This week the Prime Minister announced that the Government will ban social media use for children under the age of 16.

The restrictions will apply to platforms that allow users to share content, including TikTok, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and X/Twitter, although messaging services such as WhatsApp are currently exempt.

There will also be tighter controls on gaming platforms such as Roblox, particularly where live chat functions are involved.

This is a hugely significant moment in the national debate around children's safety online, an issue I have been involved in for many years.

Tens of thousands of people responded to the Government's consultation, demonstrating the depth of public concern about the impact social media is having on childhoods.

Many groups and campaigners deserve credit for bringing this issue to the forefront of British politics, including the Smartphone Free Childhood movement, which has developed a strong network here in East Hampshire.

I also welcomed the opportunity to bring together local parents to discuss the Government's consultation and hear directly from families about their concerns. I want to thank everyone who contributed to those conversations.

The response to the consultation was overwhelmingly supportive of stronger action. According to the Government's figures, 91 percent of respondents supported a ban on social media for under-16s. That reflects the feedback I have received locally, where many parents expressed concern about the addictive nature of these platforms, exposure to harmful content and contact from strangers online.

One issue that remains unresolved is messaging services such as WhatsApp. I raised this directly with ministers earlier this week because it is still unclear how children will be protected if strangers are able to add them to large group chats simply because they have access to a phone number. I have been told that further details will be published in July.

What was particularly striking during the consultation process was the number of young people themselves who supported stronger restrictions. In conversations I have had with pupils at local schools, many recognised the harmful effects social media can have on mental health, concentration and wellbeing.

Of course, it would be naïve to believe that every child will simply stop accessing social media once the ban comes into effect. International experience, including in Australia, shows that enforcement will be challenging and that some young people will inevitably attempt to circumvent the rules, just as happens with age restrictions in other areas — vaping being the obvious example today, and smoking for previous generations.

However, what this policy does provide is a much clearer line in the sand for parents. It helps reduce the pester power many families experience, where children feel pressured to join platforms because "everyone else is already there".

We should also recognise what a significant shift this represents. It was not long ago that the Prime Minister said he was not in favour of a ban for under-16s. In a relatively short period, a ban has become Government policy. That demonstrates the impact sustained campaigning and public pressure can have on national decision-making.

At the same time, we must ensure these changes do not allow technology companies to avoid responsibility for making their platforms safer. Regulation and enforcement must go hand in hand, and there should be meaningful penalties for firms that fail to protect children adequately.

It is also important to remember that while the proposed ban focuses on under-16s, society's duty to safeguard children does not suddenly end at that age. Under existing child protection laws, we have responsibilities towards young people up to the age of 18, and we must ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are not overlooked.

There is still much detail to work through, and questions remain around implementation and enforcement. But for now, this is a significant and hard-won victory for those who have long campaigned for this change.