“A dog’s dinner.” That was the verdict of Conservative shadow education secretary Laura Trott after the government unveiled its latest half-baked answer to children’s online safety, a midnight social media curfew for 16 and 17-year-olds that teenagers can simply switch off whenever they like.
Yes, you read that right. Ministers want to present this as decisive action to protect young people, yet the flagship measure comes with an opt-out button built in from day one. Trott put it bluntly: either the government believes older teenagers should be on social media or it doesn’t, a toothless curfew that can be switched off “won’t achieve anything.”
It is hard to disagree. Under the plan, apps such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube would be blocked by default between midnight and 6am for 16 and 17-year-olds, unless, of course, the teenager in question fancies staying up anyway, in which case a quick trip to the settings menu solves that problem entirely. Some “protection.”
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has dressed the announcement up in the usual soft language about sleep, focus and family time, and paired it with a promise to disable “addictive” features like auto-play and infinite scroll. Fine sentiments, but sentiments are not safeguards, and this government has form when it comes to announcing bold-sounding policy that dissolves on contact with reality.
Even those who might be expected to welcome any crackdown on Big Tech are unimpressed. Andy Burrows of the Molly Rose Foundation branded the announcement “piecemeal,” a damning assessment from a charity that has spent years pushing for exactly this kind of reform. He didn’t hold back either, suggesting Sir Keir Starmer will leave office having announced a ban “without a plan,” dumping the mess in the lap of his likely successor, Andy Burnham.
Meanwhile, academics are questioning whether the government’s own evidence stacks up. Professor Pete Etchells of Bath Spa University warned that the trial behind this policy is far too small to justify sweeping conclusions. And Professor Sonia Livingstone of the LSE went further, cautioning that a blanket overnight block could actually cut off vulnerable children from support they might desperately need in the middle of the night.
Perhaps most tellingly, England’s Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, gave the plan only lukewarm backing, saying she wants to see far more detail on how any of this will actually be delivered before declaring it a success.
This is what passes for a flagship child safety policy under this government: a curfew nobody has to observe, built on a study too small to trust, criticised by campaigners, academics and the opposition alike. Given the fanfare that accompanied June’s promised ban on under-16s using social media altogether, families could be forgiven for wondering whether today’s announcement represents progress at all, or just more of the same piecemeal drift that has come to define this administration’s approach to protecting children online.
The government insists a full package of measures will reach Parliament by the end of 2026, timed to coincide with the under-16s ban next spring. Given the state of today’s proposals, few will be holding their breath.
