Debates between Tony Vaughan and Claire Hazelgrove during the 2024 Parliament

Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

Debate between Tony Vaughan and Claire Hazelgrove
Monday 2nd November 2026

(1 day, 21 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Tony Vaughan Portrait Tony Vaughan
- Hansard - -

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.

Claire Hazelgrove Portrait Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I declare an interest as the proud patron of local youth charity, the Foundation for Active Community Engagement, which co-hosted my “Coffee with Claire” event, listening to young people and those of all ages across my community. I ran that event, along with an online survey, to listen to people, including young people, about their experiences and views.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that, when we look at these regulations, we make sure we avoid cliff edges—where young people might be completely cut off from social media and then exposed to it all on one day? There is a possibility, as we look at lowering the voting age, that some people’s first day of accessing social media could also be the day that they cast their first vote.

Tony Vaughan Portrait Tony Vaughan
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot have cliff edges. We have to build young people’s skills to be able to navigate this online world so that, when that point comes, there is not a cliff edge. And support should be available because, let us face it, young people rely on these technologies for all sorts of support.

Those organisations are clear that companies must earn the right to offer services to under-16s by meeting strict safety standards. That means fixing the design, not just taking down the odd post. It means removing contact by strangers, disappearing messages, live location sharing, endless scrolling, autoplay, harmful algorithmic feeds, streaks and notifications. There must be mechanisms to catch new features that put children at risk, and the consequences must be ones that companies cannot simply absorb as the cost of doing business.

At the Labour conference, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said that there will be a way for companies, if they want to innovate and change, to get themselves off the ban list, but that it is up to them. She also said it is a sign of failure that we have got to the point of taking children off social media altogether. I respectfully agree, so I ask the Minister whether the regulations to be laid later this year will create that route off the list? Will the ban come first and the route later?

Let us take questions that young people are actually asking me about a ban, because they are good ones. First: “Won’t we just get around a ban?” That is a fair question, and the Australian figures are sobering. The Australian e-safety regulator found that, between March and April this year, 12% of children used make-up to look older or used someone else’s ID to circumvent the ban.