Sir Keir Starmer is preparing to back legislation that would ban under-16s from accessing social media platforms, signaling a major shift in the government’s approach to online child protection.
The Prime Minister, who previously expressed doubts about introducing Australian-style age restrictions, has now dropped his opposition and confirmed all options are being considered, including a mandatory ban on under-16s.
In his speech on Thursday, Starmer said the government needed to “better protect children from social media”, adding that ministers were closely examining the Australian model and were open to further protections, including age-based restrictions.
Downing Street has also indicated it will not block a forthcoming Conservative amendment to the Child Welfare and Schools Act, which is due to be voted on next week. This would introduce a legal obligation for social media companies to exclude minors under 16 from their platforms.
A political adviser close to No 10 said the issue had become “topical” at the highest levels of government, pointing out that a large majority of MPs would likely support a ban if there was a free vote and that public support for tougher measures was increasing.
Political dynamics have increased rapidly. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said last weekend that her party would introduce a ban on social media use by under-16s if it returned to power, while Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has also voiced his support for tougher restrictions.
Health Minister Wes Streeting supported the intervention, warning that social media had been “unleashed” without “fully understanding the consequences” for children and young people.
The move would bring the UK closer to Australia, where Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last year introduced a first-of-its-kind law banning under-16s access to platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and
In Britain, the campaign group Smartphone Free Childhood says it has sent more than 100,000 letters to MPs urging them to support a ban.
The government’s changing attitude is also reflected in recent appointments. Josh MacAlister, a long-time supporter of telephone bans in schools, has been promoted to children’s minister, while Gregor Poynton, who has expressed support for Australian-style restrictions, has been appointed deputy chief whip. Technology Minister Liz Kendall is also seen in Westminster as more interventionist when it comes to online security than her predecessor.
Proponents argue that a ban could reduce harms ranging from mental health problems to online radicalization. Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism laws, said age restrictions could help prevent a new generation of teenagers being drawn into extremist online content.
However, the proposal remains controversial. Charities such as the NSPCC and the Molly Rose Foundation have warned that a blanket ban could push children onto less regulated platforms or drive harmful behavior underground.
Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said such a move could do “more harm than good” if it is not accompanied by strict regulation of platform design and content.
Starmer himself has previously expressed personal reservations, saying late last year that controlling harmful content may be more effective than outright bans. But with cross-party pressure mounting and public opinion shifting, the Prime Minister now appears poised to take decisive action.
If the amendment is passed by the House of Lords next week, it will go before MPs in the House of Commons, laying the foundation for one of the most significant interventions in the UK’s digital economy and technology regulation to date.
