Social Media Ban for Under-16s

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:35

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 15 June.

“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 more than 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 honourable 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 well-being. 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. 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 honourable 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 honourable 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 and 17 year-olds. I am also strongly minded to bring in default overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for 16 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 honourable 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”.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and indeed for alerting me in advance of the announcement, which was much appreciated. This announcement—although coming, I am afraid, rather later than many noble Lords would have hoped—is extremely welcome on these Benches. I thank in particular my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Barran for their tireless campaigning on this issue. Had they and others not developed their arguments so well and expressed them so compellingly, I do not believe we would have reached this important moment. Needless to say, most of all I thank and offer my respect to the parents of the children who have lost their lives at the hands of social media. They have bravely and wisely directed their unthinkable pain into a legacy that will protect countless children for the future, and their efforts will not be forgotten.

A social media ban for this age group has been something that Conservative parliamentarians, both here and in the other place, have long advocated. We have been joined in support by Labour Back-Benchers, Liberal Democrats, campaigners, parents, schoolteachers and charities in calling for action to be taken to protect children. Yet just months ago, the Prime Minister directed his Members to vote against the same policy he is now so urgently championing. During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, noble Lords were instructed by the Government Whip to vote against the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Nash. Save for a small handful of admirably brave, principled Labour Peers, more than 150 voted against the ban not once but three times.

The Government explained that they did so in order to conduct a consultation, but the evidence and support in favour of a social media ban were already overwhelming. In fact, it had already been adopted by other countries. It is not clear at this point what value this consultation has added. I think it is worth highlighting two opportunity costs of inaction. First, as the bereaved parents have stated, the longer you leave change, the worse it can be for children. Secondly, had the Government acted decisively at the time, the consultation could have been used as a means of refining the detail of the ban. With that in mind, I have several questions for the Minister.

First, are the Government yet ready to set out a detailed timetable of what legislation is coming, and roughly when, to bring this about? Given the extra work that will fall on Ofcom, what additional resources will it be provided with? Will tech companies be obliged to contribute towards the budget, or will the funding come from the taxpayer? When will which platforms fall into scope be published? I thank the Government for listing some platforms that will be banned, but we need a clearer, principles-based explanation as to what platforms and what functionality will be banned or limited for which age group. Can the Minister confirm today that digital ID will not be a mandatory requirement for those wishing to access social media, both children and adults alike? Can the Minister comment on reports today that age verification will be conducted at operating system level rather than by the platforms themselves? Lastly, do the Government feel that new frictions for all users, including adults, of age-gated platforms are unavoidable?

The social media ban is welcome. I was surprised to learn, however, that the Government are also considering overnight curfews and infinite scrolling interventions for those under 18. There may well be a case for this, but I do not see how it is possible to believe simultaneously that 16 year-olds have the wisdom and judgment to vote to elect a Government but not the wisdom and judgment that 18 year-olds might bring to bear on what social media functionality to use. It strikes me as psychologically wildly incoherent.

But, to conclude positively, although we are disappointed by the time it took the Government to arrive at this position, we should not lose sight of the significance of the step being taken today. The protection of children online should never be, and I think is not, an area of disagreement between us. These Benches will of course continue to scrutinise the detail of the proposals and hold the Government to account for their delivery. However, where measures genuinely strengthen protections for children and support families, the Government will find in us a constructive and willing partner. I look forward to working collaboratively with Ministers to ensure that these reforms are implemented effectively and provide the lasting protections that children deserve.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for taking the Statement today and for her alert. On these Benches we welcome the fact that the Government have finally responded to the overwhelming public demand to protect our children online, especially from the bereaved parents: like the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, I pay tribute to them and to their campaign. We share the Government’s diagnosis. There is a genuine children’s mental health crisis and the platforms have for far too long been allowed to profit from it.

However, we fundamentally disagree with the Government’s prescription. After months of insisting that a drawn-out consultation was absolutely necessary before any action could be taken, what has been announced appears to be a panicked policy cobbled together ahead of a by-election and a Back-Bench rebellion. It appears that DSIT’s own expert panel flagged a “substantial” lack of evidence to justify key aspects of the plans. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to address those evidence gaps before the regulations are laid?

The Australian model the Government are adopting is based on definitions and lists. It bans specific platforms while trying to carve out exemptions for messaging or education. As my honourable friend Caroline Voaden pointed out in the Commons, the internet moves far too fast for lists. The moment one platform is banned, another unnamed platform launches. This is, at its heart, a “dangerous dogs” approach to regulation, focusing on arbitrary categories rather than the actual risk of harm.

The Secretary of State made a startling admission at the Dispatch Box. She openly acknowledged that children will find workarounds, using VPNs or fake IDs, stating that

“kids will get around this … That is what kids do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/26; col. 606.]

If the Government themselves acknowledge that children will bypass this ban, how exactly does a policy built purely on exclusion protect them? Does it not simply give parents a false sense of security and, worst of all, let the tech giants completely off the hook?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has tirelessly argued in this House, with our support, we must regulate the product, not just the child. This is about safety by design. Instead of an outright ban, the Liberal Democrats have consistently called for a targeted and coherent harms-based framework: films-style age ratings for platforms. Under our approach, platforms that deploy addictive algorithmic feeds or host inappropriate content would be legally restricted to users over 16 and the most extreme sites rated 18-plus. Will the Minister explain why the Government have rejected this approach and why the burden of proof is not being shifted to the tech companies themselves, forcing them to remove toxic, addictive features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay and manipulative algorithms.

As the Molly Rose Foundation has rightly warned, relying on blanket bans risks migrating bad actors, groomers and violent groups from banned platforms to permitted ones or into the dark web. We will end up playing a desperate, endless game of whack-a-mole with children’s safety. What assessment have the Government made of that migration risk?

There is also a dangerous cliff edge in what is proposed. DSIT’s own expert panel warned in writing that a sudden transition at 16 could lead to intensive uptake and increased risks. We risk keeping children in a sterile digital environment until their 16th birthday, only to suddenly expose them to harmful, unfiltered content the moment they come of age, without having helped them to safely develop the digital and emotional resilience they will need throughout their lives. What specific measures does the Minister propose to address that cliff edge?

The Statement is also glaringly silent on the commercial exploitation at the heart of this crisis. Will the Minister confirm when the Government intend to raise the digital age of consent from 13 to 16?

Finally, any ban or restriction is entirely meaningless if the regulator lacks statutory teeth. We have a fundamental enforcement deficit. The Australian experiment already demonstrates the immense difficulties with enforcement and circumvention: six in 10 children there are still on social media six months after the ban came into force. Will the Minister commit today to a formal review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers within six months to ensure that the regulator has the necessary tools—business disruption measures, injunctive relief— to compel tech giants to change their business models?

We will rigorously scrutinise the forthcoming regulations and continue to press the Government to move away from blunt exclusion towards a robust harms-based framework that holds these tech giants properly to account. This must be indeed big tech’s seat-belt moment, but a seat belt protects a passenger within a vehicle; it does not simply ban them from the road. We need a smart approach that allows young people to benefit from the best of the digital world—and indeed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, says, prepare to vote at 16—and to learn, connect and grow while properly dismantling the addictive profit-driven architecture that is doing them such harm.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for their contributions. They have been at the forefront of calls to engage on how to make our online world safe for children growing up for many years, and I join them in paying tribute to the bereaved families who have also been tirelessly campaigning on this issue.

The Government set out earlier this year our intention to consult parents, children and young people on what more needs to be done. We also committed to act swiftly following that consultation. We repeatedly said, “The question is how we act, not if we act”. The two noble Lords have expressed concern about the Government’s consultative approach. Perhaps they have questioned whether it was needed. We feel that the approach has been both swift and responsible. A short, focused consultation was necessary so that we could hear that input. We received over 116,000 responses from parents, civil society, industry and, crucially, children and young people themselves. The magnitude of that engagement demonstrates the range of strong views. We felt that it was critical to listen to those children and families and to have a national conversation.

This week we have set out plans to ban social media platforms from allowing those under 16 to access them. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we have also announced our intention to restrict under-16s from accessing some harmful functionality, such as livestreaming and features that enable the discoverability of children and facilitate unrestricted communications with strangers. It is by doing those two things together that we build a safer future. Those features will also be off by default for 16 and 17 year- olds, and we have made it clear that we will age-gate features on AI chatbots that enable sexually explicit interactions to over-18s. We believe that will deliver graduated, age-appropriate experiences and address concerns about the issue of cliff edges, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

On the question of speed and when we are going to act, we have committed to moving as quickly as possible to lay these regulations on social media by the end of the year, to vote as quickly as we can on those, and to implement them by spring 2027. By taking the powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, we can move at this speed.

Noble Lords also asked about the digital age of consent. We have said we will come back to some other questions that were raised in the consultation—for example, the digital age of consent and the risk of circumvention through virtual private networks—in July, when we will come back on further details.

On the question of different ages, it is indeed the case that there are many different ages in our legislation for access to alcohol and access to gambling. That is a feature of our legislation. We feel these are the right ages to restrict social media companies from providing services to under 16 year-olds—and, as I mentioned, setting the default features for 16 and 17 year-olds.

In terms of the scope, this is indeed based on the Australian criteria. We will set out, with the regulations later this year, exactly the criteria that we choose in our regulations. In respect of age verification, currently the Ofcom guidance recommends the following age-assurance methods for over-18s: passports, driving licences, credit cards, facial scanning, mobile network operator checks, open banking checks, or email-based age estimation. Some of these will not work for the 16-plus category. That is why the Secretary of State has asked Ofcom to look at options for highly effective age assurance for 16 year-olds. We have asked that it publishes its findings in October, so that Members of this House can consider them before voting on the regulations. So, to answer the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, on age verification, there are a variety of models.

On the question of evidence gaps, we are aware, obviously, that social media moves quickly and that new services may be provided. We think that this can provide some opportunities. The current legislation is set in a certain way. Once the legislation and the regulations are changed, this will provide the opportunity for providers to provide services that they do not today—for example, to access the news or other services. This may provide our children and young people with better opportunities than they have today.

We also recognise that some children may attempt to circumvent age restrictions. What we are setting out in this set of proposals is a new societal norm. We are resetting what is expected. This will benefit children today and, importantly, it will benefit children growing up today who have not yet reached the age of 13, 16 or 18—the generation of tomorrow.

On the question of enforcement powers, obviously this is an incredibly important point. We need the new regime to be effectively enforced. That is why the Secretary of State wrote to the chair and CEO of Ofcom to reinforce this and to ask that they ensure that there is robust and effective enforcement of the ban, and to submit to Parliament and make publicly available an update on their wider enforcement strategy, noting the legitimate interest of Members in the other place and of noble Peers here. We will ensure that Ofcom has the resources to properly enforce these new measures and to take strong enforcement action and protect all users more widely.

We recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny in this process, and I welcome the offers to collaborate and engage on the proposals we bring forward with the appropriate scrutiny—and, it seems, some extra scrutiny and critique from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We all want to protect children online and ensure that their online life is as fulfilling as their offline life. It is a responsibility we take very seriously. We do not want children to have to navigate unsafe digital spaces. We believe that our statement of intent here will do that and will deliver to make sure that we give children the childhood they deserve.

16:55

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the Government, including our Minister, the Secretary of State for DSIT and Minister Narayan, for coming to the conclusions that they have as a result of the consultation. They have listened and are clearly determined to act effectively. I add my gratitude to the bereaved parents who have endured unimaginable pain to get to this point. I was grateful to the Minister for her time earlier today, when she met a number of noble Lords and said that she will share the draft regulations with interested noble Lords, in advance of them being published. I agree that a spirit of co-operation on this issue, which clearly has cross-party support, would be helpful. I would be grateful if she could confirm that at the Dispatch Box today.

In my conversations with the social media companies, they have all said that if there is a level playing field, they will accept the situation. The proof of that pudding will, of course, be in the eating, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm, either today or, more likely, in due course, that all apps which are user-to-user and have the ability to post content, and where algorithms are involved, will not only be in scope but will not be able to provide those services to under-16s—and, if not, that the criteria on which they will be exempted will be very clear and consistent, to minimise the risk of legal challenge.

On enforcement, I would hope that because the criteria the Government are talking about are very black and white, there should be minimum scope for delay in effecting enforcement. I would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm, I hope today, that geotagging and location sharing are within the concept of “communication with strangers”. But, given that apart from—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

These should be short interjections with questions, not statements, if the noble Lord does not mind.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

But, given that apart from in relation to VPNs the Government have gone further than I was asking for, I commend their approach and particularly like its dynamic nature, which enables them, under the powers taken in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, to come forward with not just part 2 in July but parts 3 and 4, and so on, as technology moves on apace, so that we can play catch-up fast.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his comments and, moreover, for his engagement over the last months—in fact, it was longer—with me on this topic. We will be able to continue that engagement—obviously, there will be scrutiny in the House—but also outside the Chamber. We committed to sharing the regulations with opposition spokespeople and the chairs of the Select Committees for scrutiny, and we will follow through on that.

On the definition and the scope, we plan to use the same model as Australia; that would capture user-to-user platforms whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material, alongside algorithms. The details of how those criteria will apply in the UK will be set out later this year. We have also said that purely educational services obviously will not be in scope.

On the question of enforcement, as I mentioned earlier, this is an incredibly important part of our thinking and approach. The Secretary of State and the department have interacted frequently with Ofcom. Noble Lords have made clear the importance of effective enforcement by Ofcom, and we have written to Ofcom to ask it to ensure that we can have robust and effective enforcement of this ban. The CEO of Ofcom has written back, confirming that that is what it will take forward.

Finally, on geotagging and location services, I will write to the noble Lord on that specific question.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

I thank the Minister for the comments she has just made. She has just said that Ofcom will have a consultation on which age verification method will be used for identifying under-16s. However, I understand that the preferred form of age verification in this new social media regime will be ID documents, because the Government do not trust the age-verification technology for identifying under-16s. Will the Government continue to incentivise tech companies to come up with reliable technological solutions in this area? Surely, it is the responsibility of the tech companies to come up with this technology.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The onus will be on the social media companies to age verify. The specific point I referred to is that the Secretary of State has written to Ofcom to look at options for highly effective age assurance for 16 and 17 year-olds, as the current regime applies to those over 18 years old, for which there is already guidance. That is the specific question. We expect there to be further developments in this area to provide effective age assurance.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I join my noble friend the Minister in praising the bereaved families, who have campaigned so powerfully on online safety. I welcome the harms-reduction approach that the Government have taken. As my noble friend has outlined, we know that there is much more to do. It is right that the Government act, because the tech companies have shown that they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. The ban is a welcome start, but not sufficient in itself. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that, once the regulations have passed—the Communications and Digital Committee looks forward to seeing the regulations —the regulator, Ofcom, will take the strongest possible line in enforcing them, including substantial fines for any firm that does not comply in reducing harms?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the work of her committee, and for the scrutiny, ideas and suggestions that it has provided over the years. I stress again the importance of ensuring that these regulations are implemented. I will just say one other thing: one of the other benefits of the consultation is that there has been a national conversation and there is a very clear public expectation of how social media firms should operate. Therefore, in addition to the importance of Ofcom having the capabilities for its role, the Secretary of State has insisted that we look at making sure that Ofcom is properly funded. So the whole of society is moving to institute this new norm.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a long and winding road, but the Government have finally reached the door of common sense and agreed to a social media ban for under-16s—something that I, as well as parents, teachers and children themselves, have long been calling for. I too thank the bereaved parents for playing their part in bringing this change about.

However, social media platforms and opponents have wrongly argued that the Australian experience shows the policy is not feasible, and they are trying to blame age-assurance technology. Some suspect that they might be under instruction to sabotage age assurance to avoid the policy going beyond Australia. Does the Minister agree with the Australian eSafety Commissioner that many social media platforms are not enforcing the ban, and that these platforms should not try to claim that age-assurance technology is not working until they use it themselves? Enforcement matters. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that technology can now be embedded into mobile phones’ operating systems to prevent children viewing or uploading harmful material and getting around any ban? We should give children back their childhood and I am happy to work with the Government to do just that.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising two important points. We have been looking at the evidence from Australia and on age assurance. There are differences in the UK approach. Australia takes a reasonable-steps approach to age assurance, which contrasts with the UK approach of highly effective age assurance. We think the UK position has the advantage in having potentially more effective enforcement. We are seeing the development of other age-assurance technologies all the time. We announced very recently that children should not be able to take, share or view nude images: this is device-level technology. I underline, however, that the onus will be on social media companies.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. I have read through the DSIT document published yesterday, Growing Up in the Online World: Progress Statement, but I could not find a single reference to Sections 15 or 16 of the Online Safety Act: namely, the duty not to remove or restrict content of democratic importance or journalistic content. Those duties, due to be activated I believe in July before the plan is put into effect, apply to all users, not just adults. How is the plan compatible with those duties? I know the plan includes some restrictions for 16 and 17 year-olds. Can the Minister assure the House that content of democratic importance and journalistic content will not be restricted for 16 and 17 year-olds, which is particularly important given that the Government intend to grant them the vote?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Under-16s will still be able to access the internet and the news in that way. Social media is not the only source of news, nor is it always the most reliable or accurate source. We continue to work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that younger audiences can find and access high-quality, culturally relevant programming and content. We are working to strengthen access to trusted news across the UK as part of the local media action plan, because it is very important that young people can engage with high-quality local and national journalism.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Government’s Statement, their commitment to cross-party working on this and their recognition of the importance of enforcement. I have a question about enforcement. The Statement indicates that Ofcom’s chair and CEO have been asked to carry out an urgent review of its enforcement capabilities. Given Ofcom’s rather patchy record, will there be any external input into its capabilities review? Will it be published? Thereafter, when Ofcom publishes an enforcement strategy, will the initial strategy be published prior to the regulations coming into force in the spring of 2027?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The newly appointed chair of Ofcom has highlighted the importance to him of ensuring that Ofcom has the right capabilities in place. In writing to Ofcom to ask about capabilities and ensuring that there will be sufficient funding, we have emphasised how important that is to us. I will come back to my noble friend on the precise timing of some of these products. In general, the letters we exchange with Ofcom are made public but, if she does not mind, I will come back on her specific three questions.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, earlier today, I had the enormous privilege to co-host with the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, who I suspect will try to ask the question after me, a group of the bereaved parents. Four of them spoke very bravely in person. Behind them were arrayed the photographs of even more children who lost their lives. They spoke very movingly. They said that while they absolutely welcomed the Government’s announcement yesterday, for them, that was the end of a long process of trying to get government to listen, but it is, at the same time, a beginning, because there is an awful lot more to do. If the Minister has not had the chance to read it, a very well-known bereaved parent, Ian Russell, wrote a very sensible piece in today’s Guardian about safety by design and how completely and utterly fundamental that is if we are going to get this right.

My question to the Minister goes back to enforcement. I know these large companies; they were clients when I was a headhunter. I know how well funded they are. We put in a lot of their top lawyers. They are very smart and have very deep pockets. The only way that we will be able to enforce is by joining with other jurisdictions, most obviously the European Union, to create a large enough economic bloc of customers and users of these technology companies—despite whatever the slightly incontinent current President or any of his minions may say—and by working together in a united way to make the companies realise that there is no “get out of jail free” clause. They have to be held to account, and they will be, but we can only do that together.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord—who has been a consistent advocate of ensuring that our children are safe online throughout the many months that I have been here, and he has played a very important role in doing so—is right that enforcement is absolutely key. He is also right to highlight that many other jurisdictions are looking at this and moving in this way. That will all be part of setting the new social norm and ensuring that not just this generation but the next generation grows up in a world in which social media operate very differently.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I echo other noble Lords in thanking the Government for their announcement and the important progress that has been made, of course acknowledging that my noble friend Lord Nash in particular encouraged some of that movement. I want to press the Minister on the exception for educational services. She will be aware that there are concerns that edtech is often described as the Wild West and that just because a service claims to be educational does not actually make it educational. Can she reassure the House that, in particular, some of the apps that children have for homework on their phones will not automatically be seen as meeting the educational exemption? If she cannot clarify that today, maybe she could be very kind and write to me.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of the definitions and ensuring that we target the platforms that we intend to. The definition that we have adopted from that in Australia is

“whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material, alongside algorithms”.

We will look carefully at the criteria and how they apply to particular platforms and expected exemptions to ensure that when the regulation is applied in the real world. it achieves its purpose. We will be developing that during this year, so it may not be quite immediately that we update the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome yesterday’s announcement of a social media ban. It will make a material difference to the future of many children and young people in our country and is what parents and carers across the country have been crying out for. I echo many of the sentiments expressed. I commend the courage and tenacity of the bereaved parents who every day have campaigned on this issue to ensure that no one else must suffer as they have to every single day. I echo the many points that have been made about enforcement.

On functionalities, many have talked about safety by design. The Prime Minister said that we were going to see stranger pairing stopped. It is right that this happens, but it must be associated with ensuring that no child or young person can be geotagged or located through location services. Stranger pairing is very dangerous—knowing where young people are should be restricted to the parents, carers and, potentially, the siblings of those young people.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her passionate advocacy of the importance of improving online safety for our young people and for the engagement that she has had over the years with the families and others. She is right to highlight that we are taking action on not just social media companies but the functionalities. I undertook to write to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, on geotagging and geolocation. I will make sure that I write to my noble friend at the same time.