Social Media Ban for Under-16s

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.