Coram SCARF, the UK’s leading charity for children’s health, wellbeing and drugs education, has today confirmed its support for a minimum age of access, set at no lower than 16 for social media services in its response to the government’s consultation paper Growing up in the online world: a national consultation.
The consultation was announced in March to consider what further measures might be necessary to prepare children for a digital future. Coram SCARF works with 50,000 teachers in 3,000 schools nationwide every year delivering personal, health, social and economic (PSHE) education to 600,000 pupils.
Setting the scene around the benefits of social media use and being online for children, the submission highlights that evidence to support the benefits of children’s online engagement is weak, and that the consultation guidance is built on assumptions of benefits that remain insufficiently substantiated by strong evidence and overstates these. “Longitudinal research challenges the assumption that more screen time improves digital competence; evidence suggests children with lower screen use may be more digitally competent, indicating that digital literacy rests on broader cognitive and social skills.”
The submission goes on to highlight the potential harms or risks of social media use and being online for children, including mental health problems, impaired emotional and social development, reduced academic performance and sleep disruption. It also highlights the harms caused by exposure to harmful or inappropriate content, including cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and abuse, and exposure to crime and extremism.
Coram SCARF sets out its support for a legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access, to be set at no lower than 16, in place of the absence of any current legal requirement for a minimum age (although many services set the minimum age at 13), stating:
“Research shows social media can harm developing brains, particularly through algorithm-driven exposure to extreme content. Allowing more time during the adolescent years for brain maturation enables better judgement, risk management, and critical thinking online. particularly through algorithm‑driven exposure to extreme content. As with age limits for alcohol, driving, and voting, children should be developmentally ready before having full, independent access.
“As professionals with experience and expertise within the field of children’s health and wellbeing, we believe that introducing a minimum age for social media services would significantly reduce the harms that we hear about on a regular basis across our service provision.
“Teachers in schools, in particular, have reported significant issues they face that they attribute to children’s use of social media. In a recent survey conducted by Coram SCARF across our network of over 3,000 primary schools, 83% of teachers reported the children’s access to internet-enabled digital technology (including smartphone, tablets etc.) had increased their workload, with almost 50% reporting that this had increased significantly.
Making the minimum age a legal requirement would relieve pressure on teachers in schools and parents as it would lead to shifts in societal norms around children’s use and ownership of internet-enabled digital devices.
The submission also cites early evidence from Australia’s restrictions on social media for young people showing positive impacts among parents of children aged 16 and under, including in-person social interaction, reporting that their children were more present and engaged and improved parent–child relationships.
In addition, the submission suggests there is no evidence that restricting access causes children to migrate to unregulated or “dark web” spaces; “most lack the skills, confidence, or motivation, and these spaces do not offer the peer socialisation children seek. And claims that raising the minimum age creates a “cliff edge” are misleading; a cliff edge already exists at age 13 if current age limits were properly enforced.
Arguments that vulnerable children need social media to find their “tribe” are not supported by evidence; research shows social media can increase risk for vulnerable groups. Law enforcement reports that predators often target online support forums because they provide easy access to vulnerable young people, and most teenagers encounter harmful or violent content despite only a minority actively seeking it, with vulnerable children disproportionately affected.
The submission also calls for urgent consideration and action to be taken with relation to concerns about access to educational technology (EdTech) and the need for it to collect children’s data: “Serious educational tools should focus on providing content without advertising or personal tracking, which mainly benefits EdTech companies. Under UK law, individuals under 18 lack full legal capacity to enter into binding contracts. This raises questions about children and young people’s ability to consent to data use and whether 13-16-year-olds can grasp concepts needed in order to make informed and safe decisions when consenting. This is a significant safeguarding issue.”
Addressing the impacts if some online services were required to introduce age restrictions on specific features and functionalities, Coram SCARF state: “Effective implementation of age-restrictions for specific addictive features (such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and engagement metrics) might deliver limited short‑term benefits by reducing overtly compulsive use, slightly improving children’s immediate wellbeing, reassuring parents, and encouraging more child‑focused design. However, these measures focus on surface behaviours and leave deeper causes of harm largely unaddressed.”
On impacts if online platforms were required to restrict specific features, Coram SCARF responds: “Exposure to harmful or inappropriate content is effectively unavoidable, as children can encounter it through searches or accidental exposure, and moderation systems cannot fully keep pace with content volume and speed. Social media parallels other age‑restricted activities such as alcohol or gambling, where access is limited because even small exposure can affect developing systems, suggesting a precautionary approach focused on access itself.”
Coram SCARF rejects the suggestion of parental controls that would place the onus on the parent/carer rather than the creator/manufacturer. “Parental controls place all the onus on the parent/carer rather than the creator/manufacturer. This places a huge burden on parents/carers and leaves vulnerable children more exposed as the products are not safe by design. It also leads to conflict within family relationships family relationships, impacting family life.
On the benefits to children of using Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots Coram SCARF states: “Claims that AI chatbots benefit children’s education, creativity, or learning are largely unsupported by robust, independent, or longitudinal evidence. In contrast to the weak evidence of benefit, research, expert analysis and emerging experiences of children and young people, now being reported, increasingly highlight developmental, psychological, and safety concerns, especially where AI chatbots are designed to simulate social interaction.
“Overall, current evidence does not support claims that AI chatbots are beneficial for children, while developmental, psychological, and safety risks are increasingly recognised. On this basis, age restrictions are necessary, with expert child development and health professional opinion supporting an age limit of 18 for AI chatbots due to emerging harms and the absence of demonstrated benefits that are now coming to light.”
In order to make minimum age restrictions effective and workable, Coram SCARF argues that responsibility for implementing effective age‑verification measures should rest with online service providers. “Age‑restricted products such as alcohol, tobacco, and gambling are subject to established verification requirements, despite the potential inconvenience for adults who may be asked to prove their age or refused service. The possibility of implementation challenges or user dissatisfaction has not been accepted as a justification for avoiding or weakening these safeguards. Comparable restrictions on alcohol and tobacco limit access to substantial potential markets, yet these economic consequences are not regarded as grounds for removing or diluting protections for children.”
Mobile phones in schools
Addressing whether the Department for Education’s (DfE) non-statutory guidance on ‘mobile phones in schools’ should be made statutory, meaning schools would have a legal duty to follow the guidance prohibiting the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, Coram SCARF states: “Making the guidance statutory and excluding “no see, no hear” policies – widely reported by teachers as being ineffective and time-consuming to implement – would reduce classroom disruption and improve learning by preventing pupil access to smartphones during the school day.
“Evidence from schools with effective restrictions shows improved concentration, fewer behavioural incidents, and stronger engagement, while teacher surveys indicate disruption persists where policies are inconsistent. Statutory guidance would create a clear, enforceable national baseline, reducing ambiguity, strengthening staff authority, and easing the burden of individual enforcement. These are supported by teaching union leaders.
For parents, carers, and schools, a national approach would provide clarity and consistency, reduce conflict, and align expectations across institutions. Teacher job satisfaction and staff retention would be positively impacted, saving money from school budgets that are needed for other priorities. Overall, and as evidenced by schools implementing effective restrictions, statutory guidance would support calmer, more focused school environments and improved wellbeing, provided implementation is clearly communicated and practical considerations are addressed.
To better bring about media and digital literacy, Coram SCARF calls for frontline professionals such as child development professionals, health professionals, teachers, police and youth workers to feed into guidance, and for consultation with children and young people, including the views of post-16 and post-18-year-olds who have recent relevant lived-experience of life online but are coming out of adolescence and can reflect on its impact on their health and wellbeing.
About Coram SCARF
Coram SCARF (formally Coram Life Education) is the UK’s leading charity for children’s health, wellbeing, and drug education. In partnership with schools, we deliver a whole-school approach to mental health and PSHE for ages 3–11, supporting 50,000+ teachers and reaching over 600,000 pupils annually.