Members of Parliament debated a petition against the UK's planned social media ban for under-16s on Monday. The debate in Westminster Hall showed that the government's own Labour backbenchers are split on the plan. Several Labour MPs backed the ban, while others argued it would cut young people off from support and fail to stop harm. The Liberal Democrats said they back a ban but want it based on harms, not a list of platforms.
The debate does not change the law. Petition debates in Parliament do not end with a vote on the petition's request, according to the Petitions Committee. They give MPs a chance to raise concerns and hear a response from a government minister.
The petition
The petition, titled "Do not ban social media for under 16s," gathered 217,682 signatures. It opened on February 11 and closed on August 11. Its text says that "for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends." It adds: "Some people view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network."
Petitions that pass 100,000 signatures are considered for debate. This one crossed that mark on June 15, according to the petition site's data. That was the same day the government announced its ban.
The petition drew signatures from every region of the UK. The South East and London had the most, according to the site's own count.
type: bar
title: Signatures on the "Do not ban social media for under 16s" petition, by region
note: Raw counts, not adjusted for population. Regional totals add to 211,022 of the 216,463 signatures from the UK.
source: [UK Parliament Petitions](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757233)
---
Region | Signatures
South East | 30,488
London | 24,178
North West | 23,977
East of England | 19,983
Scotland | 18,781
West Midlands | 18,714
South West | 18,188
Yorkshire and The Humber | 17,447
East Midlands | 16,010
Wales | 9,821
North East | 8,203
Northern Ireland | 5,232
What the government has announced
On June 15, the government said it would stop social media platforms from offering services to under-16s. It said it would use the same model as Australia. The ban would cover platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. The government said it did not intend to include messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal.
The announcement went further than a platform ban. It said under-16s would also face blocks on livestreaming themselves and on contact from strangers across a wider range of services, including gaming sites. Those limits would be on by default for 16- and 17-year-olds, to avoid what the government called a "cliff-edge at 16." AI "romantic companion" chatbots would have to enforce a minimum age of 18.
The government said the rules were expected to go to Parliament before Christmas and take effect in spring 2027. Opening Monday's debate, Labour MP Tony Vaughan said the power to do this now sits in section 214A of the Online Safety Act 2023.
"Tech giants had their chance and failed, but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations," then Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in the June announcement. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said tech companies "have had countless opportunities to keep children safe, yet they have failed to act." [Funding: local campaign funding not researched; FEC does not cover this country]
The government cited a national consultation with more than 116,000 responses. It said 9 in 10 parents who responded backed a ban, and two-thirds of young people agreed that under-16s should not be allowed to use at least some platforms. A consultation is not a poll. People choose to respond, so the results describe those who took part, not the whole public.
In its formal response to the petition on March 4, before the ban was announced, the government said opinions on a ban were "divided." It said there was "still no consensus on how" to act.
The Conservatives backed a ban before the government did. In January the party pledged to restrict social media for under-16s. After the June announcement, the party said it had forced the change, citing three votes it pushed in both houses of Parliament. The party is led by Kemi Badenoch [Funding: local campaign funding not researched; FEC does not cover this country].
Supporters of the ban
Vaughan, who opened the debate for the Petitions Committee, said he supports the ban. He said he is the parent of a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old. "It is right that the Government impose a circuit-breaker ban now, as they have promised to do," he said, according to Hansard, Parliament's official record.
Vaughan said platforms should then be able to "earn the right" to serve under-16s by proving their services are safe. He asked the minister whether the rules would create a route off the banned list, and whether a company's failure to provide enough evidence would mean no exemption. "Young people should not have to choose between connection and safety, and companies should earn the right to serve them by respecting both," he said.
Laura Kyrke-Smith, the Labour MP for Aylesbury, urged ministers to move quickly. She disputed the idea that the petition and the ban are at odds. "It is a ban on platforms built to encourage addiction, such as through infinite scrolling or streaks," she said. She argued that a legal age limit would set a shared norm and ease pressure on parents. She said it would also protect children whose parents lack the time to manage controls.
Perran Moon, an independent MP, focused on eating disorder content. "A social media ban for under-16s is blunt, and no age-verification system is perfect, but it is the proposal before us," he said.
Fred Thomas, the Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, rejected the argument that a ban creates a "cliff edge" at 16. He said that argument "implies that exposure is the same thing as preparation," which he said it is not. [Funding: campaign funding data not verified]
Critics of the ban
Sam Carling, the Labour MP for North West Cambridgeshire and the youngest member of the Commons, said he agreed with the petition's aims. He described how social media helped him find support as a gay teenager in a rural area. "A blanket ban would be clumsy and risks being completely ineffective," he said.
Carling warned that a list of named platforms would lead to a game of "whack-a-mole" as children moved to less regulated sites. He backed limiting specific features instead. He also objected to YouTube's inclusion, saying it holds a great deal of educational content.
Josh Dean, the Labour MP for Hertford and Stortford, said he was "cautious about the idea of a blanket ban." He asked: "Should the aim not be to make sure that the harms are gone, not that the under-16s are gone?"
Emily Darlington, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes Central, said much of the harm happens on platforms the debate rarely mentions, such as Roblox and Discord. She compared online safety rules to product safety. "We do not ban the toy, we ban the thing that is wrong with it," she said.
Julie Minns, the Labour MP for Carlisle, raised doubts about age checks. "I do not think we are quite there yet when it comes to age-verifying 16-year-olds, who do not have ID," she said.
The Liberal Democrat position
Anna Sabine, the Liberal Democrat MP for Frome and East Somerset, set out her party's position. She said her party supports "banning children from accessing harmful social media." But she said the party fears "an Australian-style ban will ultimately fail in its role to reduce the harms faced by children online."
Sabine said the Liberal Democrats would rate platforms by the harm they cause, with film-style age ratings. The most harmful platforms would be closed to children. A company that redesigned its service could then regain access. She also said the party would oppose any rule that amounts to mandatory digital ID. She asked the minister whether the ban would still arrive by spring 2027.
What the evidence shows so far
MPs on both sides pointed to Australia, which began its under-16 rules first. Vaughan cited figures from Australia's eSafety regulator. He said 12% of children used makeup or someone else's ID to get around the rules, and in 11% of cases a parent helped. He said about three in five children still on restricted platforms reported that the platform had taken no action on their accounts. He said about one in 20 had used a virtual private network (VPN). 567 Politics was unable to open the eSafety report to check these figures, so they are attributed to Vaughan.
Ofcom, the UK's online safety regulator, published its first report on content harmful to children on October 22. It found no significant change in the share of children encountering harmful content over the first nine months after its child safety duties took effect in July 2025. Ofcom called that finding "concerning." It said it would soon publish an assessment of what highly effective age checks could look like for confirming that someone is 16 or over.
Supporters read the Ofcom report as proof that current rules are not enough. Critics read Australia's early results as a sign that a platform ban will leak.
The government's reply
A minister was due to respond for the government at the end of the debate. Hansard's rolling record had not yet published the closing speeches from the Conservative front bench or the minister when this story was written. 567 Politics will not characterize the government's reply until it can be read in the official record.
The questions for ministers are now on the record. They include whether the rules will be laid before Christmas, how platforms could earn an exemption, which age-check methods will count, and how young people would keep access to support services.
Read more about the UK's parties and leaders in our UK country guide and UK policy watchlist. For how we handle sources and balance, see our editorial standards and methodology.