warning it might be a “blunt response” which fails to address the responsibility of big tech companies in ensuring their platforms are safe for users.

A statement issued at the weekend by the Molly Rose Foundation and NSPCC among others said blanket bans on social media “are a blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner”.

Girlguiding chief executive Felicity Oswald has also aired reservations about a ban, saying she believes “removing young people’s access will not rectify the root of the problem”.

Meanwhile, filmmaker and children’s rights campaigner Baroness Kidron has branded the Government’s announcement of a consultation on children’s wellbeing online “an insult” to Parliament, parents and youngsters, warning that it will delay action to keep children safe online.

Crossbencher Baroness Kidron said she would be voting in favour of Lord Nash’s amendment during a debate on Wednesday.

England’s Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza, who has previously said she would support a properly-enforced ban, said it could be “really tricky” in a practical sense, but insisted it must be a decision based on “understanding and not of knee-jerk reaction”.

She told MPs on the Human Rights Committee: “In terms of a ban. What are you going to do? Are you going to age-assess the App Store? Because, you know, it’s really tricky. Is it going to be one or two sites?

“I think there are some really tricky things to do, to do this well. And again, my big plea (to Government) would be: ‘Please speak to young people.’”