Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

Chris Kane Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

As the parent of a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old—sorry, that was a while ago. As the parent of a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old, I have been speaking about this for so long. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we should give young people more credit for their ability to understand and articulate the challenges they face online? They are not simply passive users of social media, and their views deserve to be taken seriously in this debate. It is important that we get across to everyone listening that we want to do things together. We do not want to do things to young people; we want to do things with young people.

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is key that the young people affected by this have a seat at the table, so that their views are heard and taken into account by Ministers when the position on the ban and how companies might escape it is being finalised. I agree that it is fundamental that they feel included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that social media companies having denied a lot of the problems and treated this as a non-serious issue is deeply wrong and alarming. I hope he will agree with some of my proposals for how we may look at that.

The petition emphasises the community and connection that social media currently offers young people. I have personal experience of that. I have spoken about this in debates before, but when I was about 13, I realised that my sexuality was not like that of those around me; I was not straight. But living in a rural area and growing up in quite a homophobic, close-knit religious community, I had few people to talk to about that. Social media was such a valuable tool for me to be able to connect with other LGBT people in similar situations. Had I not had it, I would have been far more alienated and alone, and lacking peer support. I fear that a blanket ban on social media could risk making that a reality for many and I cannot support that—not after the lifeline that online conversation gave me when I was growing up.

That does not just go for LGBT people. Growing up in a rural area more generally can create barriers for children, whose friends may live some distance away. If used properly, online spaces can help to widen social circles and maintain friendships made in the real world. I do not want young people to lose that because of the way tech companies are acting. Without a doubt, we need to seriously strengthen safeguards. Clearly, significant work needs to be done to keep children safe online. However, a blanket ban would be clumsy and risks being completely ineffective.

I worry in particular that the proposed named-platform approach would result in a constant game of whack-a-mole between children and Ofcom as the former migrate to new platforms as the old ones are made unavailable. Young people are far more digitally literate than older generations have sometimes grasped and they move faster than I believe any regulator could. Although well meaning, a blanket ban could drive children to fringe platforms that are even less well regulated, where extreme content could be even more prevalent. That is an outcome that I am sure nobody wants.

Earlier this year, the NSPCC, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, the Molly Rose Foundation and a long list of other child safety experts signed a letter to the Government warning that a blanket ban was a “blunt response”. They are united in calling instead for more accountability from the big tech companies. The NSPCC, for example, has been clear that the Government need to stop companies designing their platforms in a way that is addictive to children, and use the full force of the law to make sure that social media platforms are safe for children to use.

I support a functionality-based approach: limiting certain features without creating a situation in which children—who will find a way to use social media regardless —are led on to more extreme platforms. We are seeing some of the risk with this right now in Australia, which has had a social media ban in place. According to research from the Molly Rose Foundation, 61% of Australian 12 to 15-year-olds are still accessing platforms that they are meant to be banned from. That is clear evidence, in my mind, of why platform-based bans are not the answer and why we must change course. A functionality-based approach would benefit users of all ages, frankly, by limiting the addictive and AI-generated content that has increasingly plagued the major sites in recent years. I say that because addictive content affects adults, too, and not just children.

Targeting functionalities could also stop the race to the bottom when it comes to short-form content. The popularity of short-form videos exploded with TikTok a few years ago, and now pretty much every platform has a shorts feature. Even LinkedIn has experimented with one. It seems that many platforms have felt the need to introduce a shorts feature in order to remain competitive, even when it does not quite seem to fit—take YouTube, which was always designed for long-form content, or Instagram, which has increasingly promoted its Reels function over the more traditional posts feed that it was known for.

I think that a lot of short-form content has exacerbated a lot of underlying problems, particularly in relation to algorithmically driven harmful content, which we need to bear in mind. However, I can certainly envisage a scenario in which several platforms would probably not really have an issue with getting rid of their shorts features —which have led to so many of the problems that we are talking about—if others did so too. That is where regulation could step in. Any regulation of social media companies needs to take into account the decisions that they are making and why they are being made, so that we can force them to do things better.

On the subject of YouTube, I would like briefly to highlight the fact that it is explicitly included in the ban. I think that is particularly difficult. There are of course problems with it as a platform—I have criticised it too—but it has a lot of educational content, for example. I would argue that there is an equality angle here, because although that is valuable for anyone, removing it could be a real blow for students who are trying to improve their school grades but do not have the funds to pay for private tutors. It is a real possibility that this type of ban could create significant inequalities in access to resources.

[Chris Kane]

I agree with an awful lot of what my hon. Friend is saying, but is one of the problems not that we need to recognise that young people are not a single homogeneous group, and that what is good for one is not good for another? That is what the Government are wrestling with, and I have huge sympathy for what they are trying to do. While we are hearing young people’s voices, one thing that is closer to a homogeneous group is parents, who want the best for their kids. We have to try to grapple with this issue and find a way through that works. Does he agree that that is what we are trying to do and hopefully we will get there together?

[Sam Carling]

Absolutely. I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution, and I know that so many parents are grappling with and having a lot of trouble with this issue. We need to hear their voices and what would work for them, and support them, as well as the users that we are talking about.

The enforceability of a ban is also damaged by the fact that, particularly with YouTube, a lot of viewing is done on TVs. Do the Government have any thoughts about how parents might grapple with that in a home situation, and about the enforceability of a ban in that circumstance? Ultimately, my concerns are that a blanket ban lets the big companies off the hook and will likely prove ineffective at keeping children safe. Children will still get on to online platforms, and if they are on platforms that are not well regulated, or if social media companies can argue that children are not using them when frankly they still are, they will stop focusing on child safety at all.

I want to touch on online gaming, which is underdiscussed in these conversations, with many people not necessarily recognising the social features associated with those spaces. For example, Roblox is a massive online game aimed at children. It is such a hotbed for predators that vigilantes have taken to conducting paedophile sting operations in-game, as the company’s response to online abuse has been so atrocious. One such vigilante, known online as Schlep, managed to get six child predators arrested. Roblox responded by banning him and threatening legal action. So it takes no action to stop predators, but it takes strong enforcement against people who are trying to stop them. We cannot encourage vigilantism, but the priorities there are clearly so wrong.

That is not the only example of abuse in online gaming. I have met the Breck Foundation, which was formed in 2014 after the tragic death of Breck Bednar—a 14-year-old boy groomed and murdered by someone he met while playing “Battlefield 3”. The groomer lied and manipulated Breck to gain his trust and lure him to his flat. The foundation goes into schools to improve the digital resilience of children across the country. It provides invaluable resources to help keep children safe, but crucially, it is not in favour of a blanket ban. In Breck’s case, removing his access to technology only drove the abuse underground, with a secret device provided by the abuser.

I agree with the foundation that a ban risks narrowing a complex conversation. Indeed, online gaming is a fun hobby for many children and adults, and it can be very pro-social and support the development of creative skills. The current proposals do not ban online gaming for children, which is right; any attempt to do so would be devastating for people who enjoy it and they would inevitably end up in less regulated spaces, if mainstream platforms and games were clumsily cut off to them. But the proposals also do not really tackle the issues in the online gaming space, and I would like to see more recognition of what we need to do in that area.

The Breck Foundation, like other safeguarding organisations, has called for greater accountability from big tech companies. That is where we need to be. A blanket ban will not work; it would allow predators to ruin it for everyone else and essentially let them win. We need to protect the benefits that social media and online gaming can offer young people while ensuring that the companies behind them take safety and security far more seriously.

As the youngest MP, I know more than most how interwoven the online world is with growing up. We need to regulate those spaces, not hope they will magically go away—they will not.

Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

Chris Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier]

I of course join my hon. Friend in supporting those organisations. We have had conversations following Carlsberg’s decision to close Burton’s Marston’s Brewery, where my hon. Friend’s ales are brewed. We will work closely to protect a heritage that is so important to his constituents and the rest of the country.

I now have the immense privilege of serving as Member of Parliament for the residents of my home town of Burton upon Trent. We would not be who we are without cask ale. Our waters are rich in minerals, perfect for the brewing of cask ale. From our town a brewing empire was born, exporting beer across the world. Names such as Bass, Allsopp’s, Marston’s, Salt & Co and Ind Coope enjoyed spectacular success from the 19th century onwards. At one time, over half the population of Burton upon Trent was employed by the breweries. My predecessors in this House include Bass, Ratcliff, Gretton and Evershed, before some were elevated to the other place. I can assure colleagues that, if I fail to be elected at the next general election, I am not in line for a “beerage”.

Burton’s waters were so good that others copied them through a process called Burtonisation, but, of course, the original is always the best.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

It is great to hear my hon. Friend mention the titans of the brewing industry; I have enjoyed a few pints from his constituency in my lifetime. In my constituency, traditional brewing skills are being kept alive by small, independent businesses, often driven as much by a love of the product as commercial considerations. Brewers such as the Allanwater Brewhouse in Bridge of Allan, Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing Brewery in Dunblane and Brewing at the Fintry Inn all bring their own character and creativity to a local brewing tradition. I must also mention what went on in Alloa, my neighbouring constituency, over many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that preserving that cultural heritage is about protecting not just traditional skills, but the diversity, innovation and passion that smaller producers bring to the industry?

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. Can interventions be a little shorter?

Online Safety

Chris Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I have had an initial discussion about this with some of the tech companies. As the hon. Lady will know, as well as the horrific incidents that she mentioned, there has been a campaign by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers relating to the way in which shop workers have been targeted. The Government are concerned about this, as am I personally, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to see what more we can do.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

May I place on record my heartfelt appreciation of the dignified leadership that the parents and family of my constituent Murray Dowey have shown on this issue? Will the Secretary of State say more about the ongoing conversations that she will have with tech companies while the primary legislative clock is ticking, so that they know we expect them to tackle this issue with the same speed of innovation that they show in bringing new products to market when profit, not safety, is the goal?

[Lisa Nandy]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and thank him for being such an outstanding advocate for them. He will have heard what I said about ongoing discussions with tech companies. We ought to be moving quickly on this, and it ought not to require primary legislation, but given the lack of progress, I think it only right for the Government to step up. We do, however, want to see faster progress, and I think that many of the tech companies will have noted the strength of feeling throughout the House about their own responsibilities in this regard.

Media Green Paper

Chris Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend asks a perfectly valid question, and I want to acknowledge that there are concerns. We had a debate in Westminster Hall not that long ago, and a number of my colleagues—particularly from Scotland—turned up to express concern about the fact that the quality of reception via broadband in their constituencies is very poor and that the consequence of switching off DTT might be to prevent them from receiving television at all. That is clearly unacceptable. The proposal can go ahead only if we reach the position to which the Labour and Conservative Governments have aspired: universal access to high-speed broadband of sufficient quality to allow IPTV to be received.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

I am concerned about the impact of the switch-off on commercial radio. The BBC may be able to absorb some of the consequences of the DTT switch-off, given the savings that it will make from its television distribution, but commercial broadcasters do not have the same offsetting saving. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should therefore consider how to ensure that commercial radio is not the unintended loser in a reform designed principally around television?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I strongly agree, and that is the point that I was coming to next. A lot of the towers in the transmission network, which broadcasts digital terrestrial transmission, are owned by Arqiva, and they also carry the transmitters for commercial radio. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if we turn off the television transmission, all the costs get loaded on to the remaining broadcasters—that is, the commercial radio stations. I therefore hope that the Minister will at least address that too, because the estimate that I saw is that it will potentially result in an increase in costs of more than 50% a year for commercial radio stations.

Voluntary Groups and Community Centres

Chris Kane Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.

I approach this debate from a position of experience, because I have seen volunteering and community centres from many levels: user, volunteer, trustee, community councillor, local councillor and leader of Stirling council. I am not talking about community spaces in theory; I am speaking from the reality of trying to make them work.

First, if we are still thinking about community centres as we did in the 1960s and 1970s, we have already fallen behind. Too often, the model is a tired hall that is underused, expensive to maintain and slowly declining. I saw that myself as leader of Stirling council. One facility in my area was operating at about 8% capacity and heading towards closure. People chose not to use it, the building deteriorated and the cycle simply fed itself. That is what happens when we fail to maintain or adapt. This is not just about capital investment; it is about activity, purpose and making spaces that people actually want to use.

When we have been willing to think differently, we have seen what is possible. Take Braehead community garden in my constituency: what started as a project to grow fruit and vegetables and tackle food waste has become, in effect, an outdoor community centre covering about 2.5 acres. It brings people together, whether they are keen gardeners or, like me, they simply enjoy being there without doing much gardening at all.

Its success also shows that these spaces need ongoing support to be sustained. We see that same evolution in our libraries. Places such as Bannockburn, Cowie and my local library, the wonderful Mayfield centre, have moved far beyond books. They are now hubs for technology, innovation and community life, offering everything from digital access and flexible workspaces to makers’ spaces and shared resources that reflect how people live today.

We should apply that same thinking to community centres. There are strong examples of that in my constituency. Facilities such as Barrwood, run by the Scouts, combine a traditional indoor space with outdoor activity, woodland and even kayaking. That is what modern community infrastructure can look like. But here is the reality: innovation at local level can go only so far when the system above is holding it back. Speaking as a former council leader, local government in Scotland has been consistently constrained by the Scottish Government. Funding is tight, flexibility is limited and, too often, there is not just a lack of understanding but an element of disdain for what is happening on the ground.

We see the consequences of that in Bannockburn enterprise hub, a council-owned building repurposed to support enterprise and community use—exactly what we should be encouraging. Yet under the current SNP council in Stirling, staffing is being removed and replaced with a keyholder model. Issues are not being picked up, addressed or, frankly, taken seriously. That is not how community assets are sustained; it is how they are allowed to decline.

That brings me to a bigger point. We still treat these services as non-statutory, optional extras that can be cut when budgets are tight. They are not optional; they are preventive. They support wellbeing and hold communities together. Perhaps it is time that we said that clearly and acted on it. The role these spaces play in addressing issues of mental health, community cohesion and resilience could be formally recognised. These spaces are not an added extra; they are fundamental to the coherence of our communities, and that must be recognised across our public services—not just as a problem for local councils to patch and repair, but as a fundamental need that should be incorporated into the thinking of our health service, our planning system and our approach to wider community resilience.

We should be moving towards recognising community spaces, outdoor provision and voluntary sector partnerships as social statutory services, not ones we fund when we can but ones we prioritise because we understand their value. I say to the Minister: support local authorities to think differently, but also give them the flexibility, the backing and the respect to deliver. The traditional model for community centres often looks to a decaying past, not a thriving future. Sometimes, we have to find out where the centre of the community is and go there, rather than hope that the community feel grateful for the centre we tell them they can have. We should also ensure that public toilets are included in our thinking about essential community spaces.

Finally, I thank all the volunteers who keep not just our community centres but our communities running, including those I recently spoke to in Killearn at the wonderful Parkinson’s dance class. Perhaps unusually, I also thank our local authority workers for all they do for our communities. They are working under horrendously tight budgets, and they are doing a great job in very difficult circumstances. This Government are delivering positive change in so many areas; let us ensure that our community centres are not just surviving, but thriving.

Local Media

Chris Kane Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

Back in 1991, when I was 15 years old, I applied for work experience at Central FM in Stirling. I was meant to be there for a week, and I stayed for 10 years as a broadcaster. Those were golden days of Scottish local radio, shaped by stations such as Central, Radio Forth and Radio Clyde, by familiar voices, great music and genuinely local news. When a winter storm hit, we tuned in to hear which schools would be closed. We rallied behind Cash for Kids and other campaigns that defined that era.

A few years later I began writing for the Stirling Observer. I can still picture the newsroom buzzing with reporters, sub-editors, photographers, and the sense of a team that knew its community inside-out. Then came the world wide web. None of us realised how profoundly it would change everything. When I started at Central FM, I had 17 radio stations to choose from. Today my teenage children can access almost any station on earth—if they choose to listen to radio at all, that is. They consume radio in ways that would have been unimaginable to me as a teenager.

I start with those reflections because they remind us that change in the media landscape is not new. What is new is the speed and scale of the disruption we now face, and the reality that the future of local journalism is genuinely at risk if we choose not to protect it. The consolidation of power among the world’s tech giants and the unprecedented influence they hold over what information we see is deeply troubling. They extract extraordinary profits, while Governments and communities are left to face the democratic and social consequences of their decisions. The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee’s “The future of news” report warned that,

“the period of having informed citizens with a shared understanding of facts is not inevitable and may not endure”,

and it is right.

Recent legislation has helped. The Media Act 2024 gives broadcasters clarity. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 begins to address imbalances between publishers and platforms. The Online Safety Act 2023 is a great first step, but it will need constant attention to ensure it remains up to the task. It is clear that much more will be required.

We might need better legislation to ensure that local journalism has a fighting chance in a world being reshaped by AI, which is already challenging how people access news. Too often AI is scraping journalists’ work without permission, payment or attribution. By serving up instant summaries of that material, it risks becoming the main gateway between readers and local information, using content it did not create and preventing those who did create it from earning a living or building the trusted relationships that sustain local reporting.

One of the biggest missteps we made at the start of the age of social media and smartphones was to blindly follow the tech companies into the brave new digital future they were creating without proper oversight or guardrails. Let us not make the same mistake with AI.

The upcoming BBC charter renewal is an opportunity to look again at how the BBC can support local news, rather than compete with it. The BBC is a vital institution and the local democracy reporting service shows the good it can do, but the move into local online news has created pressure for commercial services that rely on digital audiences to survive. In rural areas like mine, resilience has to be part of the conversation. When the BBC begins to ask whether it is time to switch off digital broadcasting because digital connectivity is almost universal, I would invite them to visit places such as Killin in my constituency, where residents are still waiting for FM radio to reach them—a technology first introduced by the BBC in the 1950s.

Grassroots competition should not be feared. Many talented journalists who have faced redundancy are using platforms such as Substack to build genuinely local alternatives. They may well become the next generation of local media. The Government have a procurement role, too. Our advertising and procurement choices should reward those who are genuinely investing in local reporting—yet that commitment is not always clear. Reach’s recent redundancies, including that of a Stirling Observer reporter with nearly 30 years of experience, and STV’s shocking plans for significant redundancies in the north of Scotland show how fragile the ecosystem has become. Public money should support organisations that maintain real journalistic capacity, whether that is a long-standing local title rooted in its community or an experienced local journalist building a new platform.

A healthy, sustainable and independent local media sector is not a luxury; it is part of the democratic infrastructure of our country. I welcome the Government’s plans for a local media strategy and would be grateful if the Minister could update us on how that work is developing. We should support and invest in local media. If we lose it, we will miss it more than we can ever imagine.

BBC Leadership

Chris Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I am not entirely sure how to respond to that, but the right hon. Member’s views are now on the record.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

We have heard an awful lot today about the professionalism of the journalists at the BBC, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but there are less of them now than there were last year and we hear that the BBC is in the fight of its life across a whole number of fronts. Well, when you are in a fight across multiple fronts, it seems odd to send some of your best fighters home, but that is what is happening to our journalists where there are less of them in our newsrooms. Does the Secretary of State agree that journalism, delivered free from fear or favour, costs money—and that it costs a lot of money to do it really well? Does she also agree that delivering that has to be at the centre of gravity for the BBC now and in the future, and that how we protect journalism and resource it properly has to be at the heart of the charter review?

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I can assure him that that is very much central to the charter review process that we are about to begin. He is right to say that fearless and robust journalism costs money, and it is essential that the BBC is fairly and sustainably resourced for years to come. The Government are keeping an open mind about how that may may unfold, but what I have said—and I am happy to repeat it to the House today—is that we have ruled out funding the BBC through general taxation, because although it is absolutely essential that good journalism is well resourced, it is also absolutely essential that the BBC remains independent from Government and is able to hold us to account without fear or favour.

Future of Terrestrial Television

Chris Kane Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

I entirely agree that we must do all we can to protect digital terrestrial television for as long as it is needed. As a former radio presenter, I would argue that free radio could do with the same future protection. Colleagues have rightly made the case for the broadcasting medium; I want to make the case for the retailers, the engineers and the aerial installers—the people who deliver, set up and explain.

My family has been in that line of work for nearly a century. My brother Michael runs Radio Music Store in Bannockburn, helped by Pam and Logan. He took over from our father, who retired last year. My father took over from his father in the ’70s, and my grandfather started the business in 1932, five years after the first BBC radio broadcasts came to Scotland. The store rented out its first television set in time for the very first TV broadcast in Scotland in March 1952. It was 7.30 pm, and people crowded around small, low-resolution screens to watch pictures of this place—the Houses of Parliament—and the River Thames, which were the first things to be seen. Only 2,730 television licences had been issued in Scotland at the time.

By the 1980s, when I was a teenager helping out in the school holidays, televisions were everywhere. Rental remained popular because sets were costly and the analogue technology was forever blowing valves, tubes and circuits. But every town had engineers who could repair them. Most shops had backrooms that looked like laboratories, with people soldering components and bringing sets back to life. It was a skilled trade, common across the United Kingdom. Most of the businesses were small, family-run shops. Many were part of the Radio, Electrical and Television Retailers Association. Some were larger chains, but most were independents, rooted in their communities. Those communities were stronger for their presence.

Today it is a different picture. Fewer retailers cover larger areas. Many are part of Euronics, a co-operative of independent retailers, my brother’s store among them. They are still embedded in their towns, but fewer in number and serving much larger areas. It is one thing to support the continued broadcasting of terrestrial signals, but what use is that if people cannot get hold of a television? What use is that if nobody is available to realign their aerial after a winter storm? What use is that if manufacturers insist a new set cannot be set up without connecting it to the internet first?

My grandfather would have been horrified at how easily televisions worth hundreds of pounds are written off for want of a 50p fuse. Once upon a time, engineers repaired components. Now entire circuit boards are thrown away, as often are the televisions that they are in. Right-to-repair legislation has gone some way to address this, but where once we had a network of engineers in most towns making a living, now we have a handful of larger companies in urban areas and a patchwork of volunteer-run repair cafes. This is not just about nostalgia for a golden age of repair shops. It is about resilience. It is about making sure that older people, rural households and those without reliable broadband are not left behind. It is about ensuring that communities from Bannockburn to Bolton have someone nearby who can get them connected again when their set goes dark.

Yes, let us protect terrestrial television broadcasting. But let us also support the ecosystem that makes it receivable: the shops, the engineers, the local support and the skills. Let us recognise that broadcasting also means receiving, and there are a lot of people needed to ensure that reception continues. Finally, a plea: shop local when you can because, like so much of the high street, you will miss it most when you need it and it is not there.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Before we come to the Front Bench contributions, we are due to finish at 4.30 pm. While there has not been a Division called yet, there is the potential of up to three votes in the main Chamber. If that happens, I will have to suspend for the duration of those three votes. I point that out to the Front Bench spokespersons before they start their wind-up speeches.

Youth Services

Chris Kane Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Natasha Irons]

My hon. Friend is quite right: there has been a 73% decline in funding for youth services. I congratulate the organisation in his constituency on its centenary.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also recognise that there is also a funding crisis in Scotland, with the Scottish Government starving local authorities of the funding they need to provide these vital services? This is not just in England; it is a UK-wide problem, and the SNP Scottish Government are certainly not making it easy.

[Natasha Irons]

I understand that MSP colleagues are considering bringing in a youth Act in Scotland, which is quite innovative, and perhaps we should try to emulate some of its provisions.

With the closure of over 1,000 youth centres, one in eight local councils now has no youth centres in its area. The workforce crisis has seen youth workers often stuck in low-paid and insecure work. The voluntary sector, which now delivers 80% of youth work, faces its own funding crisis, with 25% of voluntary youth organisations having less than six months of cash reserves.

Despite those challenges, organisations across our communities are stepping up to rebuild the village around our young people. Nowhere is that more evident than in Croydon, the town I have the privilege of representing in this place. In Croydon, organisations are working tirelessly to provide the support that young people need: Redthread, which is working in Croydon university hospital to offer young people caught up in youth violence a way out; Reaching Higher, which aims to support and champion young people across school, community and home; Croydon Drop In, which offers free confidential advice and mental health support to young people and families; and Croydon Youth Consortium, which is driving collaboration across local youth charities, so they avoid competing against each other for the same limited pots of funding. Croydon is leading the way in giving our young people a stake in their community.

However, due to impending budget cuts and reorganisation, Croydon, which is London’s youngest borough, is on the verge of losing its council-run youth engagement team. The team provides a critical link between the council, the voluntary sector and vulnerable young people across the borough. It provides outreach, runs youth hubs in hard-to-reach areas, and oversees Croydon’s youth assembly. To put it simply, Croydon’s youth engagement team has saved lives.

The limited statutory protections in place for council-led youth services mean that Croydon council can shut the service down without running a proper consultation; without asking key partners, such as the police or the NHS, how much they rely on the frontline knowledge the team offers them; and even without consulting the borough’s young people properly, having approached only 31 of them in the process of drawing up its plans. The council claims that some of the services will be retained by inviting the voluntary sector to put in bids to run them, but they cannot replace the consistency, institutional knowledge and co-ordinating role that the youth engagement team provides. As one mother, whose son attends the New Addington youth hub in my constituency, put it:

“The staff do such a good job at making everything seem conversational and natural... We’ve had pop up services through charities. But with the youth club, they’ve been able to spend time with a consistent staff team and build relationships with a professional and diverse staff.”

I welcome the Government’s commitment to the wellbeing of our young people: their work on a national youth strategy that puts the voice of young people at its heart, and their plans for the young future hubs to tackle the complex causes of youth violence. But I urge them to back up that investment with proper statutory protections for youth services.

It is time to stop the erosion of youth work. It is time to introduce statutory sufficiency benchmarks to ensure that no matter where they are, no matter the community they grow up in, all young people have the right to youth work, with measurable minimum expectations. As outlined by the National Youth Agency, that would not only give youth services the priority they deserve, but provide stability to the youth work sector, giving it the long-term structure needed to invest in proper pay, training and support for its workforce.

It is not just a moral mission to provide these services for our young people; it is also a practical one. As the Government’s own data shows, young people who receive youth work support as teenagers are happier, healthier and wealthier. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates, for every £1 invested in youth services, we save between £3.20 and £6.40 in wider costs to society. For many, youth work provides a trusted adult; a guiding hand on to the next step when the next step feels impossible.

I would like to end by sharing the story of Rania. She is a young woman who, like many across our country, left education full of potential but was paralysed by fear. She battled deep mental health struggles, loneliness, isolation and a crushing sense that she was “not enough” for the working world. Rania got in touch with the King’s Trust. She began to work with Charlie, a youth delivery lead who did not just help her with her CV and job applications; she listened, she believed and she walked her through every moment of doubt. Rania went on to apply for three NHS roles and was offered all of them. She is now proudly working as a band 2 healthcare assistant. As she puts it:

“With the support provided, I hardly recognise myself. I still can hardly grasp how much Charlie’s support has impacted me and motivated me to achieve my goals.”

That is the power of youth work.

At a time when hundreds of thousands of young people are struggling to find a future, it is youth workers like Charlie who are quietly pulling lives back from the brink. If we are serious about ending the youth unemployment crisis, if we are serious about the future of our young people, and if we are serious about breaking down barriers to opportunity, then we must get serious about the long-term funding of our youth services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

When we talk about youth services, we are really talking about the kind of country we want to be. We often discuss crime prevention, education and mental health in silos, but the thread that runs through all those issues is clear: we need to invest in our young people through properly funded, long-term youth services.

Scotland has a proud tradition in youth work. In my constituency, youth work takes many forms, from council programmes to community-led projects in our towns and villages. In every case, the services work to address inequality, isolation and opportunity gaps. Let me highlight two examples. The Callander youth project has turned a former hotel into a thriving hostel and social enterprise, and offers employability programmes and training opportunities to young people. In Bannockburn, the Eastern Villages sports hub delivers sport and community activity in partnership with Milton football club, Bannockburn rugby club and St Modans cricket club. That shows how sport, youth work and community development can go hand in hand.

Those are fantastic examples of grassroots ambition, but behind the energy and creativity lies a deep sense of fragility. Too many projects rely on a patchwork of short-term funding. I want to recognise the role of organisations such as the National Lottery Community Fund and many others that have stepped in to keep services running.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech, and is showing why Scotland produces some of the greatest footballers of all time, like Billy Bremner. He mentioned the short-term funding of youth projects. My experience from my work with young carers is that part of the issue is that new projects need to be funded. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need long-term funding for not just existing projects, but new ones, too?

[Chris Kane]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for recognising Billy Bremner—a very good Stirling man.

As I was saying, many projects rely on a patchwork of short-term funding, but that reliance points to a deeper problem: the retreat of local government, especially under the SNP Government in Holyrood, who have delivered a real-terms cut of over 15% to core budgets for local authorities. That makes it near impossible to deliver on statutory obligations, let alone expand services for the future.

When youth services are cut, the impact is not abstract. We see it in worsening mental health, rising youth crime and lost opportunities. We know what works. Youth services build confidence, boost attainment, improve wellbeing and support employability, and those are generational investments, not optional extras. That is why I welcome the UK Labour Government’s commitment to embedding youth services alongside mental health and careers support in communities. However, Westminster action only goes so far when Holyrood is pulling in the opposite direction. If the SNP is serious about equity and opportunity, it must properly fund councils and commit to long-term support for youth services. This is not just about budgets; it is about hope, and acting on our belief in the potential of every young person.