Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Martin Wrigley

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship for the very first time, Ms Butler. As you know very well, digital technology is no longer simply a tool or a luxury plaything; it is a foundational part of our way of life here in Britain, like the electricity that powers our kettles or indeed the very air we breathe. Part of the environment in which our children grow, learn, play and communicate, it shapes how the next generation interacts with the world. However, like the air we breathe, digital technologies can be polluted.

I am, as I may have mentioned at times, an engineer and a tech evangelist. I champion the benefits that these technologies bring, but I also recognise the profound concerns that they raise for children’s physical and mental health, as well as for their cognitive development. That is why the Select Committee for Science, Innovation and Technology is undertaking an inquiry to examine neuroscience and digital childhoods, and I am glad to see members of the Committee present.

We want to move beyond the surface-level debate to ask the difficult scientific questions about what is happening inside young minds and the developing brain. The inquiry will build on previous evidence gathering. Last year, as part of our investigation into social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms, we went deep into the workings of the platform companies, particularly the business models that drive their social media operations. Meta’s market capitalisation is about equal to the entire UK public sector budget. With such financial power driving content into children’s lives, it is vital that we understand what drives those companies.

Social media companies rely on advertising-based business models, where clicks and likes matter most. As a result, they are designed to push content that drives engagement to the point of addiction, often without sufficient regard for whether that content is accurate or trustworthy. The digital advertising that incentivises recommendation algorithms is under-regulated and highly concentrated, with Facebook and Google the dominant players. They encourage the creation of material built to perform on social media above all else, and that includes misinformation and disinformation.

As part of that inquiry, we identified five key principles essential for public trust: public safety, free and safe expression, platform responsibility, user control and transparency. Although the Government accepted all our conclusions, they rejected all our recommendations, such as better regulation of how algorithms rank, recommend and amplify content, better regulation of digital advertising, the inclusion of artificial intelligence in the Online Safety Act 2023 and a right to reset. Had they been implemented, some of the harms we now face would have been at least partially addressed.

In March this year the Committee held a one-off session to investigate the proposals for social media age restrictions. We took evidence from clinicians, experts in social media on both sides of the debate, bereaved family members, representatives of those with direct experience of harms and those monitoring the early implementation of the age restrictions brought in in Australia. During both inquiries, Committee members were struck by the extent of the evidence base for a wide range of significant harms from the use of social media—evidence that is consistent, strong and temporally linked to its use. We heard distressing testimony about media health impacts on children, including suicide and suicide ideation, exposure to and normalisation of sexual and violent content, eating disorders and body dysmorphia, health and nutrition misinformation, and physical health, brain development and sleeping disorders.

Governments worldwide are currently debating social media and phone bans for children. In December last year Australia banned social media for under-16s. France looks likely to follow suit with votes for an under-15s ban clearing the French Senate in March. Spain, Portugal, Greece and Canada all have similar proposals under way, and the UK Government are consulting on various protective measures, yet there is a gap in our collective knowledge. Although there is lots of evidence on how much time young people spend on digital devices, we have far too little evidence on how the devices affect children’s development. We also lack clarity on the different impacts of different types of exposure, from social media apps to screen time more generally. Our objective is to map the existing evidence and, crucially, identify where the gaps lie. Our aim is to understand how digital devices influence brain development in children and adolescents. We will examine the resulting impact on physical health and mental wellbeing, behaviour and educational attainment. We will assess how the impacts vary based on individual characteristics, including age, sex, socioeconomic background and ethnicity.

In our inquiry we will distinguish between active and passive engagement. Is there a neurological difference between a child playing a game and a child passively scrolling through an algorithmically driven auto-playing video infinite feed? We will look across activities—gaming, social media, television and messaging—and across various devices, whether they are hand-held, wearable or fixed technologies.

A key focus of our inquiry is the short, medium and long-term effects on brain and eye development. We will explore neurological and hormonal processes, including the role of dopamine releases and potential links to behavioural conditions. We will also look at the indirect effects on sleep and vision and the impact on eye development. We want to hear from those at the heart of this—the children and adolescents themselves. Their views on their own digital lives are vital to our understanding.

We also want to hear from experts, particularly experts in every stage of brain development. The ultimate goal of the Committee is to ensure that policymakers and parents have a better understanding of the evidence on the impact of digital devices on childhood. Then we can decide as parents and policymakers where we want to erect barriers, mitigate harmful impacts or extend beneficial impacts in order to optimise the physical and mental wellbeing of our children. We must ensure that the digital childhood supports development rather than undermines it.

I look forward to hearing the evidence and the questions from Members today.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for her report from our Select Committee, which I particularly enjoy working on. I find it very useful to bring people such as the social media companies before the Committee. We had a very—shall I say—vibrant meeting with them recently. Does the hon. Member agree that they are not doing enough in this space, and that we need to get them to do an awful lot more and to take responsibility?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his work on the Committee. It is always incisive and rooted in a desire to get the evidence. I agree with him. I understand the big tech companies are in No. 10 Downing Street this morning talking—or I hope listening—to the Prime Minister about this very subject: the importance of children’s wellbeing in digital technology. That in itself is testament to the fact that they have not done enough. We should not have got to this place, where our children are living through the harms that I spoke about and that the Committee heard about in its evidence. The companies’ incentives, driven by advertising revenue and profit making, should be in second place to children’s wellbeing and the safety of the products and services that they put out to our young people—and indeed to all our citizens.

Technology Sovereignty

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Martin Wrigley

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I certainly agree that we need to be able to defend ourselves against AI attacks.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady and Chair of my Select Committee for giving way. Does she agree that a definition of sovereign tech is something that a foreign power could not switch off, so that the systems on which we rely could not be pulled out from under our feet, much as the Microsoft ones were for the International Criminal Court?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

My fellow member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee makes a very important point about the definition of sovereignty. I do not want to get too bogged down in the actual definition, but I agree that control matters, and I will say a little more about that.

I will raise the definition of digital sovereignty cited in the House of Commons Library briefing, which accompanies this debate, which is

“the agency and capacity of any organisation to make intelligent, informed choices to shape its digital future by design.”

On that basis, choosing between Amazon Web Services and Microsoft for our data centre is technology sovereignty. I also think that if British sovereignty depends on our leaders’ ability to make intelligent choices, they spent a lot of our history not having sovereignty.

The Library definition came from a global consultancy called Public Digital. Emily Middleton, the interim director for digital transformation in DSIT, was previously a partner at Public Digital. It rules out digital independence and says that our goal should be intelligent dependence. Can the Minister say whether he is aiming for intelligent dependence?

The definition I like best, however, is that sovereignty is whatever a sovereign power says it is—that is what sovereignty means. The UK has extraordinary technological human capital resources, particularly in AI, where we are probably third in the world, but also in clean energy, quantum synthetic biology and much more. Our human capital means that we are not just any mid-sized country; we can aim higher than intelligent dependence. Elon Musk chose to turn off Ukraine’s Starlink capacity at a critical time in Ukraine’s defence of its sovereignty against Putin’s illegal aggression. None of us wants the UK to be in such a position of dependence.