PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children - 20 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I would like to make a statement on the next steps this Government will take to keep children safe online and give them the childhood they deserve.

Last week, I said in this House that artificial intelligence and technology have huge potential to create jobs and growth, to diagnose and treat disease, to transform our public services, and so much more besides. However, this Government know that we will only seize this potential if the benefits of technology are felt by all, not just a few at the top, and above all, if people know that they and their children are safe online. We have already made significant progress on this crucial issue; the Online Safety Act 2023 introduced one of the most robust systems globally, with groundbreaking steps to tackle illegal content and activity and to protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. We have long known, though, that there is more to do.

My first act as Secretary of State was to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence, so that platforms must take proactive steps to stop users seeing this material in the first place, and swiftly to take it down if it appears. We have also made intimate image abuse and cyber-flashing priority offences. We have introduced an offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise artificial intelligence models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material.

Eight days ago, in response to the abhorrent and illegal spreading of sexualised deepfake images of women and children without their consent by Grok, I said that we would uphold British values and British laws and that we would fast-track legislation, making it an offence to create non-consensual intimate images. I also said that I would make that a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023. Since then, I am pleased to say that X has announced it will ban the generation of intimate images of real people. That will be carefully monitored, but I and the Government have welcomed the announcement.

The story does not end there, though. I know that up and down the country, parents are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, when they should give them a phone, what on earth they are seeing online, and the impact all that is having. Yesterday, I met bereaved families who have suffered the most unimaginable tragedy as a result of what their children have experienced online. It was one of the most devastating discussions I have ever taken part in, and I pay tribute to their courage and dignity.

I know that many parents are deeply worried about a whole range of other impacts on their children, such as the consequences for their mental health, their concentration and sleep, their sense of self-esteem, and their ability to learn and to explore the online world without fear. We are determined to help parents, children and young people to deal with these issues with a lasting solution that gives children the childhood they deserve, enhances their wellbeing and prepares them for the future.

Last year, the Government said in response to the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill—a private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is now the Minister for Children and Families—that there would have to be further action on these issues. Since I was appointed to this role, I have been urgently considering this matter, because keeping children safe online is a top priority for the Government and for me personally.

Today I can tell the House that we will bring forward a swift three-month consultation on further measures to keep children safe online. That will include the option of banning social media for children under 16 and raising the digital age of consent, to stop companies using children’s data without their or their parents’ consent. The consultation will include a range of other options, too, such as: whether there should be curfews overnight or breaks to stop excessive use or doomscrolling; how we ensure more rigorous enforcement of existing laws around age verification; and action to address concerns about the use of virtual private networks to get around important protections.

We will consult parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved parents, technology companies and, crucially, children and young people themselves, because their views and voices must be heard. We will look closely at the experience in Australia, which, as many people know, has just introduced a ban on social media for under-16s. We will make sure that the consultation is evidence-led, with input from independent experts.

We are prepared to act to deal with the serious concerns that parents, teachers, doctors and others have about children’s screen time in schools and at home. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary announced that for the first time ever we are developing screen time guidance for children under five, which will be available from April. Today, I can confirm that we will also develop evidence-based screen time guidance for parents of children aged five to 16. While we have already been clear that mobile phones have no place in our schools, the Government will take further action as part of our determination to safeguard children and support their wellbeing. Today, we have published updated guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools, and we have asked Ofsted to include that in its inspections, because we want there to be no doubt in the minds of school staff, parents and young people that phones should not be used in schools.

I know these issues are important for Members of Parliament, teachers and the medical profession, many children’s organisations, young people themselves and, above all, parents across the country. Many people, including in this House, are strongly in favour of a ban on social media for the under-16s as the best and clearest way forward to protect children and stop acute and chronic online harms. They want action now, but others take a different view, saying that they worry about letting online platforms off the hook and that a ban would simply push harms further underground and, above all, stop children using the positives of social media, such as connecting with like-minded people, finding those who love in the same way and love the same things, and getting peer support and trusted advice. There are clearly risks in all these different approaches, which is why I believe that a proper consultation and promoting a national conversation, especially with the public, is the right and responsible way forward.

I want to make one thing crystal clear: the question is not about whether the Government will take further action—we will act robustly, as we did with Grok. The question now is about the next steps and acting effectively, together with children and families. That is what our consultation will deliver, because we are determined to ensure that technology enriches children’s lives, rather than harms them. We want to give children the childhood they deserve and prepare them for the future. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. What does an ailing Prime Minister do to demonstrate firm and decisive leadership? He launches a consultation, with a variety of options. What does he do when the Conservative party, the House of Lords, trade unions and more than 60 of his own Labour MPs line up against him on a tricky issue? Rather than take a clear position on a social media ban for children and getting phones out of schools, as the Conservative leader has done, this Prime Minister finds an unkempt meadow with some lengthy grass in it, and he boots the tricky issue right in. The House does not just need to take my word for it. One senior Labour MP has said that this consultation will “take too long”. Another said, referring to a social media ban,

“The immediate reaction is that this is just a way of kicking it into the long grass.”

There is a straightforward question that Ministers must answer today: is the Government’s apparent change of heart on a social media ban for real? Is this consultation a way of elegantly managing yet another U-turn, or is it simply a device to get the Prime Minister through the parliamentary week, while the position remains unchanged? If it is progress, it can be celebrated, but let us not forget that until very recently, the Prime Minister said that he was personally opposed to a social media ban for children. In December, the Culture Secretary confirmed that she is against one. The Business Secretary is opposed. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said on the media this very morning that the Government do not take a view. In fact, the only senior Labour figure we know who is clearly in favour of a ban is Andy Burnham. That is some leadership.

What is the Secretary of State’s personal view, and what is her message to Labour MPs who would like to vote for a ban this week? Each of those rebel MPs will be asking themselves, “After the Prime Minister has Grand Old Duke of York-ed me up and down so many hills, can I really trust him to see this through?” That is especially so given that this same proposal was tabled previously, and Labour voted it down, just as it voted down our amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on a phone ban in schools. It is just like when they were told not to support their own colleague, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), when he had a private Member’s Bill on this issue. Knowing where the Secretary of State personally stands on a ban—not where she stands on a consultation and not what she thinks about having a variety of options—may help ease the minds of Labour MPs.

What of the timeline? Does a three-month consultation mean that legislation to introduce a social media ban will be ready in time for the King’s Speech? If not, and if MPs do not vote for a ban this week, they will not have another chance to do so for 18 months. The opportunity to change things is now. How many on the Government Benches will take that chance?

The Government must have a great deal of the evidence that they need. The Secretary of State’s predecessor commissioned a University of Cambridge review of children’s wellbeing in relation to smartphone use, messaging and social media, which was due to report in December. Can the Secretary of State tell us what the report said? The urgency is obvious. Everyone, especially parents, can see what social media is doing to children. It is not just exposure to extreme or explicit content, although of course that matters. The Online Safety Act 2023, which we introduced, is already addressing illegal material and age-gating, and that work is ongoing. However, the harm goes wider. Social media has created an anxious generation hooked by products designed to be addictive, displacing real-world activity and undermining attention, emotional regulation and mental health. Schools and families deal daily with the consequences: cyber-bullying, social anxiety and fractured concentration.

China’s version of TikTok, Douyin, limits children to an hour a day and promotes educational content, but western platforms do the opposite: engagement loops are optimised for emotional arousal. We welcome scrutiny of those algorithms and steps to stop children’s data being exploited, but there is a simpler option, which is to keep children off these platforms altogether while allowing adults the freedom that follows. Conservatives believe in parental responsibility: we believe in freedom for adults, but we also believe in protecting children. We believe in policing age, not policing speech. It is not to strip parents of their roles and responsibilities to recognise that the online world can be a discombobulating nightmare to supervise. It is not to be a modern-day Mary Whitehouse to worry deeply about children being exposed to images and topics that they are simply not equipped to deal with.

This consultation also includes a rethink on phones in schools. I see that the Education Secretary is present; for months she told us that it was a gimmick and unnecessary, although most secondary school pupils say that phones are still used extensively. By when will phones be banned in schools, and how quickly will Ofsted enforce that? Will it be enforcing against guidance or against the law, because guidance is simply not enough? We must be up front in saying that the challenges of implementing any social media ban are real. We support the Government as they navigate those challenges because we want this to work, but can the Secretary of State make it clear that digital ID will not be a requirement to pass age verification on social media sites?

The truth is that the internet grew as a pioneer society, with consequences that we are all reckoning with. It now needs to be retrofitted with very clear rules for children. They need to be protected. Other countries are taking the approach of a social media ban; will this Government in the UK do the same?

The hon. Lady has talked about leadership. May I remind the House that last week, when the Prime Minister and I showed strong and firm leadership on X and Grok, she claimed that the issues were a legal grey area—which they are not—and compared our stance to that of the mullahs of Iran, which would be laughable if it were not so offensive.

The hon. Lady asked whether we had published the research by Professor Orben. Yes, we have: we have published it today, and we are going further with some—[Interruption.]

Order. I want to hear the Secretary of State, and this private conversation between the two Front Benches is not helpful.

If the hon. Lady does not like hearing me repeat her words back to her, she should not say them.

As I have said, we published that research today, and we have gone further with some short, sharp trials in respect of different interventions and the impact that they may have, because I think that that is very important. The evidence is evolving and we need to move faster in that regard, but it will not cause delay in our action.

The hon. Lady mentioned Ofsted. Perhaps she does not understand that the chief inspector of Ofsted welcomed the new guidance today, which is an important step forward.

He also said, “Ban, ban, ban.”

Order. I want no more of this, and I genuinely mean that, from someone who is meant to be looking after education. I think we all need to set an example.

You have taken the words right out of my mouth, Mr Speaker.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about my personal position. I believe it is right and responsible to act swiftly, but to do so by carrying out a proper consultation. Let me tell the House what my position is: I will act, I will get results, and I will deliver for the British people.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

I welcome the consultation. We know that technology has changed childhood, we believe that it has changed child socialisation and we think that it may have changed brain development, perhaps even motor neurone skills, but there is little concrete evidence beyond the individual terrible stories and, of course, the profits of the big tech platforms. That is why my Committee will soon be launching a digital childhood inquiry to examine these issues, hopefully in time to respond to the consultation.

May I, however, urge the Secretary of State not to assume that a ban will be the answer to the challenges that technology poses? We need to make tech work for all of us now. May I ask her to review her Department’s refusal to accept the recommendations of my Committee’s inquiry into social media and algorithms, particularly with regard to platform responsibility, user control, digital advertising and social media business models?

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful and sensible question, and I welcome her Committee’s review, because those are hugely important matters. We should see this as being not only about social media, but about the use of phones and the issues affecting children in the digital world in which we now live. She will know, because I gave evidence to her Committee, that I am constantly reviewing our position on all the important points that she and the Committee raised in its last report, and that, in particular, the Minister for Digital Government and Data, who is also the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, is looking into the impact that advertising, social media and digital platforms can have. That is a firm commitment from the Government.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Last year, I carried out a “safer screens” tour in my constituency, hearing directly from young people, because the Liberal Democrats consider children and young people to be at the heart of this issue. Teenagers shared concerns about extreme content pushed by algorithms, but also about being glued to their screens alongside their younger siblings. One said, “It’s as addictive as a drug, and I feel the negative impacts every day.” Another pleaded, “Help—I just can’t stop.” Last week, more than 1,700 parents emailed me calling for a social media ban. One mother said that the social media used by her two boys “fills me with dread.” Another highlighted the way in which

“anxiety, reduced attention, online bullying, and exposure to harmful content are becoming common topics among families.”

Parents, teachers, experts and young people themselves are crying out for action, which is why the Liberal Democrats have long raised this as a public health issue. We pushed for the digital age of data consent to be raised to 16, and for the tackling of addictive algorithms. We voted to ban phones in schools, and called for health warnings. Now the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the other place to ban harmful social media for under-16s, based on film-style age ratings extending to 18. We would reset the default age for social media to 16 now, with strong age assurance, because enough is enough.

This world-pioneering approach brings age-appropriate standards to online safety. We are learning from Australia, and preparing for today’s reality. Our risk-based approach, supported by more than 40 charities and experts including the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and the Internet Watch Foundation, will stop new platforms slipping through the net while addressing harmful games and AI chatbots, and protecting educational sites such Wikipedia and safe family connections. Crucially, it does not let social media companies off the hook.

We have had age-appropriate safety standards offline, for toys and films, for decades. After 20 years of social media platforms clearly prioritising profit over children, building addictive algorithms that keep children and adults hooked, it is time to take action. We do not need consultation—we need that action now—but at least in this consultation we must look into how, not if, we will implement a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. I urge the Government to consider such a ban, with swift timelines, to address this growing public health crisis, and to act on our proposals now. Our children’s future is not something to be played with.

The hon. Lady explains very well the views of children, young people and parents who are grappling with these issues. I disagree with her: I think we need a short, sharp consultation because there are different views, but we definitely want to act. I am very interested in the idea of age classification, and I would be more than happy to talk to her about that. We all see how this issue affects our own children, and we need to help them cope at different ages. I am sure that many hon. Members will raise different options, and I am more than happy to discuss those with them.

I welcome the launch of the consultation and the Government’s commitment to an evidence-based approach. The evidence is clear that mobile phones have no place in schools. Many schools have managed to implement a ban, but those that have not done so, or which have only implemented a less successful version of a ban, often speak about the challenging nature of the dialogue with parents and children as they seek to implement a ban. They say that having a statutory ban, which would require them to ban phones by law, would help. Why is a statutory ban not being announced today, and can the Secretary of State confirm that it is not off the table?

My schools say very similar things, and I know the Education Secretary has heard my hon. Friend’s question. Different models are set out in the guidance. For us, the outcome is absolutely clear: there is no place for phones in schools. I am sure that we will hear more views about that, but this is an important next step.

The evidence will never be perfect on this subject, because this is an effect that is happening right around the world at the same time—there is no control group. Countries are now acting—it is not only Australia; other countries are moving in this direction as well—and I welcome today’s announcement. The Secretary of State will need to make definitional decisions, so it is fair enough to have a consultation to get to the definition of “social media” and to work out what counts as an addictive, compulsive design feature, although I am not sure that that was in her statement. It is fine to have a 12-week consultation, but I am troubled by the possibility that the period after the consultation will stretch, as it sometimes does, in an open-ended way and we will not get the action we need. Will she commit to a deadline after the close of the consultation?

I have said before that patience is not my greatest virtue. I do not intend for the period before we publish the consultation or afterwards to be long in any way, shape or form. I want to have a clear position before the summer.

I welcome the leadership that the Secretary of State is showing on this issue. In Bury North, parental appetite for a ban on mobile phones is real, but so are the practical considerations when parents rightly want to track the location of their children, have a form of emergency contact and be able to reach their children safely. Does she agree that the existence of this anxiety is not about the technology itself, but about the design for use? Social media platforms are shaping our children’s childhoods, with excessive screen time and endless feeds absorbing the equivalent of a full-time job’s worth of hours of our young people’s lives every week. Will the Government’s approach focus on shaping healthier digital environments and rewarding first-mover tech companies that lead on safer design, rather than simply leaving the burden on families?

We absolutely want to focus on children’s health and wellbeing online, and it is really important that we see more competition in this sector, with different options being available for children and young people. I hope that by having a consultation, we will get the debate going and get that action going, because it is extremely difficult for parents to manage this situation. We all share their worries as Members of Parliament, but also as parents ourselves, and we are determined to get this right and to act swiftly.

These arguments are very well rehearsed, and this announcement is long overdue. Last year we did a survey in my Gosport constituency, and 80% of parents agreed that social media is making bullying worse for their children. Last week the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from child psychologists about children’s TV and video content. Among the many things they told us, they explained the learning from Australia: it is critical to plan for whatever gap is created. If we reduce screen time for young people, there must be safe places for them to go and activities on which they can spend their time. What is the Secretary of State doing on a cross-Government basis to make sure that these issues are tackled as well?

I will read that evidence—I am sorry that I have not yet done so, but I absolutely will. The hon. Lady is right: if children are going to spend less time online, what will they do in the real world? That is why our new youth strategy involved the biggest ever consultation of young people. They said that they wanted something to do, somewhere to go and someone to care. That is why we are backing a new generation of youth clubs and youth workers, to ensure that young people have the chance for dance, drama, music and sport, both in and out of school, in order find their spark. This is about providing a better future for our children. We can only do that across Government, and that is the action we are taking.

Order. The last time I was in the Chair for a statement on this issue, we ran out of time. It would be really helpful if colleagues ensured that their questions are short.

Organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation highlight that evidence to support social media bans remains very uncertain and warn that blanket restrictions could unintentionally cause harm by pushing young people towards unregulated platforms, remove trusted online spaces, undermine digital literacy and, indeed, create a cliff edge at the age of 16. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must take a calm, evidence-based approach to this complex issue and ensure that children’s voices are central to the consultation?

I agree 100%.

I have no intention of kicking any can down the road, but I do think that listening to different views is the right and responsible approach. It is perhaps old-fashioned in politics these days to try to find common ground and to listen respectfully to what people have to say. That does not mean that we will not lead and act, but I do think it is vital that those views are heard. I have no intention of dragging this out; I want swift action and next steps. We will have to disagree on the consultation, but I am more than happy to discuss with the hon. Lady and her colleagues any views that they have about the way forward.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. When I trained as a physics teacher, I saw both the enrichment that tech can provide, with easy access to calculators and apps to enhance learning, and the disruption, with endless notifications, distractions and cyber-bullying incidents. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation harnesses the opportunities that tech provides while protecting kids at risk?

It is partly about having the consultation, in conjunction with the wider action that we are taking. Next week will be the anniversary of the AI opportunities action plan, and we will set out how much we have already achieved, but the next step is to seize the benefits of those technologies. This country is and should continue to be a world leader in AI and science, and hon. Members will hear more from me about this next week.

Families in my constituency are deeply concerned about the impact of social media on their children’s wellbeing. Just last week a headteacher told me that schools need the Government to act, and young people themselves describe the real damage that social media is doing to their mental health. The Conservative party has shown leadership by calling for clear age limits, because we recognise that protecting childhood is about setting responsible boundaries. Parents are asking for action now, so why are the Government not making a clear commitment today?

We have given clear support through all the steps we have taken on making the encouragement of self-harm and suicide a priority offence, as is cyber-flashing. We have taken action on nudification apps, updated the guidance for school and made sure that Ofsted will carry out inspections on that. I understand that the hon. Lady is strongly of the opinion that we should act now. I believe that a short, sharp consultation is the right way forward, because families and children really need that support. At the weekend, over 40 organisations signed a letter saying why they think a ban is the wrong approach. I think it is right to listen to them, because we have to lead, but we also have to listen and try to bring people with you.

As one of the Back Benchers pushing the Government in this direction, I feel that the Secretary of State is taking the right approach in looking at the evidence and having a broad consultation to make sure that we get this right. However, what we can do to ensure that the voices of children and young people and parents in Bishop Auckland are included in the consultation?

What I will certainly be doing in my Leicester West constituency is holding events in schools with parents and organisations that represent children and families, and we can get cracking on that now and during the consultation. I want to hear Members’ views, so that we can make sure we get the questions in the consultation right and then take that out into the country. About 10 years ago, when I was in opposition and a member of the Science and Technology Committee, we had an inquiry into keeping kids safe online. I did a big thing with my local schools, and it was really interesting because at that time young people said they wanted to be online for some of the benefits, but already saw the problems—the bullying, the harassment and what was happening to younger children. Children are savvy, and this issue has been going on for a long time. We are determined to set the right path for the future, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be helping us get that right.

We should not underestimate the complexity of this issue or the potential for unintended consequences from a complete ban. There is early evidence that some unintended consequences are already occurring in Australia. Parents are rightly worried and they are demanding action. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to listen to those parents, young people themselves and the many organisations and individual experts in the field, many of whom oppose a full ban, to reach not only a considered position, but a robust and enforceable one? Does she also agree that enforcement of the Online Safety Act has not been remotely strong enough, and that, notwithstanding this consultation, existing enforcement must be better funded and ramped up?

We certainly intend to learn from Australia’s experience and evidence of the ban there—I hope that I and the Minister for online safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), will be visiting soon. I do listen to the concerns raised by organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Internet Watch Foundation and the Molly Rose Foundation about the unintended consequences of a ban, and I intend to look at all those points of view seriously. However, as I have said to the House earlier, the question is not whether we act, but how. On age verification, I am extremely interested in what more we can do to enforce the existing law, and we will be gathering evidence on those points.

I thank the Secretary of State for this statement, acknowledging the real harm that social media is causing for children. As a former Schools Minister, I know how welcome these announcements will be for teachers and parents, who are contacting us in droves. However, as she knows, time is of the essence. All the time we spend contemplating is time that children still remain vulnerable to those algorithms and this addiction. Will she give the reassurance today that not only will this consultation be swift, but the delivery of its outcomes will be swift, and—she has just said this—that there will be real action to enforce the regulations already in place that should be protecting children today?

I have no desire to hang about, because this is happening to children and young people now—and because my hon. Friend would have my guts for garters if I did not act swiftly.

I realise that the Secretary of State has been sent out to manage a growing political problem—[Interruption]—honestly. She is speaking in stentorian terms to try to inspire some kind of confidence, but if colleagues look at the statement, they will see that there is nothing of substance in it at all. That is disappointing, given that in a private Member’s Bill only last year—I was a sponsor of the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is now on the Government Front Bench—promises were made that are not even delivered by this statement.

In particular on schools—since I have to ask a question—could the Secretary of State acknowledge an inherent conflict? She says that the Government are clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but she is going to update the guidance on how they should be used in schools. Could she at the very least confirm that that guidance is going to tighten their use in school, and that there is no possibility of any loosening of the current situation?

If the right hon. Member had read the guidance that has been published, he would know that this is about how schools can introduce such a ban effectively. I would say that the statement goes further than the private Member’s Bill he recommends. Last but by no means least, I have been focused on and working on this issue since 2016, as I have said, so if he does not mind, I will diplomatically reject that comment.

I really welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership and commitment. I run a work experience programme, “Your Voice, Your Future”, which encourages young people to get involved in politics and government. Some of the participants produced a powerful campaign called “Rise above the rumours”, which was all about how the rapid spread of misinformation online is harming young people’s mental health and fuelling division. Can the Secretary of State say how young people in my constituency and across the country can get involved?

“Rise above the rumours” is quite a good tagline. My hon. Friend will probably hold events with her schools—primaries and secondaries—and get children to have a full debate, put forward their views and maybe even vote on what they want, and if she does so, I will definitely look at the results.

I have had almost 1,800 emails from constituents urging for something to be done about this. I declare an interest as the mother of four young adults and teenagers. Local headteachers and campaigners tell us repeatedly about the mental health issues and harmful algorithms, but the tech companies must be held to account. If the Secretary of State is serious about urgency and prioritisation, speed is of the essence. Today, the Online Safety Act Network, supported by 42 civil society groups, has asked for urgent amendments to the Online Safety Act 2023. Has she looked at that?

Yes, I have, and I am determined to act swiftly, but there are different views on this issue. The hon. Member will feel very strongly, as do those in her constituency who have contacted her, but the truth is that there are different views that must be heard and listened to, but we will act swiftly.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the action on mobile phones in schools. Harmful interactions can take place in online games and on instant messaging platforms, and we need to be alive to the risk of driving use to less well-regulated spaces and into virtual private networks. I am also concerned that opaque feed algorithms, which reinforce our worst prejudices and recommend harmful content, can have mental health impacts on adults as well as children. Can she assure me that her review will look at this broader issue, and will she ensure that young people’s voices are at the heart of the consultation?

I will absolutely look at those issues and make sure that young people’s views and voices are at the heart of this. It is interesting that, when we look at the Australians’ experience, we see that they had to define what social media is and what it covers. That has not been as straightforward as some might have thought, and I think it is really important that we look at it closely. The OSA does not have a definition of social media, so that is one thing we need to consider.

The Secretary of State has made reference to the interaction of whatever she may consult on with the operation of the current law. Following on from the comments of the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), will the Secretary of State confirm that even if the Government pursue a ban on social media for the under-16s, they will not seek to dilute the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act?

I think it is really important that those duties are upheld and implemented. As I have said, I am very interested in highly effective age assurance measures, which are already required for some of the most serious issues, including pornography, and whether they should be extended to other areas.

I recently met Youthline, a fantastic mental health charity for young people in my constituency, and Berkshire Women’s Aid to talk about the effects of social media on young people’s mental health and their ability to form healthy relationships. Will my right hon. Friend commit to listening to the views of such organisations, as well as to Bracknell parents and children, as she looks at the results of the consultation?

Yes, and I urge my hon. Friend to send us details of those opinions so that we can ensure they are heard loud and clear.

Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Government have no intention of introducing criminal sanctions against parents or guardians of children who access social media through parental accounts?

The hon. Lady has got this wrong, but her party wants to scrap the Online Safety Act 2023, and that says everything about Reform.

The Children’s Commissioner spoke to a group of 15 and 16-year-olds in 2024 and found that three quarters of them had been sent a beheading video. It is possible that a great number of children are protecting us from what they see online, instead of us protecting them. Can I emphasise strongly the importance of speaking to a large range of children from different backgrounds about this? Sadly, they do not always feel able to make us aware of everything that they are exposed to online.

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, which is making sure that young people trust us and feel confident in raising these matters. It is our job to make sure that nobody is frightened to say what is happening to them. We will not get this right unless we talk to people of all ages and from all backgrounds, in all parts of the country. Hon. Members know that they have a vital job to play in their constituency. As Secretary of State, I am responsible for the entire United Kingdom, so I urge hon. Members, for all the politics and show in this House, to engage locally, because then we will get this right.

It is quite clear that social media is causing a health and wellbeing crisis among young people. Parents are absolutely terrified about the content that their children are viewing and the amount of time that they are spending online. Just a couple of months ago, 14 and 15-year-olds in my constituency told me about the profound pressure that they feel to be on social media. They feel a compulsion to use it, but they do not want to. Will the Government get off the pot and announce a ban? Perfection really is the enemy of the good here. The evidence is plain to see. We need action, not words.

The hon. Gentleman knows what I think about why we have to do a consultation, so I disagree with him on that, but he is right to say that we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a point about the evidence. I discovered 10 years ago, before so much had changed online, that young people know that some of this stuff is bad; they do not want to do it, but they cannot help themselves. If we were all honest with our ourselves, we would know that we behave like that sometimes, too.

Earlier this month, I hosted in Parliament a performance by students from Kent of “Generation FOMO”, a powerful verbatim play that looks at young people’s real experiences of using social media. It highlighted the impact that social media use can have on mental health, and how it leads to an increase in anxiety and depression. I therefore welcome the consultation. Can it also look into the ability of tech firms to develop loopholes that would destroy the impact of any ban?

I want to hear the views and the voices of the good people of Kent on this, whether that means having a separate meeting with my hon. Friend, or his sending me that information, which I am more than happy to look at.

I recently visited the Fulham boys school, which, 18 months ago, introduced a complete ban on smartphones in school. That school and Kingsbridge community college in my constituency both talk about the transformative effect that a ban has had. The most compelling evidence for me is this: where a secondary school completely bans smartphones, children at the feeder primary schools are under less peer pressure to buy phones, so the age at which those children get a phone is rising to 12, 13 or 14. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that she has not dismissed the idea of supporting headteachers by banning, through legislation, smartphones in secondary schools in England and Wales?

I have set out the Government’s position on this. I know that the hon. Lady wants us to go further, and I hear what she says. This is a really important point. Several friends have told me that their children feel totally left out at school if they do not have a phone, and the peer pressure to have one seeps down to younger siblings and other children, so the hon. Lady is right to talk about the route through. We want to make things as simple as possible for schools, teachers, parents and young people, and to make it clear that there is no place for phones in school.

I have recently been asking my constituents what they think about a ban on phones in schools, as well as for their thoughts about social media for under-16s. It was clear that, regardless of their politics, they all wanted to have their views heard. They were so grateful to be asked, instead of having something imposed on them. Will the Secretary of State join me in South Derbyshire for the consultation meetings that I hope to have, so that my constituents feel that they are being heard by the decision maker right at the top?

How can I resist?

Last week, as the Secretary of State will recall, some of us were loudly heckled for suggesting that X was beginning to give way on Grok. Now we know that that was true, so events are moving fast. Can the Secretary of State at least assure us that she will immediately—during the consultation and anything that follows on from it—instruct the civil servants who would have to prepare for a practical ban to get on with the task provisionally, so that no time is wasted?

Deeds, not words—I have always believed that. I want to prepare for all options, because when we make a decision, we want to implement it as soon as possible.

I welcome the Government’s consultation on smartphone use and social media. Raising the minimum age is the right step towards protecting our children, as we know that social media has led to devastating consequences. We also know that excessive screen time is linked to myopia and dry eye disease. When the Secretary of State brings forward guidance, will it take account of the risks for sight loss?

My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is leading on the guidance on screen time. I will definitely raise that issue with her. My primary schools are extremely worried about screen time. For children under 5, there are also implications for language development, fine motor skills and communication confidence. All those issues are important, but I will definitely raise the point about the impact on people’s eyes with my right hon. Friend.

Over the past year, I have spoken to hundreds of children in schools across my constituency as part of my safer screens tour. It has been very distressing to hear from them about the material that they have been exposed to, and to hear that social media companies have not come back to them when they have reported this harmful content. If the Secretary of State agrees that there should be a ban on children accessing harmful social media platforms, will the default age for accessing them be 16?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have set out that we will consult on the age of 16, but I remind the House that the Online Safety Act has very strong provisions against illegal content for people of all ages and harmful content for children. We need to make sure that it is effectively enforced now, whatever decision is made through the consultation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of this consultation. Parents and carers, families, schools and children themselves are looking for help and leadership on the issue of keeping children safe in the digital world. Will she assure me that the consultation will cover two things? First, will it cover the concept of misinformation? Claims about misinformation are levelled at social media providers. Secondly, will it consider all options for dealing with the addictive nature of social media, and algorithmically personalised feeds?

This is very much about keeping children safe online. I have said that we will look at raising the digital age of consent, the positive impact that could have on how companies use algorithms, and the many related issues. I am of course happy to discuss matters further with my hon. Friend, but the consultation is absolutely focused on children.

Many young people watching us will be thinking that issues of addiction and online harm are not simply age-related. This debate reflects, I fear, many parents’ and carers’ lack of confidence in the ability of the Online Safety Act and Ofcom to deal with rapid technological change. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with Ofcom about the powers and further action that it could take now, in particular on artificial intelligence chatbots?

My hon. Friend will know that I have already said that I have looked seriously at the issue of AI chatbots. Those that use live search and those that share user-to-user content are covered by the Online Safety Act, but where the chatbot has an interaction with an individual without live search or user-to-user content, that is not covered by the Act, and I am considering how we fill those gaps. I have said that if further action is needed, we will take it. Ofcom will understand that the expectation—from not just Members but the public—that there will be swift and effective enforcement is paramount.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and place on record my thanks and gratitude to Rosalind McClean and Charlotte Carson from a local campaign group on smartphone-free childhoods. She is right to bring forward a consultation and engage with young people, but my parliamentary colleagues in the other place will tomorrow, if proceedings allow, support an amendment that would lead to a ban for under-16s. In the consultation, is she proposing a social media ban for under-16s, simply asking for views on the age at which a ban should be set, or giving options?

We are including the option of a ban for those under 16; that will be clear. We will propose raising the digital age of consent and we will look at the other issues I listed in my statement. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s party’s approach in the other place. We want the consultation to happen. His party will have strong opinions, but we think that this is the right and responsible way forward. We will do this as swiftly as possible.

I place on record my appreciation of the Secretary of State for standing up to the richest man in the world. Whether it is standing up and acting, or the statement on online harm made weeks ago by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), this Government are taking the protection of children seriously. In Bolton South and Walkden, parents see the effect of social media on children. Will the Secretary of State stick to her intention to consult fully, especially with children under the age of 16?

The Government as a whole are determined to stick up for British values and British law. I am proud that we did that last week, and we will continue to do so. I absolutely commit to ensuring that the views of children and young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as well as across the country, are heard loud and clear.

The Secretary of State has demonstrated her commitment and interest in this issue at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, and we thank her for that. However, with the greatest respect, if social media had just arrived in our sitting rooms two weeks ago, a consultation might be necessary, but the canon of evidence about the demonstrable harms being done to our young is now very clear; that is what we have all read in our inboxes in recent days. The consultation will not throw up anything that we do not already know. Still less will it find a unanimity of view. There will always be differences of view on whether to ban. To govern is to choose. Can I urge the Government to choose to act swiftly, and to use the legislative vehicle in the other place to act now, because too many of our young people are on a precipice?

To govern is indeed to choose, and we showed our determination to do so last week. We will choose on this issue, but I want people’s views to be heard. Sometimes, we need to try to bring people together. The hon. Gentleman is right that we will never get everyone to agree on anything, but making sure that people are heard is really important. Maybe that is old fashioned, but I believe that it is right. Then we will act, lead and decide.

I welcome the steps to protect our children on social media platforms. It is very difficult to see how that can be achieved effectively without further detailed checks and balances on users and, essentially, the tech companies themselves. Social media governance is like the wild west; it is like cyber-anarchy at this moment in time, with bots, fake accounts and goodness knows whatever undermining our fantastic society. What will my right hon. Friend do to tackle the problem of digital lawlessness?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have taken steps; the Online Safety Act is a really important step forward. Ever since that became law we have taken further action on cyber-flashing, nudification apps, and sites that promote self-harm and suicide. I am very interested in looking at highly effective age-assurance measures. They are already in use for most of the serious harms for children, whether pornography, suicide or self-harm. It will be part of the consultation to see what more we can do, because we want to ensure that the laws of this land are upheld.

Order. Just to help Members, I will be calling this statement to an end at 2 o’clock, because we have a lot of business afterwards.

Anna is a child development doctor in my constituency. Every day, she sees children who have been harmed by excessive screen time. The Secretary of State says that she wishes to come to a clear position before the summer. When we come to that clear position, how urgently will change happen? How long will Anna keep on seeing children damaged by too much screen time?

We will act as swiftly as possible. I am extremely keen to hear from medical professionals—I received a letter from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges on this issue—and we will be engaging with them deeply to ensure we get this right and act as swiftly as possible.

I am one of few Members here today, and potentially the only woman, who had social media as a part of their childhood under the age of 16. That is why I am so shocked that the Conservatives can come here today and demand such urgency, when they left my generation to view harmful content for a decade. Social media has defined my life and being literate in it has shaped my career for the good at times, but it also meant that there was a language barrier between me and trusted adults—a language barrier that I fear will only worsen and widen under a blanket ban. I urge colleagues across the House, when talking about an entire generation, to bring them with us and not to send a message that it is simply easier to remove young people from social media than it is to remove the harmful content on it. Will the Secretary of State assure me that my generation and the generation that followed will be at the heart of this consultation?

Once again, my hon. Friend shows the courage of her convictions and the experience she brings to this House. I know her life in fashion has been crucially shaped by the online world, which does provide opportunities for young people, so maybe I will ask her whether she can ensure that the Government hear from people like her in her generation, so that we can take their views deeply into account. We want to prevent harms and we will take action to do that, but we need to hear from young people for whom social media has given them a chance and a future.

I have heard from literally hundreds of parents and teachers in the Scottish Borders who want social media to be banned for under-16s. We all know that these apps are addictive and are causing serious mental health challenges for our young people. I am now getting messages from parents who have heard what the Secretary of State has said and fear that she is simply kicking the issue into the long grass. Why will the Government not take action now?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement.

My right hon. Friend is taking exactly the right approach. This place is littered with legislation that turns out not to be as good as it should have been, and then it does not get amended—and late amendments are not a good thing either. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) highlighted some of the important health impacts. Will the Secretary of State proactively seek information from health specialists, including psychologists such as Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, who is very expert in the teenage brain?

Yes, we absolutely want independent experts to feed in their views. My career started out in the world of public health at the King’s Fund, and thinking about this issue in a public health framework is extremely important.

As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) just said, people want action. I know that and have said loudly and clearly that I want to hear the views of all parents and families. I will listen to those views, but I also want to take evidence, including from—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters that I do not care. I do not think that my actions over the past 10 years have ever shown that that is the case. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member’s actual question was.

As I was saying, I want to hear from all those involved, including from—[Interruption.] There are many chuntering from the Conservative Benches. I have already said that I want every single MP in this House to feed through to us the views of their constituents. I want to hear from those in the medical and other professions, because it is important that we do this properly and get this right.

I know that parents, grandparents and, indeed, young people across Ceredigion Preseli will welcome action to tackle the harms of social media and mobile phone use. Given that education, which will be so important in implementing these measures, is a devolved responsibility in Wales, will the Secretary of State seek early discussions with the Welsh Government to ensure that any outcomes of the consultation are implemented equally across the United Kingdom?

I recognise those points and want to work closely with the Welsh Government on all these issues.

It is clear that social media harms our children. I am firmly of the belief that when a child is being harmed, it is the Government’s duty to act. I support a ban, but even the most cursory engagement with Hartlepool residents shows me very clearly that there is a range of views among parents on this issue. Can the Secretary of State fathom what possibly could be the objection to listening to parents?

Not really.

We have censorship for films, which is not necessarily for violent or sexual content and sometimes for psychological content. Policing such things could be difficult. Following the consultation, it will take time to put together a report. What concerns us is when and how action could be taken, because the King’s Speech will have passed. If the right hon. Lady concludes that there has to be a social media ban for under-16s, what mechanism could be put in place in such a short time?

The right hon. Member knows that the mechanism will depend on the policy that we put forward. I want to do this properly and thoroughly so that when we take a decision, it will work and not have unintended consequences. I want us to have thought through all of that so that we have a policy that lasts. It is really important that we get this right. There are strong, different views across the House. It is good that many hon. Members have their own strong opinions; it is what this place is all about. I am trying to take the country forward and build consensus, but we will never get everybody to agree. Leadership is required, and that is what we will deliver.

I welcome the Government’s launching of a national conversation about the impact of screens and tech on our children. As part of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into children’s TV and video content, we have heard evidence that not all screen time is equal. Content that is meant for engagement can be beneficial for a child’s development, but content that is designed for attention, such as fast-paced images bombarding children, can be harmful. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation looks at the quality and purpose of the content that our children are consuming on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube and at what more can be done to ensure that platforms support the right type of content for our kids?

Absolutely. I was at Braunstone community primary school in my constituency not long ago, where I was shown the incredible power of AI to help teachers with lesson planning. One teacher told me that using it meant that he could free up 30 days a year to be present for his kids in school and his family at home. Teachers were also using AI tutors to help narrow the disadvantage gap between rich and poor kids. We need to look at the quality of screen time, so my hon. Friend’s point is very well made.

After more than a year of raising the issue in this House, illegal drugs including spice are still being brazenly sold to children online. If that is not harm, I do not know what is. What are the Government doing to ensure that all powers under the Online Safety Act are being used by Ofcom to stop this appalling harm to children? If the legislation we have cannot deal with it, will the Secretary of State consider including in her consultation how we might stop this pernicious trade?

The hon. Member raises an extremely important issue. I have put on record my determination for Ofcom to use the powers it has to act swiftly; I have made that very clear in private and publicly. I am more than happy to hear what more the hon. Lady thinks could be done.

As a signatory to a letter calling for an Australia-style model that places responsibilities on tech firms to block under-16s from social media, I welcome the Government’s consultation. Families in Bedford and Kempston are very clear that platforms are harming our children now. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is committed to a rapid consultation, but will she also commit to a clear timetable for bold action before more young lives are damaged?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have said repeatedly in this House that we need to do the right and responsible thing, which is to consult. I do not want to hang around. I want to work out the very best and effective way forward, and I want proposals that will hold and last.

In meaningful consultations, the Government set out what they are minded to do and set out a model. This consultation does not define social media or set out an enforcement model. It does not say anything about how age verification should be done. If they do not set out their model and what they intend to do, how at the end of the consultation will they have a practical guide or model to implement? They will not. If we are to follow this up with another consultation, I fear that parents and grandparents in Beverley and Holderness will be deeply disappointed with the dithering and delay displayed by the Secretary of State today.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is a statement, not the publication of the consultation. I very much look forward to his views when it is published.

Leading doctors have warned that social media has become a public health emergency that casts long shadows over our children’s minds. From self-harm to sleepless nights, distorted self-images and sexualised images, and the addictive nature of social media, the damage runs deep. Does my right hon. Friend agree that protecting young people’s wellbeing must come before digital profit and convenience? Will she commission research into the long-term side effects of social media, including on cognitive and motor development, in order to shape policy not just now but in 10 years’ time?

I think I mentioned earlier the letter I received from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which I believe is taking forward further work on this issue. Clinicians gave personal testimony about the horrific cases that they have treated in primary, secondary and community settings. I know that they will want to work closely with us on this. I thank my hon. Friend for her question.

I really welcome this statement. It coincides with the early-day motion published today in my name calling for children under 16 to be banned from social media that is deliberately designed to be addictive and is driven by profit. We have heard from Members across the House about the harms, which I will not repeat. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that any future consultation and subsequent legislation is based on the foundations of health and safety by design, and when can we expect the legislation to come into force?

The hon. Member is right; we want to ensure that this is about not only safety but enhancing the wellbeing of children, looking particularly at issues of mental health and anxiety. That will absolutely be at the heart of the consultation and any future proposals.

It is 20 years since I co-authored the first code of practice on new forms of content on mobile. In the intervening 20 years, we have seen the proliferation of over-the-top services that bypass the network-level filters that we introduced as part of that code of practice. However, social media does not neatly fall into a categorisation of either age-inappropriate or harmful, so will the Secretary of State please commit to working with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which is working already to gather evidence on the harm to ensure that our conclusions from this consultation are evidence led?

Yes.

This is the final question.

I am so happy that the Government are finally waking up to this issue and how serious it is, and that there is a cross-party consensus on the need to ban social media for under-16s. Social media platforms are designed to be addictive; we all know that. Most adults cannot control themselves, so how can we expect our children to? Enforcement will be the key issue, so would the Secretary of State please give her views on what she thinks enforcement could look like and on what she has already learned from our Australian friends, who are leading the charge on this with legislation?

I hope that the action we took last week on Grok shows that the enforcement of existing laws is absolutely paramount. We will definitely be learning from the experience in Australia, not just about how the policy was developed and the definition of social media there, but about enforcement. I am more than happy to report back to the House on that.

Many colleagues have been unable to get on this statement, and I am sure that there are others who want to feed in their views. I really do want to hear from colleagues. We will certainly be organising events in the House for colleagues to come together, and they can also contact the Department to put forward the views of their constituents. That is my job: I am a member of this Labour Government but also the Secretary of State for the country. I believe that, when we get this right, it will be a legacy of which we can be proud.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my perfectly reasonable question, the Secretary of State said I had “got this wrong”. She did not explain in what way exactly I had got it wrong. Does she not agree that all Members in this Chamber—

Order. When the hon. Lady makes a point of order, she should address it to the Chair, not to the Secretary of State. The issue she has raised is not a point of order and it is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure she can follow it up with the Secretary of State outside the Chamber or in writing.