A BAN on social media for under-16s, announced by the Government this week, will not guarantee child safety online, Bishops and safeguarding specialists have warned.
Two C of E Bishops — one in favour of the ban and the other opposed — nonetheless agreed this week that a ban in isolation was not enough, and that both scrutiny of big-tech social-media companies and investment in youth services was essential if children are to be protected from harm.
The Children’s Society warned against letting the tech companies off the hook, while Jim Gamble, the chief executive of INEQE, the safeguarding group currently auditing all Church of England dioceses and cathedrals, said that, while well intentioned, a ban was not practical.
On Monday, the Government pledged to “give children back their childhoods” by preventing “user-to-user” social media platforms — those on which content can be posted publicly — from offering their services to children under 16. This, it said, was to encourage less scrolling and more play.
The intention was set out in secondary legislation using powers from the wide-ranging Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, which was given Royal Assent in April. This means that the first set of regulations could be in place in spring 2027.
During a debate on the relevant clauses in January, the Bishop of Manchester, Dr David Walker, told the Lords that he was concerned that “we have not taken action against the big tech companies in the USA in recent times. . . Perhaps now is the time to say that we are not pusillanimous any more and that we are standing up for Britain and for what Britain needs, whatever the tech bros think is in their interests.”
The Government’s proposed model — which would ban platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, but not private messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal — is the same as the one implemented in Australia.
The announcement said that the UK Government would go further by introducing “world-leading blocks on harmful functions such as livestreaming and stranger communication with children”. Restrictions would also apply to wider online services including gaming sites. To “prevent a cliff-edge at 16”, the Government would also be considering “overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling” for under-18s, to be set out in more detail next month.
The Prime Minister said that he had “heard first hand from families crying out for change and we will do right by them”. He continued: “This is a line in the sand. 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.”
The CEO of the Children’s Society, Mark Russell, giving a cautious welcome to the move, said: “Parents are right to be worried about what children are seeing online and we welcome the Government taking children’s safety seriously. A ban may send a powerful signal, but signals aren’t safety.
“We cannot let tech companies off the hook for the platforms they’ve built. A ban focuses on access, but the real challenge is tackling the addictive design and harmful content driving so much of the harm.
“The priority must be making online spaces safer for children, while investing in the youth services, trusted adults and community support that help young people thrive.”
The head of policy for the Church of England’s National Society for Education, Sarah Shreeve, also welcomed the ban but called for ongoing digital education. “We share the education sector’s concerns as to the scale of harm experienced by young people using social media in its current form,” she said.
It was, however, essential that the Government ensured that “young people are equipped to become digitally literate citizens and leaders. Any mitigation of the harms of social media must simultaneously ensure that young people are educated to navigate our digital world with empathy and wisdom.”
Speaking to the Church Times at an AI conference in January, the retiring Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, had supported a ban on social media for under-16s (News, 23 January). This week, he told the Church Times that he welcomed the ban.
“The widespread consultation indicates this has the support of the overwhelming majority of parents and a significant majority of young people,” he said.
But while it had “the potential to create a step change in the mental health and happiness of young people, continuous wider investment in youth services and support will be key. Ongoing scrutiny of the detailed proposals by civil society, faith communities and Parliament is vital — as is continuous pressure on social media companies to be safer by design.
“This is not the whole answer to a complex problem but it is a very positive step forward.”
In March, the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, said on local radio that a ban could be a “blunt and simplistic instrument” which could have “unintended consequences” such as increased loneliness among teenagers.
Speaking this week, Bishop North maintained his belief that a ban was “a blunt and simplistic tool and one that rarely achieves the desired outcome. It seems unfair that children should be punished for the egregious and abusive behaviour of social media platforms.”
A ban, he continued, was “not enough” in a country “in which youth services have been savaged, the school curriculum narrowed, and opportunities for young people to socialise reduced”. He said that “the adults who have campaigned for a ban now need to ask what positive steps we will take to enrich young lives.”
Bishop North argued for “a far more imaginative” package of reforms. “Safe social media platforms that teach children how to navigate the online environment. A windfall tax on big tech to fund expanded youth provision and increased opportunities. Proper investment in the mental health of young people.
“A ban is cheap and easy, but my fear is that, rather than making a positive difference, it will simply feed the pandemic of youth loneliness.”
Mr Gamble, who leads INEQE, agreed. “I don’t think it works,” he told BBC Breakfast on Tuesday. “I think it will divert children to other places and spaces in the online environment because the internet is not being blocked. It could have been much better thought through.”
He suggested that the Government had rolled out the announcement with a “fanfare” without giving any details about measures, safety nets, and practicalities.
He also said that the ban had not worked in Australia: “The majority of children who were online are still online. They are able to divert from Australian controls by virtual private networks [VPN]. We saw that in the UK when Pornhub was rightly asked to put in age-verification — VPN use went up by 2000 per cent.”
This story was updated on 16 June 2026 with further comment