Tony Vaughan

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (4 Jul 2024 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 222

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 757233 relating to the proposed ban on social media for under 16s. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I declare an interest as the parent of a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old. These are issues that we, as a family, are dealing with, so this is a timely debate. I thank Leo Rhodes from Thirsk and Malton, who started this petition, as well as the 217,682 who signed it, including 267 in Folkestone and Hythe. I also pay tribute to the Smartphone Free Childhood group in my constituency for its tireless organising and campaigning on this issue, as well as the headteachers, students, parents and others in my constituency who have engaged with me on this issue and driven change in our schools. In June, the previous Prime Minister announced that social media companies would be prohibited from offering their services to under-16s. Because of this Labour Government, the power now exists under section 214A of the Online Safety Act 2023. Regulations are due before the end of the year, and the first rules are expected to apply from spring next year. The published model uses a banned list of platforms, similar to the measures in Australia. Leo, the petitioner, does not support a ban. He believes that, “for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends. Some…view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network.” He is making a serious argument about friendship, belonging and self-expression. Barnardo’s makes a point that all adults need to hear: the online world has become a vital civic space for young people partly because real-world spaces have been eroded over decades, made worse by austerity. Think about the closures of libraries, youth centres and grassroots sports facilities, which this Government are seeking to address. That is all true, but does it mean that we should allow these companies to provide their products on whatever terms they choose, especially when their products are made to be addictive, create so many dangers and cause so many harms that these companies are not addressing—all while raking in huge profits? Here is the interesting thing: groups that have disagreed in public about a ban have all signed one joint statement. That includes Smartphone Free Childhood, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation, People vs Big Tech and FlippGen, which is a Gen Z-led organisation. They all say that “a binary debate between banning children from social media or not can oversimplify what is a complex issue.” Their position is that companies’ access to children should be made “conditional on their ability to demonstrate that they are safe.”

   Hansard source
2. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   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.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   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 <span id="265WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="265WH"></span>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.

   Hansard source
4. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, and Ofcom has recognised various different methods of age-verification. We must not exclude people based on whether they have one or other particular document. The Australian e-safety survey found that in 11% of cases a parent had helped a child to get around the ban. Those are sobering statistics that have to be taken into account, but most children in Australia who were still on restricted platforms did not actually need to get around anything. Around three in five said that the platform had simply taken no action on their existing accounts. The technology did not fail in their situation; the companies just did not use it. We are in a different place. As I understand it, Australia asks the platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent access by children. The UK position is that we require highly effective age assurance, and last week Ofcom confirmed that four methods of age verification could be used to meet the test at 16. My question to the Government is whether they foresee using any or all of the methods set out in the Ofcom report as a mechanism to police a ban.

   Hansard source
5. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those mechanisms—those tests—are all key in deciding whether a ban can be implemented and can work.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to make sure that we are dealing not just with lists, but with functionality. We are laying down the <span id="266WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="266WH"></span>gauntlet to stop children’s access. The next question is: if these companies want to have access, how do we allow that safely? If that cannot be proved, they should not have access to children, as far as I am concerned. I want to address the issue of virtual private networks. Some people say, “Look, children are just going to get around a ban”, but most children who get around age checks do it in simpler ways. In Australia, only one in 20 had used a VPN. Platforms already know a great deal about where their users are. There must be a duty on them to understand where their users are and to prevent children from gaining access. Barnardo’s goes further and wants VPNs to be age-gated. My understanding is that the Government have ruled that out for now, so what evidence would make them think again? It is an important point where the evidence is key. The second question that young people often ask me is, “Won’t we just move somewhere worse if a ban comes into place?” Young people in Australia report using messaging apps and gaming platforms more following the ban. Australia’s e-safety regulator did a three-month evaluation of 803 children aged 10 to 15 before the ban came into force and again in March to April this year, and the share using messaging apps daily or more rose from 40.5% to 52%. The share playing video games online every day rose from 26% to 29%, which is also significant. That is why the rules must follow the features wherever they appear, including gaming, messaging, AI and app stores. A third question is, “If something goes wrong, can I still tell somebody?” Research for the Molly Rose Foundation found that girls’ confidence to tell a teacher falls from 55% to 36% if they are still on a banned app. The message to that cohort must be that it is the platform that broke the rules in that situation, not them. These are not sanctions on individuals; they are duties on the companies. A fourth question, which an hon. Member mentioned, is, “What about my support network?” For LGBT, neurodivergent and isolated young people especially, we need a transition plan so that they know how to retain access to confidential advice networks and safe online support before restrictions take effect, alongside investment in welcoming local youth services. A fifth question is, “Where is the proof that a ban would work?” The long-term studies are not yet in, but last week Ofcom published its first report on content harmful to children. It concluded that there had been no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content nine months after the children’s safety duties came into force, and that in a four-week period 14% of 11 to 17-year-olds saw suicide or self-harm content, 23% saw content promoting eating disorders and 61% saw bullying content, most often through their personalised feeds.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   I agree. There is a plethora of sources of harm on the internet, and such chatbots are one example. Another example that somebody was telling me about is suicide forums, which encourage all sorts of awful views and behaviours. It is perhaps not directly part of this debate, but the Government having the ability to stop that stuff, in addition to the social media debate, is absolutely key. As I understand it, more powers may be needed to go that far, but I agree that it is necessary. Tragically, we cannot even rely on the companies’ own numbers. Ofcom stated in its report that its exposure data “only account for content detected by service providers.” In other words, the companies count what they catch and do not count what they miss. Content that Parliament regards as harmful might not even be prohibited under the companies’ own rules. Ofcom says that the data are “indicative rather than direct measures.” None of that proves that a safe platform is impossible, but it does show that complying with today’s rules is no certificate of safety. Given the scale of harm we are seeing, it is clear that we should be applying the precautionary principle. It is right that the Government impose a circuit-breaker ban now, as they have promised to do. In the meantime, they are right to be working on a system for deciding how platforms can earn the right to serve under-16s by showing that they are safe, including by removing addictive and harmful features. Some say that Ofcom does not have the capability to police whether sites are safe in practice. In February 2025, I led a debate in this Chamber in which I called for a social media ban, and I asked why we cannot simply reverse the burden, so that it is not for the regulator to prove that an app is harmful, but for the company to prove that it is safe. I think that is the right question to ask; I believe that the Government agree, but I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that that is the way they are looking at it. An off-ramp can only ever be acceptable if the burden genuinely shifts. Then, if there is incomplete data or uncertainty about safety, that must mean that there is no exemption, and not another long investigation while children remain exposed. Assuming that companies can demonstrate that they are safe, I have five questions for the Minister about this potential off-ramp. First, what exactly must a company show on harmful content—including what it misses—on contact from strangers, on addictive design and on risks to the most vulnerable children to demonstrate that its platform is safe? Secondly, who checks that evidence independently, with access to the real product rather than just the company’s own statistics? Thirdly, will the regulations expressly state that insufficient evidence means no exemption, rather than the regulator being required to prove everything, as it currently has to do, which is very difficult when it comes up against a well-resourced social media company? Fourthly, will major changes to an app or algorithm trigger a reassessment? If new evidence of harm emerges, how quickly can an exemption be suspended or withdrawn? The Molly Rose Foundation says that exemptions must be hard-earned, with stretching demands in order to keep them, and requirements reviewed and updated annually. <span id="268WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="268WH"></span>Finally, will Ofcom have the powers, expertise and resources to access the data needed to administer the system? The young people who signed the petition are right to put freedom—the freedom to express themselves and to find their community—at the heart of this debate, but that must also mean freedom from harassment, from content that damages their wellbeing and from design that makes it harder for them to put their phone down and spend time on other things that they themselves value. Those freedoms matter as well. I recognise that restrictions will limit choices. That is why the aim must be not permanent exclusion, but requiring companies to offer something that is better and—most importantly—safe. Young people should not have to choose between connection and safety, and companies should earn the right to serve them by respecting both.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   Can I just clarify something? Is the off-ramp part of the features and functions piece, which is post spring, or will that be part of the ban in the regulations that will be put before Parliament before December?

   Hansard source
9. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   My apologies, Mrs Hobhouse.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Tony Vaughan

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    I thank Leo and all the 217,682 signatories to the petition, as well as all hon. Members who spoke today. Each speaker agreed that the Government need to be tougher on social media companies and to crack down on harmful and addictive features, which we all agree that children should not be subject to. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke powerfully about the impact of eating disorder content. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) shared <span id="299WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="299WH"></span>nine solutions, including on algorithmic feeds and other things that should be cut out. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) quoted numerous statistics about social media companies crowding out young people’s time and having awful impacts on them. We all agree that the status quo is not acceptable. The reality is that, today, under-16s across the country are subject to these platforms. The Ofcom report, which many Members referred to, acknowledges that children’s access to these platforms is not materially reducing. I support a ban, but with a possible off-ramp where, if social media companies can show that their products are safe, we should allow children to access them. I accept the premise of Leo’s petition, which is that young people should have access to social media if it is safe and can safely provide a place of connection, community and support. It is important that we as parliamentarians acknowledge that, and that young people do not feel that we are paternalistically telling them what they should be able to do. The reality, however, is that with these platforms in their current form, we cannot wait. We cannot allow our children to continue to be subject to those harms while we work out how to force social media companies to clean up their act. In fact, the ban will drive innovation. <span id="300WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="300WH"></span>If those companies ultimately want to allow children to access them, the ban will drive them to find products that are safe and suitable for children. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), and others, made the important point about regulating harms rather than platforms. I understood that the Minister ultimately agreed with that analysis.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Folkestone and Hythe

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site