Sir Keir Starmer is preparing to back legislation that would ban under-16s from social media platforms, signalling a decisive shift in the government’s approach to online child protection.
The Prime Minister, who had previously voiced doubts about adopting Australia-style age restrictions, has now dropped his opposition and confirmed that all options are being considered, including a mandatory ban for under-16s.
Speaking 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 would not block a forthcoming Conservative amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, due to be voted on next week, which would introduce a legal requirement for social media companies to bar under-16s from their platforms.
One policy adviser close to No 10 said the issue had become “live” at the highest levels of government, noting that a large majority of MPs would likely support a ban if it came to a free vote, and that public backing for tougher action was growing.
The political momentum has been building rapidly. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said last weekend that her party would introduce a ban on under-16s using social media if it returned to power, while Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has also voiced support for tighter restrictions.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has backed intervention, warning that social media had been “unleashed without properly understanding the consequences” for children and teenagers.
The move would bring the UK closer to Australia, where Prime Minister Anthony Albanese introduced world-first legislation last year banning under-16s from platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and X. Under the Australian system, social media companies face fines of up to A$49.5 million (£25 million) if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to prevent underage access, using tools such as age verification, facial recognition or behavioural age inference.
In the UK, campaign group Smartphone Free Childhood says it has delivered more than 100,000 letters to MPs urging them to support a ban.
The government’s changing stance is also reflected in recent appointments. Josh MacAlister, a long-standing supporter of phone bans in schools, was promoted to children’s minister, while Gregor Poynton, who has expressed support for Australian-style restrictions, was appointed assistant chief whip. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall is also regarded within Westminster as more interventionist on online safety than her predecessor.
Supporters argue that a ban could reduce harms ranging from mental health issues to online radicalisation. Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said age restrictions could help prevent a new generation of teenagers from being drawn into extremist content online.
However, the proposal remains controversial. Charities including the NSPCC and the Molly Rose Foundation have warned that a blanket ban could push children towards less regulated platforms or drive harmful behaviour underground.
Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said such a move risked “causing more harm than good” unless accompanied by robust regulation of platform design and content.
Starmer himself had previously expressed personal reservations, saying late last year that controlling harmful content might be more effective than outright bans. But with cross-party pressure mounting and public opinion shifting, the Prime Minister now appears willing to move decisively.
If the amendment passes the House of Lords next week, it will go before MPs in the Commons, setting the stage for what would be one of the most significant interventions in the UK’s digital economy and tech regulation to date.
