Hugh Grant and Esther Ghey sign letter backing under-16s social media ban in UK
A letter signed by Hugh Grant, Esther Ghey and other campaigners urges UK party leaders to support amendment 94a, which would ban social media for children under 16. The proposal is set for a vote in the House of Lords and could move to the Commons if approved.
Renowned actor Hugh Grant has added his name to a high‑profile petition calling for an outright ban on social media use by children under the age of 16 in the United Kingdom. The open letter, addressed to Labour leader Keir Starmer, Conservative business secretary Kemi Badenoch and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, asks the three party heads to rally their peers in the House of Lords behind amendment 94a to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Who signed the letter and why it matters
The signatories include a mix of public figures and bereaved parents. Among them are actress Sophie Winkleman and Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna Ghey was murdered by two teenagers in Warrington, Cheshire, in 2023. The tragedy has intensified calls for tighter online safety measures, especially for younger users who are deemed more vulnerable to harmful content and predatory behaviour.
According to the charity Parentkind, which commissioned a national poll, 93 % of parents believe social media is detrimental to children and young people. The letter argues that amendment 94a is the only proposal with sufficient cross‑party backing to deliver an immediate, decisive change. It criticises alternative amendments for lacking a clear message about the dangers of social media and for offering limited support to parents.
Parliamentary process and political backing
Amendment 94a was introduced by Lord Nash, a former schools minister, and will be debated by the House of Lords on Wednesday. If the amendment passes the upper chamber, it will move to the Commons for further scrutiny. Labour peers have already expressed support, and a recent letter signed by 61 Labour MPs urged Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to enact a ban.
Technology secretary Liz Kendall, a Labour MP, told the Commons that the government’s consultation – launched the day before the Lords vote – would be concluded within a few months, with a firm policy position expected by summer. The consultation will explore measures such as overnight curfews and “doom‑scrolling” breaks, and will produce evidence‑based guidance on screen time for children aged five to 16. Separate guidance for under‑fives is slated for release in April.
Opposition and criticism of the consultation
Film director and digital‑rights advocate Beeban Kidron, who plans to vote for Nash’s amendment, condemned the government’s decision to launch a consultation instead of immediate legislation. She described the move as an “insult to parliament” and accused the government of prioritising backbench votes over children’s safety. Kidron also criticised Starmer’s stance, suggesting it placed party interests ahead of national welfare.
On the Conservative side, Kemi Badenoch has previously indicated that a ban for under‑16s would be introduced if the party formed the next government. This signals that the proposal enjoys at least tacit support across the political spectrum, even if the details of implementation remain contested.
Potential impact and next steps
Should amendment 94a be adopted, the UK would become one of the first major democracies to enforce a blanket age limit on social‑media platforms. The legislation would compel companies to block accounts belonging to users under 16, unless parental consent mechanisms are put in place. Proponents argue this would give children a protected childhood and reduce exposure to cyberbullying, self‑harm content and online grooming.
Critics warn that a hard ban could drive young people to unregulated alternatives, complicate enforcement, and raise questions about freedom of expression. They also point out that many teenagers already use social media for educational purposes and social connection, especially in the post‑pandemic era.
The Lords vote is therefore a pivotal moment. A favourable outcome would force the Commons to confront the issue directly, potentially leading to legislation before the end of the year. If the amendment fails, the debate is likely to continue through the ongoing consultation, with pressure mounting from parents, advocacy groups and high‑profile supporters like Hugh Grant.
Regardless of the immediate result, the letter and the surrounding publicity have thrust the under‑16 social‑media ban into the national conversation, highlighting the growing tension between digital innovation and child welfare.
Why it matters
The proposal could reshape how UK children access social media, influencing both online safety policy and tech industry practices.
Key points
- Hugh Grant joins a cross‑party letter urging a ban on social media for under‑16s
- Amendment 94a, introduced by Lord Nash, will be voted on in the House of Lords
- Parentkind poll shows 93 % of parents view social media as harmful to children
- If passed, the ban would require platforms to block accounts of users under 16
- Opposition warns a hard ban could push youths to unregulated services
Frequently asked questions
What is amendment 94a?
Amendment 94a is a proposal to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would prohibit children under 16 from accessing social‑media platforms without parental consent.
Who are the main supporters of the ban?
Supporters include actors Hugh Grant and Sophie Winkleman, bereaved mother Esther Ghey, former schools minister Lord Nash, film director Beeban Kidron, and a majority of Labour MPs.
What does the government’s consultation involve?
The consultation, announced by technology secretary Liz Kendall, will explore curfews, screen‑time guidance and other measures, with a final position expected by summer.
What are the arguments against a blanket ban?
Critics argue it could drive teens to unregulated platforms, hinder freedom of expression, and overlook the educational benefits of social media.
