Social Media Ban for Under-16s

Before we come to the statement, I must place on the record Mr Speaker’s disappointment that the Prime Minister chose Downing Street over this House as the place in which to make the important announcement about banning under-16s from social media. The Prime Minister’s very own rulebook states that important policy announcements should be made in the first instance in this House when it is sitting. His approach this morning is symptomatic of a pattern of disrespect for this House from No. 10. The Government have said that they will update the ministerial code on this point, and I urge them to get on with it. In the meantime, they must stick with the rules as they are set out. Mr Speaker wishes to thank the Secretary of State, who is a shining example of a Minister taking the code seriously on this matter and not briefing out her statement before she has come to the House. I call the Secretary of State.

Today marks a defining moment for our children, and for future generations, as we lay the foundations of a new settlement for the online world. We want to ensure that children have the best start in life and the freedom to be children again, and to put power back into parents’ hands.

Up and down the country, parents are grappling with social media—what their children are seeing, how much screen time they should have, who they are communicating with and whether they are safe. Many children love connecting and interacting on social media, but others struggle with their mental health, concentration and self esteem. The police, children’s charities and far too many tragically bereaved families have seen for themselves the serious risks and harm that social media brings.

While these concerns are widely shared, there are different, often strongly held views about the best way forward. We launched our consultation on growing up in the online world to ensure that everyone’s voices were heard. The response has been overwhelming. We have had over 116,000 replies, including 54,000 from parents and 14,000 from children. We have heard from charities, teachers’ organisations, the police and medical professionals, and from countless Members of Parliament—not only those on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Education Committee, but my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), and so many more besides.

The progress report that we are publishing today sets out lots of different perspectives, but our consultation showed overwhelmingly that parents and children are concerned about what children are being exposed to online—harmful content; content that is completely inappropriate for their age; and abuse and exploitation. Parents are worried about the impact on children’s sleep, school, physical health and emotional wellbeing. Above all, parents are crying out for change. Nine out of 10 parents who responded to the consultation told us that they want an outright ban on social media, as did three quarters of parents who responded to our large scale representative survey and the 113,000 parents who signed Daisy and Joe’s Smartphone Free Childhood petition.

Keeping children safe online has been my top priority since day one in this job. I have listened to calls, especially from bereaved families, to act as quickly as possible. Today I announce our first steps, with more to come next month. I can confirm that we will ban social media companies from providing their services to under-16s. [Applause.]

Order. There should not be clapping in the Chamber or the Gallery. No doubt the Doorkeepers will remove people if they need to.

We are doing this to give greater protections to children and greater clarity to parents and carers, and to set a new social norm for future generations. My intention is to lay before the House regulations on a ban, and to have a vote on them by the end of this year, with the ban coming into effect in early 2027. We plan to use the same model as Australia, covering user to user platforms that allow users to post material alongside algorithms. Our ban will include platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. Because we want to make sure that we do not include educational services, e commerce or music streaming platforms, there will be a narrowly defined list of exemptions, which we will keep under review.

I have listened to parents, civil society and many MPs in this House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), for Congleton (Sarah Russell), and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), about the need to go further, and I can today announce our first steps to restrict a wider range of features and functions that create risks for young people. Because it can open the door to vile child abuse, we will ban livestreaming for under-16s across all platforms. We will ban communication with strangers, including in gaming, to stop paedophiles meeting and grooming children.

We are not stopping there. Artificial intelligence chatbots were a top concern of parents who responded to our consultation, particularly chatbots that mimic intimate relationships and exploit vulnerabilities. The Children’s Commissioner and my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke Smith) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) have also raised this issue. Today, Britain becomes the first country in the world to ban chatbots that offer sexualised content to under-18s, and we will restrict this functionality on general purpose chatbots too. We know that there are really serious concerns about other AI chatbots, such as in therapy apps, but I recognise that some of those may have benefits, so I am working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and others to assess the evidence, and I will come back to the House to give a further statement next month on this issue, and on wider measures on AI chatbots.

We want to address concerns that there will be a cliff edge when a child turns 16—an age when young people should be especially focused on their future and exams. I can announce that livestreaming and stranger communication, including in gaming, will be switched off by default for 16-year olds and 17-year olds. I am also strongly minded to bring in default overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for 16-year olds and 17-year olds. I will set out further details in my next statement in July, once our pilot schemes are finished.

I know that not everyone supports a ban, and I have listened carefully to the concerns and want to take each in turn. First, we have seen in Australia that many children will try to get around a ban, and succeed. That is inevitable when social media has been such an integral part of their life. We will introduce more highly effective age assurance measures better to support compliance, and I have asked Ofcom to share proposals on that within months. However, I want to be clear to parents, and to Members of the House, that our ban is as much about helping future generations, and resetting social norms in future, as it is about young people today.

Secondly, people worry that a ban would push children on to riskier, less regulated sites, and that is something that I take extremely seriously. I have had a long conversation with Ofcom and its new chair, and have written to them to stress once again that enforcement of the Online Safety Act 2023 and our new ban must be a top priority. Ofcom must focus rigorously on that, including in relation to riskier sites, and I have asked for an urgent review of whether it has the right capabilities in place. I have also asked Ofcom to publish a clear enforcement strategy, and an annual report to Parliament on how the strategy is progressing.

Thirdly, we must prepare children for the online world, which will inevitably be part of their life. Many schools are already doing that, but from September this year, every pupil across England will learn about social media in the classroom, including AI and how to spot deepfakes. My Department has produced new advice for parents on how to talk to children about the online world. It is called, “You won’t know if you don’t ask”. This is schools and parents together preparing children for the future.

Lastly but by no means least, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) have rightly raised the importance of ensuring that all young people can access information, trusted support and exciting activities, especially if they are no longer spending so much time online. We are delivering on that, too. The Secretaries of State for Education and for Culture, Media and Sport are expanding what is on offer in every school and beyond the classroom, including after school clubs in the holidays and at weekends. There is support for a wide range of enrichment activities, such as art, music, sport, cooking, camping and museum visits—things that were once available only to those who could afford them, but are now available to every pupil in England. In stark contrast to Conservative Members, who cut youth services by 75%, we are investing £500 million in our “Youth Matters” national youth strategy, so that children from all walks of life, wherever they live, can access youth services, sport and the arts.

My driving force, and the reason I came into politics, has always been and will always be to give every child, from every background, the best possible start in life, because that is how they and our country succeed. Today, we take a decisive step towards creating a safer, healthier life for our children and future generations. We are giving children their childhood back. I am clear eyed about all the challenges that social media brings, for adults as well as children, and technology constantly changes. Today’s announcement is not “one and done”, or the end of the story. There is still much more to do, but this is a landmark day—a day when we stand with parents, charities, bereaved families, and all those who have campaigned for change. This is your moment. It is a day when we take power away from the tech giants, who have had countless opportunities to keep children safe, and put it in back in parents’ hands. It is a day when we give our children the freedom to be children again, so that they have the best possible start in life. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. As someone infamous for her impatience, waiting for the Prime Minister to opine on something that she genuine cares about must have been as frustrating for her as it has been for us.

Today the Prime Minister announced, as his shot at a legacy, something that six months ago he said he was personally opposed to—a ban on social media for under-16s. We can be grateful that he got there in the end, but the victory is not his. Thanks must go to some of the gutsier Labour Back Benchers whom we have heard cited today, the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Education Secretary and, in particular, my noble Friend Lord Nash for his dogged determination in pursuing his amendments. Above all, we must thank those parents who took the senseless tragedies that befell their families and turned their pain into a legacy that will benefit so many children. They have conducted themselves with dignity and grace, and many are in the Gallery today to see the results of their courage.

The Prime Minister’s about turn tells many stories. If he were a man with views, his position could have been laid out at the start of the year, with the consultation used as a chance to polish the policy. As it is, officials’ heads have been left spinning trying to retrofit details to this damascene conversion. The Prime Minister likes to make a virtue of process, but he has used process in this case as a tool to avoid doing what so many hon. Members said was not only inevitable, but right and entirely necessary. We have had votes: the Prime Minister instructed his troops three times to vote against the ban. We have had debates: the Prime Minister would not give a view. But lo, a career critical by election comes along and, upon realising that protecting kids is not just popular but vital, the Prime Minister has finally found his voice. With Makerfield going to the polls on Thursday, perhaps we should use the next couple of days to maximum effect by trying to extract his opinions on funding defence, cutting welfare and getting cheap energy, because this country has been waiting for leadership for too long.

As Conservatives, we believe in the ultimate responsibility of parents over their children, but they face huge challenges in keeping their children safe online. It is not simply a matter of denying them a phone or a computer. There are many good uses of tech that children and young people should be free to explore, but the onus is on us, as adults, to create a positive place for their exploration. Instead, activity that would never be tolerated in the real world has been normalised, monetised and algorithmically amplified, to the detriment of kids.

The Online Safety Act 2023 was a step forward, but we better understand now that it is not just what children see, but how social media works. The success of the policy will depend heavily on its implementation, and the announcement still begs many questions. What additional resource is the Secretary of State giving to Ofcom? She is asking the regulator to take on a substantial amount of extra work. Does she expect tech companies to contribute more towards the regulator’s budget or will the funding come from her own budget?

When can we expect precise definitions of what brings a platform into scope? A list of banned platforms has been briefed today, but it is not clear why some do not make the cut. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that this work will not distract from implementing the final stages of the OSA? What lessons has she learned from the circumvention of the Australia ban that will make the UK experience and our ban more effective?

The Secretary of State talks about more effective age assurances, and I agree with her about the need to reset social norms, but will she be ruling out mandatory digital ID as a requirement for accessing social media? What privacy protections will be in place if children’s images are taken as part of face scanning for age verification? Is she considering age verification at app store level as a means not only of more reliable protection of children, but as a chance to reduce friction for adults wishing to access social media?

The Government have said that they are considering overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18s. How do Ministers square granting 16-year olds the solemn duty to vote, but not the power to have a cheeky night time scroll on Instagram? The same applies to romantic chat bots. How is this going to work? Will the restrictions apply to 16-year olds or 18-year olds, given that both meet the age of sexual consent? On efforts to prevent children from taking or sharing nude imagery, will the Secretary of State set out the scope of the law she is considering and categorically rule out client side scanning tools being applied to adults’ phones?

We are told that the first set of regulations to enable the social media ban could be in effect by spring 2027. How confident is the Secretary of State that she will achieve her timeline? She will understand that this policy is not easily implemented—she has made reference to that—and she has detractors who share the aim but not the means, fearing that a ban pushes children out of supervised accounts and towards riskier services. What does she say to those, like Ian Russell, who believe that this policy is not only wrong but cynically timed? She suggests that it comes down to enforcement of the OSA, which makes my earlier questions more relevant.

Finally, I wish to ask the Secretary of State about her tweet last week on updating the Online Safety Act to remove illegal content with greater speed during “times of crisis”. The scenes in Belfast rightly appalled every decent citizen in our nation. The vicious barbarism of Hadi Alodid, just like the despicable murder of Henry Nowak, has ignited anger and sparked protests that have led to indiscriminate violence against innocent people. Violence and protest can often mix, but they are none the less two very different things. Laws exist that prohibit incitement, criminalise threats to kill and stop platforms from hosting illegal content, and they must rightly be enforced with strength.

On the other hand, peaceful protest is a legitimate response to failure—in this case, the perceived failure of the political class to adequately deal with concerns that the public have raised time and again via the ballot box. In such circumstances, I appreciate that the Government have a job on their hands to ensure that work to stop the spread of illegal content is not perceived to be or does not become an attempt to obscure legitimate political comment. What powers are being taken? How will “times of crisis” be defined? What assurances can the Secretary of State offer the House that she understands that if the Government do not get their approach right, any actions she proposes risk stoking the very unrest that her policy is designed to subdue?

For too long, we have implicitly decided that childhood and parenting must simply adapt to the darker manifestations of the internet as a reality of modern life. Giving parents the support that they need is not the same as the state stripping them of their ultimate responsibilities, but when harm from social media to our children is real and growing, the time comes for action, even when the answers are not perfect. I look forward to working with the Secretary of State on ensuring that the implementation of her policy is as close to perfect as it can be.

I am glad that the hon. Lady said at the end of her question that she will work with us to ensure that we implement this policy effectively. That is extremely important. I absolutely agree that the policy is a win for all the parents who have campaigned for it, especially the bereaved families, who have had to relive the horror of what has happened time and time again.

The hon. Lady made some comments about the Prime Minister. Let me be really clear: we are moving so swiftly on this matter precisely because the bereaved families have said to us, “The longer you leave change, the worse it can be for children.” I have really taken that to heart and moved as quickly as possible. It was right to have the consultation, and not just because there are different views, but because what we have heard is so overwhelming. That builds supports for the ban and I hope it means that when we implement the ban, it will last.

The Online Safety Act took eight years from the initial idea to its implementation. The fact that this Government have taken powers in the Children Act 1989 means that we can implement this policy much more quickly. As I said, I want a vote on it by the end of the year, and I want it to come into force as early as possible, in the first couple of months of 2027.

The hon. Lady asked about Ofcom’s enforcement, resources and capabilities. I have asked it to conduct an urgent review. It should first look at its own resources before coming to Parliament to ask for more, but I will look at what it says.

The hon. Lady also asked about the model that we are following. We plan to follow the model of Australia, and that covers not just the companies I named in my statement, but others. That is publicly available information.

The hon. Lady rightly asked about highly effective age assurance measures. She will know that they are already covered for adults in the Online Safety Act. Not all of them are appropriate for children, so we have asked Ofcom to look at this issue as quickly as possible and to come up with something that will work. That is really important, but, as she will know, having read the Online Safety Act, privacy is absolutely at the heart of those measures. There are really strict requirements about any data collected, what it is used for and how it should be deleted. The measure regarding AI chatbots is for those aged 18 and under, because we think there are parallels there with issues such as pornography.

The hon. Lady asked about comments I put out on X last week on essentially incitement to violence online. If somebody incites violence online, it is the same as inciting violence offline, and that is not acceptable. This week in Parliament we are laying Ofcom’s updated code of practice about what to do in crisis moments, which is essentially to take down illegal material. I think most people in this country would agree that if somebody breaks the law and incites violence, they should face the full consequences, whether it is online or offline, and I support that.

I know that in this House there is normally a lot of theatre around the politics—I understand that, as that is what this place is like—but the vast majority of Members support a ban. I hope we can all work together, because parents, no matter their politics, want the same thing. Let us crack on with the job.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

As so many parents know, and as my Committee’s ongoing inquiry into digital childhood has highlighted, British children have been the subjects of a malign mass experiment designed purely to optimise corporate profits, resulting in horrifying—though largely unmeasured—harms at an individual and population level. Successive Governments have been too ignorant, too ideological, or too in hock to big tech to act, so the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on taking action.

However, my right hon. Friend knows that a ban is riddled with problems, including workarounds such as virtual private networks and services such as generative AI and WhatsApp not being included, with new ones popping up regularly. It does nothing to address the organised acceleration of misinformation, which harms our children and whose consequences we saw on the streets of Belfast. As such, can I urge the Secretary of State to revisit my Committee’s 2025 report and to go after the advertising driven business model that incentivises these harms and is largely unregulated, and also to impose transparency requirements so that we understand the challenge we face?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As I think I have said in this House before, I will look again at the recommendations of that report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is a Minister in both my Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is chairing a joint taskforce on advertising to look at what more we can do in the online world. The Online Safety Act sets out very clear legal duties on providers to remove what is illegal for everyone and what is harmful for children, but I am looking at what more can be done, particularly during times of crisis. That includes boosting trusted sources and making it easier for people to reset their algorithms, and as I have said, we will lay updates before Parliament this week to bring into effect Ofcom’s strengthened code of practice for what happens in times of crisis. However, I am sure that, as always, my hon. Friend will push us to go further.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

On behalf of children and parents across the country, we welcome the Government finally taking action to keep children safe online. I know how important this issue has been to the Secretary of State. For almost 18 months, the Liberal Democrats—as the first party to force a vote on the issue—have been pushing for action to raise the digital age of consent and implement doomscrolling caps, health warnings and a film style age rating to ban harmful social media for under-16s. Today, we welcome the fact that the Government have finally caught up with those calls to act and listened to the parents and tireless campaigners who have worked relentlessly, and often in difficult circumstances.

It is just a shame that it does not seem that it was those cries for help from parents and young people, or the mounting evidence, that finally made the Prime Minister act. After months of dither and delay, what has been announced today seems more like a panicked policy cobbled together ahead of a by election and a Back Bench rebellion. It is a real disappointment that, in their last minute rush, the Government have not learned from Australia and other countries about how we can do better and deal with the root causes of online harm. Our Liberal Democrat harms based approach would deal with addictive algorithms and features, such as from chatbots—not just the romantic companions or therapy bots that the Government have highlighted, although we of course look forward to hearing more about that next month.

Our approach is supported by more than 40 charities and experts who stand up for children and a safer online world. It would create a clear framework for new platforms and future harms that have already arrived, whereas Australia is playing a game of whack a-mole. We can learn to do better, so why have the Government not learned from the experiences of other countries as the Secretary of State said she would? How will the Government protect children from emerging threats and addictive features elsewhere, and not just prevent young people from signing up? How are the Government deciding what platforms will be included? What framework differentiates YouTube from YouTube Kids, for example, and will children still be able to access YouTube without an account, as they can now? What addictive features will be tackled, beyond infinite scroll, and what assurances are there beyond the Government being “strongly minded” to act?

We do not mind the Prime Minister borrowing our ideas; we just wish he had borrowed all of them, and sooner. Of course, we continue to offer our services to work together. Our approach would ban harmful social media for under-16s by default and set a new safety standard to make the internet truly a safer place, just like the standards for films and toys that we have had in the offline world for decades. Children are growing up in the attention economy, where their focus is being sold. They deserve a Government who treat this as a seatbelt moment, not a press release for Makerfield. Will the Secretary of State use this opportunity to truly hold the tech giants to account and back a harms based framework that puts children’s safety at the heart of this quickly changing technological world?

I have to admit that I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is for or against the ban. [Interruption.] She is a Lib Dem, say Members on the Conservative Benches. She asked about the model. In my statement, I said that it is the Australian model. We have learned the lessons, which is why we are focusing on more highly effective age assurance measures. To be clear, there has to be rigorous enforcement, including of more risky sites. That is what I have talked about wanting Ofcom to do. We have taken powers in the Children Act 1989 to implement the results of this consultation, which includes restrictions on features and functions. One important issue is that if we restrict some features and functions, the companies will come up with others, but the powers in that Act allow us to move more quickly. One thing that has struck me is that we cannot take eight years over this, because technology is changing so fast. I am always happy to talk to Members.

Let me finish with the point about the Prime Minister. He believed in having this consultation, because there are different views. It has been a good thing to do, because the result is clear. There is not a rush; this is a deeply thought through policy programme. I hope that the hon. Lady will rise above party politics and work with us to get it right, but I might be holding my breath.

As somebody who was in some of the rooms where this policy was being discussed, I pay tribute to the Secretary of State. She has fought incredibly hard, and by no means has any of it been rushed for an announcement; she has worked incredibly hard on it. Last week, the Government announced that we would be age verifying on the basis of the device. Why can we not use that same age verification at the device level for accessing social media?

My hon. Friend is a huge champion, and has pushed hard, for many of these measures and many more besides. The ban links to the device level interventions we have talked about, but this ban will be for under-16s. It is important that we set that clear limit. On the device proposals, I am very clear that we expect the companies to act, and we will legislate.

I welcome this morning’s announcement. The platforms are not now off the hook: the Online Safety Act 2023 operates until the age of 18, which is the age to which the Children Act 1989 requires protection to be in place. On the announcement, what is the net effect of exempting messaging services but blocking communication from strangers, if a messaging service allows anybody who knows a person’s phone number to add them to a large messaging group?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are not including things like WhatsApp in this policy. Parents have been clear that they want to be able to contact their children, but we want to block strangers being able to communicate with children. We will be setting out all the details in our regulations, and he knows that I will be more than happy to talk him through the details. The messaging services are not covered by the ban, but if they have features and functions—as they do—that allow strangers to communicate with children, we want to deal with that. We will be coming forward with further detail.

The Secretary of State and I do not necessarily agree on the effectiveness of a ban, but we absolutely agree on companion chatbots. The entire business model of companion chatbots is to keep us and our children online for as long as possible, using grooming language, grooming behaviour and sometimes sexual circumstances to data mine us and, more importantly, our children. Can the Secretary of State make it clear at the Dispatch Box that we will not tolerate these types of business models exploiting us and our children?

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate. We are absolutely clear about the fact that these so called romantic, or companion, sexualised chatbots are wrong for children, and we will ban them, but we will ban that function in general chatbots as well; we have seen it on X, for instance. There is further to go in respect of AI chatbots, and, as I have said, I will make a further statement to the House in July on the other measures. I am more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that. The reason for today’s big announcement about the ban was that the sooner we made the announcement the sooner we could lay the regulations, have the vote and bring it into effect. As I have said, however, there is much more to do, and I shall be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about this further.

The statement is not before time, but it is extremely welcome, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on extracting it through what must have been very complicated Government machinery.

I want to ask a couple of quick questions, if I may. First, just for clarity—because my school WhatsApp groups have lit up, as I am sure many others have today—can the Secretary of State confirm that all the enforcement will be against the platforms and the companies, and not against parents? As she knows, screens are a major source of conflict in the home at present, and we do not want to start thermonuclear war in homes up and down the land. Secondly, how will the Secretary of State stop the development of similar attributes in gaming environments, which are often on servers overseas and develop sophisticated ways in which to overcome the barriers that she may put in their way? Thirdly—

Ahem.

Very quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Secretary of State be looking at the design of content that remains on mainstream entertainment for children, which has moved much more towards the “flickering lights” mode of engaging their attention and may well now blossom and bloom in the absence of social media?

It was quite cheeky to ask three questions—but, absolutely, the enforcement will be against the companies and not the parents or the children. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, under the Online Safety Act we already have the potential to fine companies that repeatedly break the law up to 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue and also to block service availability. We are finalising our proposals in that regard, but that is where the responsibility lies. What we have is an overall ban on social media platforms with a plan to use the Australian model, but we also have the ability to deal with specific features and functions in other services if we think that they are risky to children. I am sorry, but I have forgotten the right hon. Gentleman’s third question. I will write to him when my officials tell me about it.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and warmly welcome the decisive action that she has set out. She has agreed with the evidence based conclusions of the Education Committee: that social media harms currently outweigh the benefits for children, that technology companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, and that we need to reset completely the relationship that children have with the online world. Our evidence demonstrated that a ban is not enough, and that when young people start using social media—hopefully post-16—it should be free from the most harmful, addictive features.

The tech sector is constantly innovating and evolving. Can the Secretary of State say whether and how the list of banned applications will be reviewed so that it keeps pace with the innovation in the tech sector and does not become out of date?

My hon. Friend is right. We are doing what I call “Australia plus plus”: there is the ban on the providers—the platforms providing their services for children—and there is also the ability to deal with additional features and functions. We now have the legislative power to do that, and I hope it will allow us to keep up. However, I read the Committee’s report carefully, and was very struck not only by the support for an outright statutory ban but by the conclusion that this was a “foundation for action, rather than a complete solution.”

I strongly agree with that.

I do not think that this is the whole story, and we will continue to engage with my hon. Friend and other Members of her Committee, because we must keep pace with change.

Order. It is highly unlikely that everyone will be able to ask questions. Far too many Members are bobbing, and we have a large amount of business to get through. However, if both questions and answers took 30 seconds, we could get most Members in.

It sounds like the Secretary of State is hearing a fairly unanimous view from members of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which is good. Today’s ban is a welcome start, but it is only a start and is not sufficient. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the Committee that, in addition to parents and children taking action, the responsibility must be on the companies, as well as enforcement, because they are providing the product? Recommendation engines make them publishers of dangerous and addictive content; they are not passive platforms, as they would put forward, and they are doing it for financial gain.

Yes, I agree that the responsibility is on the platforms. They have to continue meeting their obligations under the Online Safety Act, as well as this ban. They have had chances to make their platforms safe, but they have not done so. That is why we are saying, “You can’t provide them to children anymore.”

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and welcome the decisive action she has taken. As a parent, I have seen at first hand how harmful predators stalk gaming sites, so I am glad that these have been included. As students in North West Leicestershire complete their GCSEs this week, can the Secretary of State provide more information about how we will ensure that free education resources continue and how this will be implemented in the light of the ban?

It is really important that two things happen. First, there needs to be more support for parents and schools to do what many are already doing: preparing children for a life online. We have had a big national curriculum review, and new measures are coming into place from this September, but there will be more when the full curriculum review comes into place. We are doing a huge amount to support schools to provide wider support for sport, art, culture, school plays—[Interruption.] I hear a cough from Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will write to my hon. Friend.

This is a really important topic and a really important announcement about children’s health, safety and wellbeing, and I wish the Government well as they navigate some very thorny topics in bringing it into effect. Can the Secretary of State give any indication as to what accountability will look like for the platforms that will be tasked with enforcing this?

It is more complicated than it seems, but in the end, to govern is to choose. There are already strong requirements on companies under the Online Safety Act, as I said, and the fines and potential service blocks are already in the Act. We are developing further measures, but that is how we will hold companies’ feet to the fire.

The Secretary of State knows that I have concerns about the enforceability of a platform based ban, but I welcome the news about tackling infinite scrolling, which affects people of all ages. I am concerned about young LGBT people growing up in often unsupportive environments, who can find support online from others in similar circumstances—I know from personal experience how valuable that can be. Does the Secretary of State agree that such support is important, and if so, how will she ensure that it can continue?

That is one of the issues that I thought extremely carefully about—it is one of the things that made me unsure as we were going through this. Young people are still able to go online. I think that new resources and new support will be available in different ways that do not meet the model that Australia uses, but I am more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend and members of the LGBTQ community. It is really important that people who live or love in a different way are still able to connect, especially if they do not feel able to do so in their own community.

I know from my mailbox that today’s statement will be widely welcomed by parents in Edinburgh West who are concerned about the safety of their children and the impact of social media on them, but does the Secretary of State agree that there are societal dangers as well? A lot of children are directed away from neutral sites and towards antisemitic influencers, Holocaust deniers and violent scenes, and there are wider implications. We should be looking at not just the obvious problem, but the less obvious ones.

The hon. Member is absolutely right. In England, we are looking deeply at the curriculum. Under the new relationships, sex and health education guidance, children will be taught about social media, AI and deepfakes, but the wider curriculum review will look at critical thinking about how we can trust things we see online, where they come from and what the implications are—whether that is misogyny or antisemitism. We need to prepare children for the future. We are certainly doing so in England, but I am more than happy to share with the hon. Member the evidence of that.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s actions to protect children from online harm, especially the harms based approach she is taking. I have heard evidence from educational digital content creators, whose resources are a lifeline for young people. Will she commit to look at exemptions to ensure that teens over 13 do not lose access to long form educational resources?

Yes, our list of exemptions is precisely so that we do not capture those educational resources. I have seen in my own constituency how those brilliant things can help young people learn and get on, and narrow the disadvantage gap between rich and poor kids, so I really want to make sure they are exempt.

There is a great deal to welcome in what the Secretary of State has said, but she will know that detail really matters, so can I ask her two points of detail arising from her letter to Ofcom that was published today? First, she talks about launching “a rapid assessment of what highly effective age assurance looks like for determining whether someone is over 16.”

Why is that work being commissioned after the announcement has been made, not before it, and given the integral importance of age assurance to her policy, is it not important for the Government to know that it can be delivered effectively?

Secondly, on the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act, will the Secretary of State confirm that what is likely to happen is that a children’s access assessment will demonstrate that those platforms with highly effective age assurance in place will not need to go on and carry out a children’s risk assessment for anyone under the age of 16?

rose—

Order. I understand how important this debate is, but, fundamentally, Members may ask one question that lasts under 30 seconds.

We have asked for the rapid review of highly effective age assurance measures, so that they come in well before the regulations are laid and voted on in the House, and Members can look at and question them and absolutely make sure they are going to work. I will write to the right hon. and learned Member about his other question, because I do not want to get into any more trouble.

I thank the Secretary of State and her team for their work on this matter, but I want to understand better how the Government will look at social media companies to make sure that there is transparency in the algorithms they are using and that they are not continuing to target children.

That has been a really important question; researchers have raised being able to assess the impact and know what the social media companies know themselves, so that they can better scrutinise and assess the evidence. I hope we will be doing more on that soon.

The SNP welcomes today’s statement addressing what is a clear and growing threat to our children’s wellbeing. The devil will of course be in the detail, but we will work constructively and positively to make sure the measures are meaningful and effective. Platforms such as Roblox, on which games are user generated with a chat functionality, pose the risk of children being exposed to inappropriate content, online predators and scammers. How will the Government tackle such gaming platforms which are in reality just another form of social media?

As I said earlier, we have the ability under the Children Act to restrict certain features and functions. That is why we are able to say that we will ban live streaming and stranger communication for those under 16, and that we will have that turned off by default for 16 and 17-year olds. We do not want all gaming to come under a blanket ban, but if we think particular functions are a risk to children, as we know stranger communication is with gaming, we will act.

A decade ago, I marched with other young people to Parliament Square calling for votes at 16 to be introduced after the Brexit referendum, and I am proud that this Labour Government are doing that. However, how will we ensure that young people are well informed when they cast their first ballot, given that they are digital natives and get a lot of their information online?

First, young people can still go online. I think that this announcement will actually support news organisations—the BBC, Sky and all sorts of others—to do even more to provide news information, perhaps created by children for children, in an appropriate and effective manner. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, who is also a Minister in my Department, is specifically looking at that issue. It is not only five second TikTok reels that can teach children about news; there are other ways of doing that, and we want to support them.

I really welcome this restriction on social media for children. As a mother, I am grateful for it, and I am grateful to everyone across the House who has pushed for it. As others have alluded to, there will clearly be practical issues and difficulties with implementation, and we all need to work together to address that, but one thing I would like to understand from the Secretary of State is what consideration has been given to enforcement through the device, as opposed to age verification by social media providers.

As the hon. Lady knows, the Prime Minister said that we want to act on devices to stop children taking, viewing or sharing nude images. What we are talking about today is highly effective age verification measures on social media platforms. Sometimes when we debate this issue in the House it is a question of either/or, but we need to take action on all those fronts. We need to keep the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, we need to tackle devices to stop kids taking, sharing and seeing nude pictures, and we need to put restrictions on AI chatbots and social media platforms, because that is how we will keep kids safe.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement today and for the leadership she has shown on this issue. A mother stopped me as I boarded the train today. She was beaming and she just said, “Thank you so much. This is going to make such a difference to my 13-year old boy’s life.” I think there are many parents who will sleep a lot easier tonight knowing that help is coming. Does she agree with me that this is not the end of children’s life online? That will still exist, but this is a huge shift of power away from tech companies back towards children and their families, to make sure that their lives can be productive and constructive, and can include being outside with their friends as well?

I agree with every single word my hon. Friend says. This is about liberating children from what can sometimes be a terribly oppressive life online. It is about helping parents to do what they want. They have faced a tidal wave of stuff that they have been trying to fight off. We are just saying, “We want to back you to do what is right for kids.” I personally thank my hon. Friend for her support.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State could provide clarification. She has modelled her social media ban on Australia. Its definition of a ban includes companies taking “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s having accounts with age restricted social media platforms. She will be aware that for platforms such as YouTube and Reddit, people do not need an account to access very harmful material. Will she clarify whether she is banning children from accessing accounts or from those websites altogether?

We will bring in highly effective age verification measures, because we want to ensure that we learn the lessons from what has happened in Australia. The Under Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), who has responsibility for online safety, went to learn all those lessons. There is much more that we will be saying as we draft the regulations and take this forward, but in my view that is one of the big lessons. However, I want to be honest about this: kids will get around this. Kids have always got around smoking and drinking—we have all done it. Maybe not! [Laughter.] That is what kids do.

I have had the absolute privilege of consulting the young people in my constituency in every secondary school in Bedlington, Ashington and Blyth. There was not one who believed an outright was the appropriate action to take. They all had negative issues with social media, but they all said that the social media and tech companies should take more responsibility and be more accountable for what is being seen on their platforms. Will my right hon. Friend say what avenues there have been for young people to feed into the consultation? Can she give me a guarantee, so I can tell those young people who I have discussed this with, that their voices—they are the ones being impacted—are being listened to?

We had a specific survey and consultation with children, 14,000 of whom replied, and I personally met young people in many constituencies. I understand why people say that responsibility should be put on to the companies—that they have got to keep their products safe, and that if they do not, they should not be able to provide them to children and young people. Well, they have not kept them safe, so they are no longer going to be able to provide them to children and young people. In response to the consultation, many of the children did not want an outright ban, but two thirds wanted a whole load of different restrictions. In the end, it is for adults and the Government to decide what is best. Children’s views have been heard, but we think that it is too risky, and we want to have a reset for them and future generations.

This has definitely been the Secretary of State’s finest hour. I am only slightly disappointed that, for reasons of his own, the Prime Minister chose to upstage it in Downing Street. Can she tell the House what the main reasons are in Australia for reports—admittedly according to AI—that as many as 61% of young people are getting around the restrictions? Will she be working jointly with the Australians to try to get that down to a more acceptable level?

First, kids are savvy; social media has been an integral part of their lives, and they want to get around restrictions. I will be careful what I say this time, but just because children try to get around things does not mean that we do not have rules and boundaries. Secondly, we are trying to learn the lessons from Australia. It does not have the highly effective age verification measures that we have. We want to put those measures in place here, but I am not going to claim that even those measures will mean that no kids are on social media platforms. We have got to take a decision and draw a line in the sand. This is as much about resetting the expectations of eight, nine and 10-year olds, by saying, “You won’t be going on this until you’re 16.”

I welcome the announcement from the Secretary of State. It is right that we highlight the dangers that our children are exposed to. It is not about saying that social media is unsafe—I defy any parent or carer in the Chamber not to know the lyrics to “CoComelon” on YouTube. Social media has its place and works for some people. Equally, I raise the dangers of collecting children’s personal data and exposing them to the threat of leaks and hacks. My email, and my staffer’s email, were hacked recently. All of that personal information in the wrong hands could cause a lot of problems, so is that something that the Government will look at as they roll out the plan?

As I said, I will make a further statement to the House in July, which will include issues such as raising the digital age of consent, so that we have greater protections around the use of children’s data. That is an important issue. Privacy must be at the heart of this measure, because many parents and young people are worried. We have got further things to say in July, and I am more than happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend.

Parents in Winchester are certainly going to welcome the Government taking action on this issue and the Minister clarifying that it will be tech companies that are responsible for enforcing it, rather than the onus being put on parents. To push the Minister on AI chatbots specifically, it is excellent that we are removing access to chatbots that allow sexual relations and content, but there is so much other misinformation and bad health information being given by chatbots. That includes people with eating disorders being advised to get weight loss drugs and misogynistic attitudes not being challenged. Could the Minister comment more on that?

I am going to come back to the House in July and say more about that. Chatbots telling kids not to eat, and all that dreadful stuff, is wrong, but if there are mechanisms for supporting therapy that could get my child and adolescent mental health services waiting list down in Leicester, I would be interested. Properly regulated therapy sites could be good, but I will come back and say more about that. I want to get rid of the bad ones and protect the good ones, but that is more complicated, so we need to take a bit more time.

The message from more than 1,200 North Somerset children, families and parents—like myself—could not be clearer: they wholeheartedly welcome the direction of travel today. However, spring 2027 feels too long to wait; every day that passes is another day on which children are exposed to harmful algorithms, addictive features, inappropriate advertising and contact from strangers online. So I ask my right hon. Friend: what are the barriers to implementing the policy sooner?

There is a process that we normally go through when regulations are laid, and there is a certain amount of time for parliamentary scrutiny. I am trying to balance giving Members a say on the regulations—looking at them, and ensuring that we have got them right and that they are going to work—with cracking on as soon as possible. I would still say that early 2027 is much quicker than the time it normally takes for a whole Bill to go through Parliament, but I do hear my hon. Friend’s determination to push this policy forward, and I will do what I can do get it over the line as quickly as possible.

I very much agree with the Secretary of State about the gravity of the risks and the need for urgent action to protect young people’s wellbeing online. It is often the most vulnerable young people who are most likely to be exploited online, but it is also often the most vulnerable young people who use online channels to seek support for their vulnerabilities. Will she assure the House that action will be taken to support the most vulnerable young people, and does she agree that addressing the hollowing out of social services is a crucial part of that?

Alongside the matter of supporting young people who might like things or live or love in a different way, another thing that I am really concerned about is the question of how they actually connect with people—that trusted support is really important. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working hard to boost things like mentoring and support services, and has just announced £10 million for a new youth opportunity programme with the King’s Trust and Sir Gareth Southgate. There is more that we can do there. I am more than happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about his ideas, because we have to ensure that people can get trusted advice easily. On balance, though, I feel that the risks of social media exploiting vulnerabilities outweigh the potential benefits. Let us try to find a way through.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement; she has worked tireless on this issue. I want to draw her attention to vulnerable over-16s who are being targeted by organised criminals and predatory behaviour, including from sexual predators, as well as extremist far right individuals and religious extremists who are radicalising them online. Alongside the very important announcement she has made today, will she set out how she will work with other Departments to protect vulnerable young adults?

My hon. Friend is right to say that what I have announced today is not a silver bullet for all these challenges; I am setting out what we can do specifically on the online world, but the truth is that we have to provide that wider support. As always, I am very happy to talk to her about what more we can do across Government to protect those vulnerable children and young people in order to deal with the issues she raises.

I welcome the ban, and I know that thousands of other parents of the frontier generation—the children who were born after the advent of Facebook in 2004—will be welcoming it too. However, as the Secretary of State has said, children get around bans, and there are also children over the age of 16 who will be vulnerable. What will the Government do to introduce legally enforceable safety by design duties on tech companies to ensure that all kids—even those who slip through the net—are safe?

It is not an either/or—either enforce the Online Safety Act or introduce a ban. There are clear requirements on tech companies to remove illegal content for everybody and harmful content for children, and we will continue to enforce them. Just because we know children will try to get around these measures does not mean we should not put them in place. There is more that we can do on enforcement. It is for the tech companies to keep children safe—they have had ample opportunity to do so, and now we are saying that they can no longer provide their services to children.

Parents across North Warwickshire and Bedworth responding to my survey told me overwhelmingly that they feel powerless to protect their children from the harms of social media, where they are told that they are not pretty enough, thin enough, cool enough or good enough at their favourite sport—or, worse still, where pictures are shared without their consent or suicide is pushed. Now is the moment that we say enough is enough in order to put children’s health and happiness first. But we know that a ban alone will not be enough. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that a cliff edge at 16 is avoided and that kids who do get around the rules are protected by compelling big tech to take action to protect everyone, rather than allowing them to profit from doomscrolling, division, hatred and despair?

I absolutely agree that this is not a one and done; we have got to do more. The tech companies need to abide by our law in our land: the Online Safety Act. My hon. Friend is a powerful champion for her constituents. I want to avoid that cliff edge, and I want to take further action on restricting features and functions. As I said, there is more to come in July.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the efforts she is making to protect children and young people from the harms of social media. I welcome her sentiment that social media platforms have more to do and a greater responsibility to keep our children safe. With that in mind, will there be greater consequences for platforms that, for whatever reason, still allow and provide services to children online?

Yes. As I said, under the Online Safety Act we already have powers to fine companies up to 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue and, should companies repeatedly refuse to obey the law, Ofcom can apply to the courts to block their services. We have not finalised the fines and consequences, but what I have said shows the direction of travel.

Hundreds of parents and young people in Redditch have contacted me regarding the Government’s consultation. Many of them will welcome today’s announcement as a critical step to protect our children and end the unfettered social media experiment on our children. The Secretary of State knows that this will not be a silver bullet to keep our children safe online, so can I implore her—although I know that she will do this anyway—to keep up the pressure on the negligent tech giants who have acted with such impunity throughout the process?

For the good people of Redditch and the rest of the country, yes, I will.

I greatly welcome the ban and the fact that it will apply across the United Kingdom. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that there are no cross border loopholes such as virtual private networks with the Irish Republic that could be exploited to allow children in Northern Ireland still to sign in?

We will come back to VPNs in July; I have commissioned further research about their usage. There are really important issues to balance here. Many people want to use VPNs for privacy—that is important—but we know that some children use them to get around restrictions. I will come back to that in July in our response to the consultation.

I welcome the statement regarding the safety of our children online. I am grateful to the young people of Bolton South and Walkden who have shared their views with me. Children should obviously not be an afterthought at the implementation stage, so will the Secretary of State confirm that their voices have genuinely shaped the decision? Will she also assure the House that when these measures are implemented, children will remain at front and centre as the architects of their own online world?

I understand that this announcement will be extremely difficult for many children who are on social media today—I know that it will cause a lot of worry and disquiet. I want to ensure that their views and voices continue to be heard.

In the results of our survey, I was quite struck by just how many children want risky features restricted: two thirds said they did. More than half want restrictions on infinite scroll, as do almost two thirds on explicit image sharing and location sharing, and almost half on live streaming. I think children do want to see change. It will be hard for them to manage the transition, but that is what we need to do to build a better future.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s realism in accepting that the bans announced today will not be 100% perfect. Can she tell me what proportion of under-16s the Government expect will be prevented from accessing social media?

We have not set any targets or goals. I do think that more highly effective age verification measures will make a difference. As I said—I want to be honest—this is about today’s children, but it is even more about resetting the expectations and cultural norms of children growing up now so that kids will know they will not be on social media until they are 16.

I thank the Secretary of State; thousands of parents in Blackpool and local organisations such as Alliance 4 Children, led by the inspirational Paul Wright, who has been in the Gallery today with bereaved parents, will welcome this news. Will she outline what lessons the Government have learned from countries such as Australia regarding the effectiveness of this approach? How will the Government ensure that any measures—whether restrictions, regulations or education—effectively reduce exposure to harm? Will she consider banning VPNs for under-16s as well?

I am glad that my hon. Friend believes his constituents will support this action. The Minister for Online Safety spent a week in Australia learning the lessons, including about how kids are getting around the ban. That is why we have already said that we want more highly effective age assurance measures. I will come back to VPNs and young people in July; it is really important that we continue this discussion.

We want this action to be as effective as possible, but we need to help parents with younger children to begin to shift the social norms. What happens is this: the kids really want it—all their friends are on it—so even if parents set their boundaries and rules, they are under constant pressure. We are just saying, “We’re on your side. We’re going to help you do the right thing for your kids.”

A massive thank you to the Secretary of State on behalf of parents in Dewsbury and Batley. We have argued in this place that the root problem lies in the illegal content, harmful content and deliberately addictive design of these platforms, which impact children and adults alike. What will the Government do to introduce and enforce regulation so that the platforms, and the services and features they provide, are safe for all?

This is a wake up call for the companies: “You had your chance. You didn’t fulfil your existing obligations under the law. Enough.” That is really important for us to say. They will remain responsible for fulfilling their obligations under British laws to remove illegal content and to remove harmful content for children. That is hugely important. We stood up to Grok, X and Elon Mus, saying, “Enough is enough.” We are now drawing a line in the sand now, too.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Government for the decisive action they are taking in introducing a ban on social media for under-16s; I know that many teachers, parents and carers in Battersea welcome it. I chaired a recent roundtable with young people, and one young person shared that he was on his phone for 14 hours in one single day. That highlights how serious the problem is. Will the Secretary of State commit to working across Government to look at some of the eye health impacts of excessive screen time on our young people and, where necessary, commit to carrying out research on this important issue?

I am really glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. There was an important point in the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ response precisely about the physical health implications, as well as mental health implications, for young people. She will know that we have already published guidance on screen time use for under fives, and we are currently reviewing it for five to 16 year olds. I listened carefully to that medical evidence, and that is one of the reasons that we are taking this action—although, of course, I know that there will be more to do.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement—it was brilliant. May I raise concerns about historical data held by social media companies? Has she thought about what powers she, and parents and carers, might hold to invoke something like the right to be forgotten, in order to ensure that children’s records and data footprints are destroyed, if that is what is wanted, and the social media companies’ memories are wiped, with a real penalty enforced if they do not comply?

That is not part of the announcement that I have made today. I am always willing to look at people’s arguments on different issues. On a separate issue, we have now taken action to try to preserve some of the data, through data preservation notices, for parents who have lost their children, and who want to see what they were looking at online, so I think we have to tread carefully on this.

Five hundred and twenty seven of my constituents told me that they wanted a ban—I am delighted that the Government have listened to them—and only seven were against. Parents also said in the consultation that they wanted action on recommender algorithms, which are radicalising increasing numbers of adults, who are seeing increasing amounts of extremist content. Will my right hon. Friend come back to us in July with measures to ensure transparency and user control over recommender algorithms?

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question; she has campaigned tirelessly on this. The model in Australia that we plan to use captures user to user platforms that have enabling social interaction as their sole purpose, or a significant purpose, and that allow users to post material, alongside algorithms and recommender actions. The model that we plan to follow is precisely about saying that children cannot access social media platforms that can be defined in that way. I think that is a big step forward. I know that she would like us to look at this further, and I am always open to discussion, because as I have said, I am very aware of all the other issues, and we want to take action where we can.

The UK is home to world leading and award winning game studios, and some games rely on multi player communication; it is a core part of their design. The Secretary of State was talking about banning particular features and functions. Can she elaborate on whether the Government have conducted an assessment of the impact that this might have on UK game studios?

We have a brilliant, fantastic, world leading gaming industry in this country. That is why we are not including games under the blanket ban. However, I have been really concerned by issues raised not just by hon. Members, but by the police and others, who have shown that a real, substantial risk is posed by strangers who are not playing with but directly communicating with and messaging children, and then taking them on to WhatsApp and grooming them. We are narrowly focusing on that issue.

Last Friday, I joined pupils at St Bede’s Roman Catholic primary school for their internet safety assembly. Thanks to their headteacher’s regular internet safety assemblies, St Bede’s children are now well versed in the subject. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s announcement will support the work of many schools and teachers, and send a clear message to big tech that it must now match that commitment?

Absolutely. I have been very clear throughout this statement that the responsibility is on the social media platforms, not on parents or children, and that it is up to them to take the action they need to take.

Parents are doing all they can to keep their children safe online, and are taking the initiative to achieve this. In Epsom and Ewell, I attended a phone free childhood event at St Martin’s school in Ewell. Over 150,000 people all over the country have signed the pact not to give their children a phone before the age of 14. I welcome today’s announcement as a step forward, but we need to ensure that the ban is enforced. When it is in place, what real enforcement ability will Ofcom have to ensure that social media giants are held to account, in order to safeguard our children?

The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of enforcement. That is why I have specifically asked the new incoming chair of Ofcom to hold an urgent review of its capabilities, to ensure that it focuses rigorously on enforcement—including on riskier sites, in case children go off the main platforms and go further underground—and to publish a clear strategy and a proper report to Parliament on how that enforcement is going. In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I would like to thank the young people in my constituency from Ark Blake Academy, Oasis Academy Arena and Oasis Academy Shirley Park for meeting me to share their views on how to keep them safe online. They were clear that they wanted action against the harmful aspects of social media, but wanted to protect the good bits. Can the Secretary of State outline the work being done across Government to ensure that young people continue to have access to safe opportunities to connect, both online and in their communities? Does she agree that it is time to give proper statutory protection to youth services, so that we ensure that all young people have somewhere safe to go, and something meaningful to do IRL?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have made great strides, with the £500 million in our Youth Matters national youth strategy, on rejuvenating our youth services and giving more access to sport and the arts. The Department for Education has a new enrichment framework that will help schools and colleges. It will be backed by a £22 million enrichment programme—there will be details soon—to help 400 schools in England create an excellent offer on enrichment. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is also investing an additional £130 million in activities such as arts and culture, sport and physical activities, adventure and life skills, and much more besides.

Many families and parents will be relieved by the announcement today of the ban for those under the age of 16, but there will also be parents who will be frightened, to a degree, because of the repercussions from children who have addictions. The Secretary of State has stated that children will be given support. Will parents be given some support as well?

Yes, absolutely. The Department has already published new help and guidance for parents on how to talk to children about their life online. That will need to be done differently at different ages, and it is sometimes difficult to talk to children about this. The ban will support parents in doing the right thing, but I recognise that this will be a big change for many children and young people, and of course we want to do everything we can to support them through it.

In the large group of 16 to 18-year olds from schools in my constituency that I discussed a potential ban with, there was no consensus about whether there should be a ban, but there was strong consensus that they needed good quality information and education to prevent harm. Will the measures that the Minister mentioned use the best behaviour science knowledge that we have? Will the advice and—

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

We want to provide the very best advice and support, based on the evidence, to parents, and also through schools.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly the bit about communication with strangers and chatbots, and I am sure that the parents of South Devon will join me in doing so. However, we know from Australia that an outright ban does not give the big tech companies the incentive to redesign their platforms to make them less addictive, misogynistic or full of toxic, divisive misinformation, so how will the Government continue to pressurise and incentivise the tech companies to make these changes? As she says, there will always be children who circumvent the ban, and there will also be vulnerable adults and older adults who are victims of such misinformation.

The Online Safety Act 2023 requirements remain. This is not an either/or; the companies have to make sure that they remove illegal content for everybody and remove harmful content for children. I have personally introduced a whole series of priority offences under the Act, including those to do with self harm and suicide. The companies have to not just take this stuff down but actively look for it, and those requirements will remain.

Huge thanks must go to the Secretary of State and all involved. This is the right decision, consulted on in the right way. Tech companies have had more than enough time, but have chosen to engineer for addiction and profit. Will she work across Government to ensure that parents and schools have the support that they need during the transition, alongside investment in the arts, music, drama, creative subjects and youth services, so that children can be children?

Yes. I have had detailed conversations with the Culture Secretary and the Education Secretary about all these issues. There is much more to do, but we are determined to give children the very best start in life, and the freedom to be children again.

As the father of two teenagers, and on behalf of other parents, can I thank and congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing forward this legislation? She has already said a number of times that children will find a workaround, but big tech will also always be looking for a workaround to the legislation and the rules that have been brought forward. Can she give us reassurance that the Government will remain agile, and will fund organisations that will ensure that this dangerous online activity does not flare up?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. There is obviously overwhelming support among parents, teachers, the police and others for an outright ban; then there are those who say that we just need to restrict certain features and functions. The truth is if that if we dealt only with the features and functions, the tech companies would come up with another feature and another function, and then another one—and another one, and another one. We are saying, “No, this is the line in the sand. No one under 16 on these.” If there are specific features and functions that go beyond social media, such as in gaming or on other sites, we want to restrict those, too. I hope that the new powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 will allow us to be more agile, but if they do not, I will always look again, because we have to keep up with how technology is changing.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for online safety, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), for their engagement and conversations on this issue. I had social media before I was 16. I deeply understand the concerns, and have experienced the bad, but I also know the value, particularly for working class kids, of seeing a world outside one’s own—the value for the boy who is growing up without a father and learns to shave from YouTube, for the young person who teaches themselves to code and shapes their career, or for the LGBT community. How is the Department working directly with DFE and DCMS to ensure that we identify these areas of need?

As I said in response to an earlier question, this was the issue that I wanted to grapple with the most. People want to find people who love in the same way, or who like the same things, and they may be worried about doing so where they live with their friends. This is hugely important. There is potential for a life online that still enables those things to happen, but just not on the social media platforms. I want to continue working with my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, and the Department for Education to ensure that the chances that social media offered to some are still in place for people who want to experience and believe in different things. We want to give everybody the freedom to express who they are.

In February 2023, Leo Johnson from Stourbridge died by suicide at the age of 19. His mother Jane remembers him as excited and energetic to start his life, and his passion for scuba diving fuelled his decision to study oceanography at the University of Plymouth. He became increasingly absorbed in his phone and social media, and told his friends that it was affecting his mental health—not because of dangerous content, but through the drip, drip, drip of comparison culture, which left him feeling inadequate, anxious and numb. Does the Secretary of State agree that a ban is the right thing to do, so that fewer young people like Leo are harmed?

I am so sorry to hear about what happened to Leo. I heard what my hon. Friend describes so many times during the course of the consultation, and many of the representations we had—from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of General Practitioners and others—raised precisely the issues that she talks about. One of the reasons why the ban is so important is that we must protect children from those serious harms. Two thirds of GPs and two thirds of hospital clinicians say that every single week they see something that they think is a direct consequence of social media. That is a wake up call to us all.

I welcome the ban on social media for under-16s. I wish we were not here, but the ban represents the failure of the social media platforms to get their house in order. It was inevitable that we would get here in the end. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to make social media safe for everyone, including through measures on foreign influence and accountability for the owners, so that when children turn 17 or become adults at 18, they are safe, along with the rest of us?

There are already requirements under the Online Safety Act for companies to remove illegal content, and those deal with the issue of foreign interference, particularly during elections. As I said, I am looking again at some of what the Science and Technology Committee recommended on this issue, because of exactly the concerns that my hon. Friend raises.

The Education Committee heard evidence from Snapchat, which pushed back on the hard evidence and the facts—and on any idea that the platform caused harm to young people at all. It was perhaps no surprise that the e safety commissioner in Australia opened an investigation into Snapchat for non compliance with the Australian ban. Against that backdrop, can the Secretary of State confirm that, should the social media companies try to subvert the new rules that we introduce, they will be held accountable, and that parents will not be held accountable for enforcing them?

Absolutely. This is about the social media companies putting their house in order. Lots of people have said, “Won’t you bow to pressure? You’ll cave under it.” I hope that today, we are showing our intention: we want a better life for children; we want to put power into parents’ hands; and we want to reset social norms. That is what this Government are absolutely determined to do.

I tried to go as fast as I could, but we could not get everybody in.