Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

Josh Dean Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for his opening speech and the petitioners for bringing this important issue forward.

There are a range of views on this debate, and it is so important that we listen to the young people who want us to look in detail at what the impact might be on them. It is absolutely right that we look at the concerns raised by all the young people, adults, teachers, parents and families on the impact of social media on children’s wellbeing, mental health and development. It is important that we recognise that they are genuine concerns shared by many.

I was rather looking forward to saying that I am the youngest Member in the room, but that claim has been stolen by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling). However, I am one of the few MPs who grew up with social media. Like many of my friends, I accessed social media before the age of 13. I have seen at first hand how rapidly evolving platforms have given rise to harmful content, misinformation and addiction, affecting adults as well as young people. The vast majority of colleagues in this place can remember a time before social media. Today’s generation of young people have not had that benefit. They have grown up with it, with their lives intertwined with the digital world.

Parents, teachers and young people have every right to be angry. When children are exposed to harmful content, online bullying, unrealistic expectations, addictive platform design and material that damages their mental health, it is no wonder that people feel we have not acted quickly enough in this place. I remember being a young person at school desperate for the Government to do more, and they did not. Parents are right to demand action. Parliament has a responsibility to respond. The question is not about whether we should act—of course we should. It is about what will be most effective, and it is so important that we get this right.

Earlier this year, I held a series of roundtables with secondary school pupils across Hertford and Stortford to hear directly from them about their experiences online. Many described social media as a source of anxiety. Others spoke about exposure to graphic content and misinformation—online pressures that previous generations simply did not have to navigate. The conversations I had with young people also highlighted that social media is not simply a straightforward source of risk. It can be a vital source of information, connection and support. Indeed, I first became politically engaged through the online world because, after the referendum in 2016, I was encouraged to join a protest to lower the voting age to 16, and I stood outside here with other young people calling for the voting age to be lowered. I would not have been there, and I would not be here had I not come across that through the online world.

Many of the young people I spoke to shared similar experiences and stressed that, too often, this debate overlooks the positive role that social media can play. When safe and well regulated, it can help to combat isolation and foster meaningful connections, particularly for those in semi-rural communities like mine. It can provide a lifeline for young people who are LGBTQ+, neurodiverse, or living with a mental health condition, helping them to understand their identity and access peer support networks. Many of those young people will be on long waiting lists for traditional services. Those online communities provide an essential source of support in the interim, and I worry that a blanket ban could risk pulling the rug out from under those young people and removing the safety net altogether.

One of the strongest messages I heard from young people was that they actually want us to do something to tackle online harms. Those young people were not white-knuckled, clinging on to their phones. They were telling us about their experience and that they want us to act. That should mean looking seriously at stronger age assurance, tougher regulation of harmful content, greater transparency around algorithms, meaningful parental controls and restrictions on deliberately addictive features. What it should mean is that we take the fight to the social media companies. I am, as of recently, 27 years old, and I have been waiting for this for a long time; young people today should not have to wait as long as I have.

I am cautious about the idea of a blanket ban. It is important that, whatever we do, we get it right. We must ask ourselves what happens next. If mainstream platforms become unavailable, how confident are we that young people will simply stop using online services altogether? Do we risk pushing them towards smaller, less-regulated platforms, where safeguards are weaker and oversight is more difficult? We should recognise the role that those platforms now play in civic and democratic engagement. For many young people, social media is a gateway to current affairs, public debate and political participation. This is about not just learning about politics from the online world, but engaging with it from the online world and holding politicians like us to account. While protecting children from harm, which I absolutely agree must be the priority, we need to be careful not to close off legitimate opportunities for engagement.

[Sam Carling]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the current proposals to have a hard cliff edge at 16 create a problem in terms of people suddenly being exposed to all of that world, having not really had the opportunity to develop the skills to be able to deal with it?

[Josh Dean]

I quite agree. Another colleague touched on the cliff edge: the idea that the day someone turns 16, they might get access to social media for the first time and then head off to the polling station to vote. It is right that we have more education on media literacy in schools but hands-on, practical experience in a safe and regulated online space is important as well. We have to consider how restricting young people’s access to this source of information might affect their long-term democratic participation.

If we are serious about encouraging the next generation to take part in our democracy, we have to bring young people with us on this journey, not exclude them from it. I commend the Government on their engagement with young people, parents, teachers and families across the country. Young people I spoke to were very pleased that their MP came to speak to them and hear their views, but the feedback from young people since the announcement has been less positive. It is so important that we bring them with us as we do this.

During the pandemic, we pushed more of young people’s lives online. They had no say. Education, social interaction, public services and democratic engagement increasingly moved into digital spaces. Many young people developed the habits of accessing news, discussing current affairs and engaging with campaigns through the very platforms we are now debating. We cannot rip them back out without giving them a proper say again. Protecting children from harm must be our priority, but I worry that if the answer is simply to ban access, we risk alienating the generation we seek to protect. They will not forgive us if we get this wrong, nor will their parents. If we shut them out of conversations, information and opportunities for participation that increasingly shape modern civic life, we should not be surprised if they choose not to engage going forward.

The challenge before us is not simply to restrict access to a list of platforms, but to create an online environment in which young people can participate safely, responsibly and confidently as future citizens. Yes, we should act. Parents are right to expect action. Young people themselves are asking for action. But let us focus on the features, the business models and the failures of regulation that are causing harm rather than assuming that a blanket ban is the only solution available and putting the pressure of companies’ failures on the shoulders of young people.

Will the Minister update the House on how the Department is assessing evidence from countries, such as Australia, that have pursued a social media ban for young people? Will he confirm that restrictions will be regularly reviewed and remain adaptable, given the current pace of technological change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fred Thomas]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; I guess we are just debating what those methods are. I fully agree that the cause of these issues is the technologies now being basically monopolised into four or five massive companies. This debate is about what we do to tackle that.

I will address the cliff edge argument, where some folks suggest that if we stop young people having access to certain social media until they are 16, and then they suddenly have access, they will be super-vulnerable or in some way unprepared for the social media world. I do not think that makes sense, because it implies that exposure is the same thing as preparation—it is not. The brain in someone under 16 is developing and needs protecting. It is in a better place to deal with the harms once the person is 16 than when they are 14. I do not find any credibility in that argument.

[Josh Dean]

We agree on the cause; it is the methods that we have different views on. I recognise my hon. Friend’s point about the development of the brain, but should the onus not be on social media companies to clean up their act across the piece, so that every 16-year-old accessing social media, and indeed everyone over 16, is free from the harms currently found there? Should the aim not be to make sure that the harms are gone, not that the under-16s are gone?