In her response to Liz Kendall in the Commons, Julia Lopez, the shadow technology secretary, said that six months ago the PM was opposed to a social media ban. She said it was the Conservatives and others who forced him to change his mind. She said:

If this was a man with views, his position could have been laid out at the start of the year, with the consultation used as a chance to polish the policy.

As it is, officials heads have been left spinning trying to retrofit details to this Damascene conversion.

The prime minister likes to make a virtue of process, but he has used process in this case as a tool to avoid doing what so many in this chamber said was not only inevitable, but right and entirely necessary.

But Lopez criticised the decision to include restrictions covering 16 and 17-year-olds. (See 12.58pm.)

How does the minister square granting 16-year-olds the solemn duty to vote, but not the power to have cheeky night-tim scroll on Instagram.

The same applies to romantic chat bots. How is it going to work?

Will these restrictions apply to 16-year-olds or 18-year-olds, given both meet the age of sexual consent?

This is an argument also made with in more detail by the Financial Times columnist Stephen Bush in a column today. Bush says:

Keir Starmer has unveiled plans to ban all under-16s from the biggest social media sites, in measures that are a direct copy of Australia’s ban. One important difference between Anthony Albanese’s Australia and Keir Starmer’s Britain is that in Australia you have the right to vote at 18, while here in the UK, legislation to give 16-year-olds the right to vote has almost completed its legislative passage through the House of Commons.

Although the age at which we gain adult rights and responsibilities is always somewhat arbitrary, the order in which the social media ban and the right to vote apply is not, I would argue, arbitrary at all. For good or for ill, politics in the 21st century takes place in large part on social media. If you have votes at 16 you should not have a situation where 16-year-olds are deprived of the opportunity to participate and engage in the same information environment as other voters. Starmer’s proposal to ultimately go further by placing some limits on what 16- and 17-year-olds – who will be able to vote by the next election – can read and watch online that do not apply to other adults is simply a mess.

Kendall said he has also asked Ofcom if they have the right capabilities in place.

And, in her letter, she has also “asked them to publish a clear enforcement strategy and an annual report to parliament on how this strategy is progressing”.

This is what Kendall says in her letter.

I am clear that this ban must be rigorously enforced from the outset. Visible, credible enforcement will be essential to building confidence that these protections are real and effective in practice and you continue to have my full support to use the full range of enforcement powers at your disposal. As I set out in my recent letter to Sir Ian Cheshire [the Ofcom chair], robust, effective and timely enforcement of the Act is a priority. I look forward to hearing his assessment of what changes may be needed to Ofcom’s structures and ways of working to deliver this and the other priorities set out in the letter.

Transparency is crucial to public trust and confidence in Ofcom’s enforcement. I am therefore asking Ofcom to submit to parliament and make publicly available an update on enforcement strategy and outcomes and to make this part of its regular accountability to parliament.

Kendall said that she has asked Ofcom to draw up plans for how age verification can work effectively by October.

In a letter sent to Ofcom, she says:

We know that use of highly effective age assurance will be critical to the successful implementation of age restrictions for social media services. I would therefore like Ofcom to launch a rapid assessment of what highly effective age assurance looks like for determining whether someone is over 16. Please also consider what new methods are emerging that could support this in the future.

I would be grateful if Ofcom can publish this by October. This is to help inform parliamentary debate on the regulations I intend to lay by the end of the year.

In particular, Ofcom should consider how age assurance can meet the standard of being highly effective, while making all endeavours to avoid excluding users who are old enough to use certain platforms or features but lack the means to verify their age through passports or driving licences.

In her statement Kendall set out details of the ban as announced by her department earlier. (See 12.58pm.)

And she said she was “strongly minded” to bring in default overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for 16 and 17-year-olds.

Meta, the parent company of both Facebook and Meta, has said it shares the government’s “goal of keeping teens safe online”. But, echoing comments made by YouTube (see 10.53am), it said it was not convinced the government’s policy would achieve this aim.

A Meta spokesperson said:

Like others, we don’t think bans will achieve this goal [keeping children safe].

As we’ve seen in Australia, bans risk isolating teens from online communities and information, and driving them to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls.

To be both effective and easy for parents, any restrictions must be underpinned by an age verification system on devices so people aren’t asked to hand over ID to dozens of individual services to prove their age.

We will continue to engage with the government and Ofcom as they work to implement this policy.

Back in the Commons, Andrew Murrison (Con) asked Luke Pollard if he agreed that Al Carns was right to argue in his resignation letter that the defence investment plan was not just under-funded, but also allocated money for the wrong equipment. (See 11.04am.)

Pollard said he agreed with much of what John Healey and Carns said about the need to spend more money on defence.

He agreed that the government needed to spend more on drones – and that was happening, he said.

He also said the defence investment plan was a “deliberately scalable document”, which would allow more money to be spent on particular areas on the future.

He went on:

Spending more on the new capabilities does mean, though, retiring old capabilities.

It does mean doing something that the armed forces have not done for a very long time, and that means discarding some of that kit and equipment that’s been around for many, many decades and investing in newer technologies.

Now, that’s a difficult argument for ministers to make. It’s a difficult argument for those people that are attached to old equipment in particular.

But when we have armour that has been in service since before the Vietnam war, where we have ships that are decades past their decommissioning date, we do need to be honest about the need to retire old equipment and buy new equipment.

Kemi Badenoch criticised Dan Jarvis, the new defence secretary for not being in the Commons to answer the UQ in person.

It speaks volumes that a junior minister has been sent to answer this question.

If the new defence secretary is too scared to face tough questions at the dispatch box, waiting for an easier statement later, then I don’t have much confidence in him facing down the threats from Russia.

Badenoch said the Conservatives would judge the defence investment plan by three tests (the ones she set out at a press conference this morning – see 11.41am).

And she also offered to “lend” Keir Starmer Tory votes to pass welfare reform to fund higher spending for defence.

In response, Pollard said Jarvis was not in the chamber because he was meeting the king.

Later Edward Leigh, the Conservative father of the Commons, said Jarvis was “cowardly” not coming to the Commons to respond.

At that point Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, intervened. He said the king had “summoned” Jarvis, and that Leigh’s language was inappropriate.

Responding to Leigh’s “cowardly” jibe, Pollard said Jarvis was someone who had served in the armed forces and been honoured for his service in uniform.

In the Commons Luke Pollard, the defence minister, is responding to Kemi Badenoch’s urgent question on the defence investment plan.

He started by hinted that he might have resigned alongside John Healey last week if it had not been for Healey, the defence secretary, asking him to stay.

He said:

It’s no secret that I worked in lockstep with the former defence secretary. He is a friend and mentor. I was his deputy and I’m still standing here because he asked me to stay and because we need continuity in this complex and difficult operational environment.

Pollard also defended the government’s record on defence spending.

Do we need to spend more on defence? Yes. Does the prime minister and the chancellor agree? Yes. Are we spending more? Yes. This year’s defence budget is £11bn more than the final year under the Conservatives. Are we learning the lessons from Ukraine? Yes. Are we retiring old kit to invest in new capabilities? Yes. Are we backing our people? Yes. The biggest pay rise in 20 years and £9bn plan to fix the defence housing crisis we inherited.

And its working. Intake is up 11.6%, outflow down 8.9% and morale is up.

And to answer [Badenoch’s] question directly, if asked to fight tonight, could our forces defend the UK? Yes.

The Conservatives have accused Reform UK of proposing tax cuts worth £40bn in the hope of winning the Makerfield byelection.

Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, has highlighted three proposals from Nigel Farage and his team, announced since the campaign started, that Stride claims would cost more than £40bn.

They are: the plan to scrap tax on overtime, which the Tories say would cost £14bn; the plan to lift the VAT threshold for small businesses, which the Tories say would cost £2bn; and the plan to reverse the 2024 budget employer NICs increase announced by Robert Jenrick today.

Jenrick said his policy would cost £11bn. (See 12.42pm.) The Tories say it would cost £26bn, although this is based on a figure in the budget red book that also included the money raised by cutting the NICs threshold at the same time.

Stride said:

In their desperation to try to win Makerfield, Reform are running the most reckless and expensive byelection campaign in history – throwing out a litany of policies in the hope something sticks.

Announcing tens of billions in entirely uncosted promises is not serious. It’s a symptom of a party that deals only in gimmicks and headlines, with no real plan for government. Reform have not even bothered to set out how their numbers are meant to add up.

If the tax cuts are all being proposed with the byelection in mind, the strategy does not seem to be working. Every poll conducted in the constituency suggests Labour’s Andy Burnham is on course to win. (See 2.06pm.)

Reform UK has been approached for a comment.

Here is our story about the death of Roy Hattersley, the former Labour deputy leader. It’s by Nadeem Badshah and Jessica Elgot.

And here is our obituary of him by Anne Perkins.

Our main story contains many tributes to Hattersley, but here are some others.

Tony Blair, the former Labour PM, said:

Roy Hattersley was one of the greats of the Labour party for decades and was my first boss as an Opposition spokesperson back in the 1980s when he taught me and encouraged me with kindness and support.

He was Labour through and through remaining devoted to the party throughout its many turbulent years.

He was also great fun to be with, endlessly creative and amusing and even when we disagreed which we did quite frequently when I was Labour leader, he did so with good humour and the best of intentions.

He was what is a rare breed nowadays in politics. A politician who loved ideas and was not at all constrained by political life being at the same time a brilliant writer and critic.

We will miss him.

And this is from Ed Miliband, the energy secretary.

I’m very sad to hear of the death of Roy Hattersley. He was an egalitarian who cared about ideas. He fought throughout his career for social justice and democracy and against inequality. I will always be personally grateful for his advice and friendship. He will be deeply missed.

Keir Starmer renewed his claim this morning that a Labour leadership challenge would plunge the country into chaos.

In his interview on ITV’s This Morning, Starmer said:

I don’t think we should have a challenge, because I think it’ll throw the country into chaos. If there is a challenge, I will fight. I’m not going to walk away from this.

We won a landslide victory just two years ago with a clear mandate to change the country, that’s a five-year mandate.

Starmer has used this argument before.

Starmer has been saying this for some time. But at Westminster there is a widespread assumption that, if Andy Burnham wins the Makerfield byelection on Thursday, there will be a challenge – and Starmer will conclude it is better to concede gracefully than fight an election he would lose.

Here is a round-up of some of the byelection news around today.

• Ben Clatworthy in the Times says Burnham “is preparing to launch an immediate leadership challenge against Keir Starmer if he wins the Makerfield byelection”. Clatworthy says:

The Times understands that Louise Haigh, who is running the campaign for Burnham in Makerfield, and Lucy Powell, the deputy Labour leader, had originally been of the view that he should “go long” and challenge later in the year, after the September party conference.

But the thinking shifted on Thursday when Healey, Al Carns, the armed forces minister, and two parliamentary aides resigned over Starmer’s defence investment plan.

A source said: “They now want to go as soon as possible and are even considering saying on by-election night, ‘we’re going to challenge for prime minister’.”

A source close to Burnham insisted he would instead “want to make the night all about the clear victory over Reform UK”.

• Burnham has told the i in an interview that he would like to see more devolution of employment support policy, and potentially, to regions. In her write-up, Caroline Wheeler says:

[Burnham’s] prescription is to hand far more power over welfare reforms to city regions like his own. Burnham draws on Greater Manchester’s experience of running devolved employment support programmes.

Since 2014, the city region has pioneered its “Working Well” model, which combines employment support with health, skills and housing services and relies on dedicated key workers rather than a standardised national approach. The programme was one of the first examples of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) devolving control over employment support to a city region.

This is an approach that Alan Milburn implicitly backed in the well-regarded report on youth unemployment he published recently.

In his i interview, Burnham also said Labour should also stick to its commitment to keep the pension triple lock during this parliament. But he would not say what should happen to it after that. The Tories and Reform UK have both signalled that they will fight the next election committed to keeping the triple lock.

• Three polls have been published over the weekend, showing Burnham 5 points, 5 points and 12 points ahead of Reform UK’s Robert Kenyon in the byelection. On Substack Peter Kellner, the former YouGov president, has an analysis of the polling in a post on his blog, and Mark Pack, the former Lib Dem president, has his own analysis in a post on his blog.

• The Daily Mail has splashed on a story criticising Rupert Lowe, the Restore Britain leader, for saying Tommy Robinson would be happy to join his party. It was published after the Mail on Sunday splashed on a story saying some of the people campaigning for Restore in Makerfield attended a white supremicist conference with neo-Nazis. The Mail does not normally devote a lot of attention to the threat posted by rightwing extremism, and it is generally postive about Reform UK. Lowe says the paper’s coverage shows that “the establishment wants to eradicate Restore Britain”. Three of the five polls carried out in Makefield (or four of the six, if Labour’s purported private poll is included) suggest Burnham would lose if the Reform UK and Restore Britain vote were combined. The Mail has an editorial saying people in Makerfield should avoid voting for Restore Britain because, by splitting the rightwing vote, they could “propel Andy Burnham into Downing Street”.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has published a news release with full details of the social media ban for under-16s announced by Keir Starmer.

At his press conference Keir Starmer did not say much about the measures proposed for under-18s. The DSIT statement covers this. It says:

The government plans to use the same model for a social media ban as Australia. This would capture user-to-user platforms, whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material, alongside algorithms. The ban will therefore include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. We do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban.

In a move to protect children online and address the scale of the challenge, the government will also go further than a blanket ban on social media with world-leading blocks on harmful functions such as livestreaming and stranger communication with children for under-16s. These restrictions – which together with the ban go further than any other country – will apply to a wider range of online services, including on gaming sites.

Restrictions on these functionalities will also be on by default for under 16- and 17-year-olds to prevent a cliff-edge at 16. The government will also be looking in more detail at overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18-year-olds and will set out more detail in July ….

So-called AI ‘romantic companion’ chatbots – designed to simulate sexual relationships or roleplay with users – will have to enforce a minimum age of 18. Similar intimate functionalities will be restricted for under-18s on AI chatbots more widely.

Taken together, these measures will mean a much more comprehensive model than just a blanket ban on social media — one that responds to how children experience harm online, rather than just where it happens.

And here is the text of Keir Starmer’s speech this morning.

This is what Robert Jenrick said at his press conference about why he was confident Reform UK’s proposed migrant labour levy could fund the reversal of Labour’s rise in employer national insurance contributions. He said:

For illustrative purposes, suppose [the migrant labour levy] was set at around £3,750 for a full-time worker on the national living wage. And it tapered down to £1,500 for someone earning about £50,000. And £500 for someone earning about £100,000.

There are about 3.6 million non-EU workers in Britain. Most earn the median income or less. The weighted average levy on them would be around £2,900.

That means the levy will raise £10bn from non-EU migrants on PAYE alone.

Include contractors and the self-employed, and it’d raise £11.2bn from this group alone.

Scrapping Rachel Reeves’ jobs tax for British workers would cost that exact amount.

So, even without accounting for migrant workers with EU settled status – who would be included in the Levy, and a source of several billions more revenue – the migrant labour levy can fund the tax cut for British workers.

Yesterday Nigel Farage announced that Reform UK would ban foreign nationals from social housing and then deport them if they could not find private-sector home.

At the Reform press conference, Robert Jenrick was asked about this applying not just to people on work visas who might not have been in the country for long, but to people with EU settled status who might have been living in the UK for decades. Was Reform UK telling them to either get a British passport as quickly as possible, or “basically you’re not welcome”.

Jenrick replied:

We are unashamedly on the side of British people. I am aspiring to be the chancellor of the exchequer of the United Kingdom, and we are going to design a tax system that backs British workers and puts their interests first every single time. A why on earth did that not happen before? Why is that a controversial thing to say?

I remember in 2008 was it Gordon Brown said, British jobs for British workers and he was attacked for saying it back then. Well, Reform is actually going to do it this time …

If you are in this country and you’re not a British citizen and you know you are somebody who will not be able to stay in the UK under a Reform government, then yes, you should think of leaving the country because we want a country where people are here for the right reasons, who are economic contributors, and an economy that works for British citizens.

These are from my colleague Peter Walker, who was at the press conference and who was the reporter who asked this question.

Jenrick says EU nationals with settled status *will* be included in the levy. So you might have made your life here, have UK spouse/kids, but suddenly you could find it *very* hard to get a job here.

The message for EU nationals in the UK is increasingly: if you want to stay and make your life here, get a UK passport (if you can) as soon as you possibly can.

Jenrick: “If people are in this country who are not Brits and are not in work, then obviously they should leave. That’s just common sense.”

I asked Jenrick if people on EU settled status should get a UK passport or think about leaving, he said: “If you are in this country and you’re not a British citizen and you are somebody who will not be able to stay in the UK under a Reform government, then you should think of leaving the country.”

I mean, that’s certainly clear: even if you have made your life here and have a UK spouse/kids, then you’re not hugely welcome under a Reform government.

Earlier in the press conference Tony Diver from the Telegraph said that combined effect of Jenrick’s migrant labour levy and foreign nationals being banned from social housing would lead to a big increase in foreign nationals being unemployed and having nowhere to live. Did Reform UK want these people to leave the country?

Jenrick replied:

If people are in this country who are not Brits and are not in work, then obviously they should leave. That’s just common sense.

And I want to free up those jobs so that the millions of British people who are languishing on benefits right now can get back into work.

At her press conference, Kemi Badenoch said she would not scrap the pension triple lock to fund higher defence spending.

Asked about this, she replied:

You know very well that very single time I’m asked this question, I say that the triple lock is not where the issue is.

Our welfare bill … we have a welfare plan till 2031. We do not have a defence investment plan for next year.

If we get people off welfare and into work, it is a double whammy. We’re not paying their benefits, and they are paying more tax and helping to grow the economy.

We came into 2010 with a lot of pensioner poverty. That is why the triple lock was put in place. Rather than moving money around and robbing Peter to pay Paul, what we need to do is get people into work and start funding our defence.

At his press conference, Robert Jenrick is being asked about Labour’s social media ban for under-16s.

He says he is a parent of young girls, and so he understands why this is a concern. He thinks the Labour plan is “well intentioned”.

But he goes on:

Nigel and I are sceptical about this. We think it is very impractical and that it’s highly unlikely to succeed and deliver the outcomes that it aims to do.

You only have to look at the uptake of VPNs by people across the country immediately after the Online Safety Act came into force.

Jenrick said the evidence from Australia was very mixed. He went:

A majority of the young people in Australia who are subject to the ban there are still on social media, they’re still using it because they’re smart, they found a way around this. So it doesn’t feel to us like this is the right way to proceed.

Jenrick also said he and Farage were worried this could be “a backdoor route into mandatory ID”.

He ended saying Keir Starmer’s plan was “very likely to fail and have a lot of unintended consequences”.

Kemi Badenoch has been holding a press conference at the same time as Robert Jenrick. She said Keir Starmer should resign if he cannot prove that the long-delayed defence investment plan (Dip) will protect national security.

She said the Tories would apply three tests to decide if the Dip would protect national security.

First, it had to ensure defence spending rose ot 3% of GDP by 2030. “As a minimum, the funding must deliver the additional £28bn over four years that the chief of defence staff has asked for”, Badenoch said.

Second, the Dip had to meet a “readiness” test, she said. She said spending could not be “backloaded” into the next parliament.

And, third, the Dip had to pass a “capability” test. Badenoch said:

The plan must be transformative. It must enable us to address the threats of the next war, not the last. The defence investment plan should equip Britain with a more lethal and operationally effective armed forces with a mixture of traditional equipment and modern tech such as drones and counter drones.

Badenoch said Starmer should resign if his Dip could not pass these tests.

If the prime minister is unable to provide the leadership within his cabinet to deliver a defence investment plan that meets these three tests, and he should resign now and make way for a leader who can.

Yesterday Nigel Farage published a 6,000-word essay on his new Substack account claimed that Britain is a two-tier state – biased against white people. There is a much shorter rebuttal explaining Farage’s charge does not stack up from Rob Powell from Sky News here.

But, at his press conference this morning, Robert Jenrick, Reform UK’s Treasury spokesperson is banging away at the same theme. He claims that for at least the last 20 years the labour market has been biased against British workers who have faced unfair competition from migrant workers willing to accept low pay.

He says Reform UK would address this with two new policies.

• Reform UK would scrap Labour’s rise in employer national insurance contributions – but only for British workers, Jenrick says.

• And Reform UK would impose a migrant labour levy on firms that employ foreign workers. It will be extremely low for high-skilled workers, but it will “clamp down hard, very hard, on employers who are dependent on cheap foreign labour”, Jenrick says.

Jenrick said the full details of the migrant levy would be set out nearer the election. But he said that a levy set at around £3,750 for a full-time worker on the national living wage could raise £10bn from non-EU migrants. This would more than pay for scrapping Labour’s employer NICs increase, he says.

Sundus Abdi is a Guardian reporter.

YouTube has said that the social media ban for under-16s announced by Keir Starmer this morning could push teenagers into using “less-safe services”.

A YouTube spokesperson said:

We’ve invested in expert-led, age-appropriate experiences and default protections for teens for over a decade and will continue to do so.

YouTube is a vital resource for young people, educators and parents.

Blanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less-safe services.

Shephard turns to the Makerfield byelection.

Q: Do you want Andy Burnham to win the byelection.

Yes, said Starmer.

Q: So what will happen if he challenges you?

Starmer said he did not think there should be a leadership challenge.

But, if there is one, he will fight it, he said.

He said he was elected two years ago with a mandate to serve for five years.

He said he always said change would take time. He completely understood why people want that to happen more quickly.

Charities that work on behalf of children have welcomed the government’s announcement.

Chris Sherwood, chief executive at the NSPCC, said:

Today is a win for children and parents and all of us who have campaigned for better child protection online. Big Tech must not have access to our children where their dangerous platforms are causing appalling harm to young people. This is a watershed moment for child protection.

And Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo’s, said:

For too long, children have been put in harm’s way – left to navigate an online world, and the risks that come with it, alone. So we welcome the government’s decision to take decisive action in making the online world a safer place for children.

Q: Do you think there is a link between smartphone use and the epidemic of mental health problems that young people are having?

Starmer replied:

I think there is a correlation. Obviously establishing hard evidence is always difficult, but I do think there’s a correlation.

He did not go as far as saying there was a causal relationship.

Q: How will you explain this to President Trump, whose administration has opposed this?

Starmer replied:

Look, I honestly think that, across world leaders, there has always been a recognition that leaders have to take steps to protect children. I don’t think that’s controversial.

Starmer said he did not anticipate a problem.

And he said he would be discussing this with other world leaders, including Trump, at the G7 later.

Q: Will you fine children who ignore the ban? And what are the implications for freedom of speech?

On teenagers, Starmer said:

We’re not going to start taking action against 13 or 14, 15-year-olds who are trying, as they always will, to get around the rules that adults put in their path.

And, on freedom of speech, Starmer said:

I’m a great advocate of free speech, I really am.

But sending sexually explicit pictures to and from children – that’s not free speech, that’s basic protection.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

How many people in this room are prepared to defend adult strangers contacting children online? And we know what happens when that develops into the sort of abuse and worse.

How many people are prepared to stand up and say ‘that’s free speech and I wouldn’t do anything about it’ any more than you’d say we wouldn’t take measures to stop that happening in the offline world?

I think it’s extraordinary that somehow we’ve got ourselves to a position where until now we’ve shrugged our shoulders – I genuinely think it’s difficult to think in what circumstances any of us would put our children into a place where unknown adults could have access to them without us knowing anything about it one to one, we wouldn’t do it.

So, it’s not about free speech, it’s about basic protection of children.

Q: Is this announcement about you wanting a political legacy?

Starmer said there were people in the room who have been campaigning for years on this issue. He went on:

And I think we do them, and all those who’ve been concerned about this, a disservice to try to put that into a particular week where there’s a byelection. That’s not what it’s about.

This is a huge this is a statement of our values, who we are as a country. and it’s a way of actually bringing our country together.

So for me, this is bigger than some of the usual to and fros of politics, although there’s plenty of that.

Q: Will this stop children accessing useful services? And won’t teenagers get round this with VPN services?

Starmer said some services, like YouTube Kids, would be protected.

He repeated the point about how some children will get round this. (See 8.27am.)

And he said the government had learned from the Australian experience.

I think we’ll be better at enforcing it, actually, having learned from the Australian model and having learned from our own experience with the Online Safety Act.

So I genuinely think we can enforce it.

Q: When did you change your mind on this?

Starmer says he started the consulation with an open mind.

It is a step that I’ve taken after sitting down and listening, particularly to parents who had lost, usually a teenager, in relation to what happened on social media …

[I am taking the decision] having looked at the evidence, having gone through the consultation, having looked at what happened in other countries, having listened, to parents, grieving parents, listened hard.

And you can listen in two ways. You could listen in a sense if you’re just going through the motions, or you can listen and you can take in what people are saying to you.

I’m in the second category – always have been – and that’s why I’m absolutely clear in my mind that this ban is the right outcome.

Starmer is now taking questions.

Q: When will this start?

Starmer says the government can move quickly.

We took powers, earlier this year to make sure we could move at speed.

I was very conscious that with the Online Safety Act it took the last government eight years from sort of identifying the beginnings of the problem to actually passing legislation, and [I] was determined that will not happen in this case.

He says legislation already passed gives ministers the powers to act using secondary legislation.

He says:

We hope to pass regulation before Christmas, and therefore to bring the ban into force in the early part of next year, probably about springtime, so we can move a real pace here.

Starmer acknowledges some teenagers will get round these restrictons. But that does not make the rules pointless, he says.

Will it mean that no child ever looks at social media again? No.

But look, this might shock you, but it doesn’t shock parents of teenagers; they get around other laws too.

But we don’t say, ‘Look, a teenager managed to get a drink somehow, so let’s not bother banning alcohol sales to children.’ We don’t do that, do we? That will be utterly ridiculous. And so I just don’t accept that argument.

Starmer says he knows tech companies will oppose this.

Some technology companies want us to think that social media is unchangeable, part of an almost natural order.

But we have to resist that kind of learned helplessness. We have agency, we can change it, and we will.

Yes, it’s hard to legislate for, hard to regulate, hard to enforce.

And we’re not just bringing forward a ban, we’re going further. We’re taking world-leading action on gaming services and live streaming platforms, where at the moment strangers can contact any child unchecked.

Starmer is now explaining why he is doing this.

This is not something I do lightly, and I will not present it as cost free, as if social media has brought no benefits to young people, because clearly that is wrong.

But government is always about choices, and it’s clear to me that a full ban is the right choice.

I come to it as a parent myself. I know exactly the fears that we all feel when we’re thinking about this issue. You know, all I’ve ever wanted for my own children, hand on heart, is for them to be happy and for them to be safe. And I think that’s what any parent wants.

But I ask the question now; do we truly believe that social media creates a happy environment for our children? Do we truly believe that it’s a place where they can feel safe?

I don’t think I even need to answer those questions, do I?

Every parent can see it with their own eyes. Social media is making children unhappy. It’s making it easier for bullies to harass and abuse them, and it could even be harming their mental health, exposing them to content that is dangerous because that’s what grabs the attention.

It’s designed to be addictive – of course it is. Features like the Infinite Scroll – they’re designed to lock you in for hours.

And if nothing else, there’s an opportunity cost to that. It stops children doing their homework, reading, playing with their friends outside, going to bed at decent hour.

Starmer confirms the ban is happening.

Today is a big moment for our country. This is a big step, a real change for our children and our future.

Because today I can announce that the government will ban access to social media for all children under the age of 16.

Starmer turns to the social media ban, and he says he is glad that people who have been campaigning for a ban are in the room in Downing Street to hear the announcement.

Some people are dismissive of processes like this, but policy making that doesn’t listen very carefully to the voices of those it seeks to serve – that is not how this government carries out its business. And so I just want to thank you for the role that you have all played.

This is an implicit acknowledgement that the government has changed its mind on this issue.

Here is an explainer by Dan Milmo and Aisha Down about the plans Keir Starmer is about to announce.

Good morning. In Downing Street officials reportedly refuse to talk about Keir Starmer wanting to establish a legacy. But it is hard for the rest of us to avoid the word, particularly on a morning when he has summoned reporters to Downing Street for an 8am press conference on his plans for a social media ban. In lobby terms, this counts as unconscionably early. The announcement could easily wait. But Starmer is heading to France for the G7 summit later, that will keep him busy until Wednesday night, and on Thursday it’s the Makerfield byelection. Starmer is determined to make this announcement before then because Andy Burnham seems on course to become an MP in the early hours of Friday and at that point UK politics may start to change drastically – and Starmer’s window for legacy making may swiftly close.

Last summer the UK government showed little interest in following the Australian government when it announced its social media ban for under-16s. Within months the view in government was changing, and by early 2026 Starmer said there would definitely be some sort of crackdown. But he suggested he was still undecided between a full social media ban for under-16s, and alternative measures to crackdown on the most harmful features of these apps.

In the end, Starmer seems to have gone for both these options – under measures being described as “Australia plus”. Jessica Elgot, Dan Milmo and Aisha Down have details here in our overnight story.

The Conservatives are saying Starmer is following their lead. Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, said:

It’s shameful that it’s taken the prime minister’s job to be on the line for the government to finally u-turn and ban social media for under 16s.

Three times Labour voted against a ban, failing to stand up to Big Tech and protect children from the extreme content they are exposed to every day.

As Conservatives we did not give up, I kept fighting for the brave bereaved parents, health professionals, and campaigners who continued to make the case for change. This victory belongs to them. The Conservatives in opposition can make a difference and this change will finally help parents and protect childhood.

Here is the agenda for the day.

8.10am: Keir Starmer holds a press conference about his plans for a social media ban for under-16s.

10am: Starmer is interviewed on ITV’s This Morning.

11am: Robert Jenrick, Reform UK’s Treasury spokesperson, holds a press conference. The party has flagged this to journalists as a Jenrick press conference, but Politico says Farage will be there too – perhaps provoked by the Financial Times joining the Guardian in writing about how his enthusiasm for media scrutiny seems to have mysteriously vanished since the revelations about his £5m donation from a crypto billionaire.

11am: Kemi Badenoch holds a press conference.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: Steve Reed, the housing secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

After 3.30pm: Liz Kendall, the technology secretary, makes a statement to MPs about the social media ban for under-16s. And we are also expecting a statement from Dan Jarvis, the new defence secretary, about British troops seizing a Russian shadow fleet oil tanker in the Channel.

4pm: Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, gives evidence to the Commons public adminstration and constitutional affairs committee.

Afternoon: Starmer arrives in Evian in France for the G7 summit.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.