A ban on sites like Tiktok, Instagram, and Snapchat was brought in for children in Australia at the end of last year – the first country to impose a ban – and similar plans were backed by peers in the House of Lords in January.

Supporters include actor Hugh Grant, but critics such as children’s charity the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) warned of young people being driven to dark corners of the internet as a result.

Responding to the result, the Liberal Democrats said failure to commit to a ban was “simply not good enough”.

Opponents also include the father of Molly Russell, who took her own life at 14 after viewing harmful content online, who said the government should focus on robust enforcement of existing laws.

Plans for a ban were put forward as suggested changes to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

But in the Commons on Monday, education minister Olivia Bailey urged MPs to dismiss the change and support more flexible restrictions.

“Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s,” she said.

“Others, including children’s charities, have warned that a blanket ban could drive children towards less regulated corners of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared when they do come online.

“That is why last week, the government launched a consultation to seek views to help shape our next steps and ensure children can grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world.”

The consultation will look at whether social media platforms should come with a minimum age requirement and whether platforms should switch off addictive features such as autoplay.

Bailey’s alternative plan will give Science Secretary Liz Kendall powers to “restrict or ban children of certain ages from accessing social media services and chat bots”.

Kendall will also have the option to limit access to “specific features that are harmful or addictive” on social media, as well as the ability to “restrict or limit children’s Virtual Private Network (VPN) use and change the age of digital consent in the UK”.

MPs voted 307 to 173 against the Lords proposal for an outright ban, and supported Bailey’s bid, which left the door to a ban of some sort open.

But more than 100 Labour MPs abstained, including North Somerset’s Sadik Al-Hassan, who said if social media was a drug, it would be banned.

During the debate, he said: “Parents like me are locked in a daily battle that they simply cannot win alone, fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked.

“As a pharmacist, I know if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78%, it would be withdrawn, reformulated or placed behind a counter with strict controls on who could access it.

“We would act, because that is what the evidence demanded. The same logic must apply here.

“We have an identifiable source, we have overwhelming evidence of harm, and we have the power to act.”

Conservative former education minister Lord Nash, who tabled the amendment in the Lords to prevent under-16s from accessing social media, described the vote result in the Commons as “deeply disappointing”.

He said MPs had “chosen to gamble on a process which may lead to half measures”, adding he will work with peers to “do all that we can” to revive the amendment.

Liberal Democrat education spokesperson Munira Wilson accused the government of failing to grasp the issue.

She said: “The government’s failure to commit to a ban on harmful social media is simply not good enough – families need concrete assurances now.

“We need the government to confirm that their consultation will not result in yet more dither and delay.”

The fire started in a vape shop on Union Street on Sunday afternoon, with the B-listed Victorian building collapsing several hours later as flames spread.

All train services to or from the station’s high level have been cancelled and National Rail said the station – which is Scotland’s busiest – will be closed until further notice. No casualties have been reported.

Large crowds gathered at the edge of cordons on Renfield Street and Gordon Street to watch the fire, as emergency services urged people to stay away.

Following a meeting at midnight, Network Rail said: “As things stand we’ve not identified any significant damage to the station. We’ll get this fully assessed at first light.”

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service said more than 60 firefighters and 15 vehicles were in attendance at the scene.

Six crews were initially sent to the scene on Union Street at about 15:45 local time, but the fire worsened into the evening.

Smoke had initially been seen billowing out of the building next to an entrance to the station.

However within hours flames could be seen, with eyewitnesses describing it on social media as looking “catastrophic”.

The building known as Union Corner – at the junction of Union Street and Gordon Street – dates back to 1851.

It pre-dates the station itself which opened in 1879.

Police cordoned off the street between Gordon Street and St Vincent Street when the fire started. Diversions have been put in place.

People have been urged to avoid the area and police have advised residents to keep their windows closed.

In a statement issued at 22:30 local time, a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service spokesperson said: “Firefighters continue to work to extinguish a large building fire on Union Street, Glasgow.

“At its height, 15 fire appliances and specialist resources, including three high-reach vehicles and a water rescue team, were mobilised to the area.

“There are no reported casualties, and crews remain at the scene.”

The crew of HMS Prince of Wales have been told they must be ready to leave in five days, defence sources said.

This may raise speculation the carrier could be deployed to the Mediterranean to help defend British interests threatened during the conflict in the Middle East.

Before this, the ship’s “notice to sail” was 14 days.

On Saturday night, US President Donald Trump criticised Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer for not sending carriers to the Middle East earlier.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said: “The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East.”

He added: “That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer – But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”

The UK government has not joined offensive operations with regard to Iran or given any commitment to do so.

The government has been accused of not acting fast enough to protect Cyprus from enemy drones and missiles.

Sir Keir denied the UK was not prepared for the conflict, saying Britain had begun pre-deploying assets to the region earlier this year – particularly to Qatar and Cyprus – alongside the US and other allies.

Defence sources said 400 additional UK personnel had been sent over the past weeks to support air defence activities across the UK’s bases in Cyprus.

Meanwhile, more US B-1 Lancer bombers have arrived at RAF Fairford.

A Type 45 destroyer, HMS Dragon, has been deployed to the region but will not be ready to leave Portsmouth until next week.

HMS Prince of Wales is in Portsmouth receiving routine maintenance ahead of a planned deployment to the North Atlantic and Arctic later this year.

The carrier strike group was due to take part in Operation Firecrest alongside US, Canadian and European allies to deter Russian aggression in the High North.

A defence source said that the Prince of Wales had had “her readiness increased to five days’ notice to sail”.

The MoD confirmed the change in status for the carrier.

A ministry spokesperson said: “We have been bolstering our UK military presence in the Middle East since January, and we have already deployed capabilities to protect British people and our allies in the region, including Typhoons, F-35 jets, air defence systems and an extra 400 personnel into Cyprus.

“Since the strikes began, we’ve had British jets in the sky shooting down drones and have sent additional assets to the region to further reinforce our air defences, including more Typhoons and Wildcat helicopters with drone busting missiles.

“HMS Prince of Wales has always been on very high readiness and we are increasing the preparedness of the carrier, reducing the time it would take to set sail for any deployment.”

HMS Prince of Wales is one of the Royal Navy’s most powerful surface warships and is capable of sailing 500 miles per day.

It is over 900ft (280m) long and can carry up to 24 F-35B stealth jets, plus helicopters and drones, with 1,600 personnel.

The MoD also confirmed the US had started using British bases “for specific defensive operations”.

The first B-1 arrived at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on Friday evening, followed by three more of the jets and a C-5 airlifter on Saturday.

Dozens of anti-war protesters gathered outside the base, carrying flags and placards. A smaller group of people also attended in support of the UK military.

In London, thousands of protesters called for an end to attacks on Iran, which they said were illegal, unprovoked and unjustified. Marching towards the US Embassy, they held placards saying “Hands off Iran” and “Stop Trump’s Wars”.

In a separate protest headed from Downing Street to the Iranian Embassy, other demonstrators called for a free and democratic Iran.

While much of the anger on the anti-war march was aimed as the US president, protesters were clear that the UK should not blindly follow the US into a war in the Middle East.

Sir Keir has come under mounting criticism for his approach to the crisis. Last week, he defended his decision not to permit the US to use British bases in the opening assault against Tehran, arguing that the government must keep a “cool head”. But on Saturday, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch renewed her attacks on the prime minister’s approach, saying he was “too scared to make foreign interventions.”

Mahmood said the government would seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept “incentive payments” of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days.

The scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20m if successful.

However, the Conservatives and Reform UK said the payments would incentivise people to come to the UK illegally.

Mahmood unveiled the scheme as she sought make the “Labour case” for restricting support to some asylum seekers in a speech to a left-leaning think tank on Thursday.

The government already runs a voluntary returns programme, under which asylum seekers who choose to leave the UK can receive up to £3,000 in financial support.

Mahmood said housing a family of three in asylum accommodation costs up to £158,000 per year.

The home secretary said the UK government wanted to offer an “increased incentive payment” that will represent a “significant saving to the taxpayer”, in an echo of reforms introduced in Denmark.

Mahmood said the government was consulting on how to remove families with children who refuse to leave voluntarily “in a way that is humane and effective”.

She argued that not removing families had created “a perverse incentive” to cross the Channel with children.

Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, a coalition of 100 organisations, said families would have “just a week to make a potentially life-changing decision” without “time to access legal advice”.

The group also raised concerns that cutting support for families would leave children homeless.

Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the payments were “an insult to the British taxpayer”.

Reform UK has also suggested financial incentives for voluntary deportations, but the party’s home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf said £40,000 payments were “staggering” and “a prize for breaking in illegally”.

A government source argued the payments would not encourage people to come to the UK illegally, saying smugglers charged between £15,000 and £35,000 per migrant, so it would cost more for someone to travel here.

In 2025, there were 82,100 applications for asylum in the UK, relating to 100,600 individuals. Of those, 58% of those applications were refused.

There were 28,004 voluntary returns in the year to December 2025, an increase of 5% on the previous 12-month period.

In her speech, Mahmood also announced that asylum seekers who break the law, or work illegally, will be thrown out of government-funded accommodation and lose their support payments.

Under changes due to take effect in June, the government will limit accommodation and support to “those who genuinely need it”, although it is yet to set out in detail how this will work.

The Conservatives said Mahmood should go “much further”, while the Green Party has accused her of echoing the rhetoric of the far right.

However, the Refugee Council charity warned the plans could lead to an uptick in rough sleeping, shifting costs to local councils and the NHS.

The home secretary has already unveiled several measures to toughen up the migration system ahead of her speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) on Thursday, including making refugee status temporary and stopping people from four countries applying for study visas.

Her speech is a pitch to those in her party who are sceptical of her approach, with Mahmood emphasising that her changes would make the asylum system “compassionate but controlled”.

Some left-wing Labour MPs are calling for the government to change its approach on migration in the wake of the party’s defeat to the Greens at last week’s by-election in Gorton and Denton.

About 100 Labour MPs have signed a private letter to the home secretary expressing concerns about her plans to make refugee status temporary.

The letter argues the move would undermine “integration and cohesion” by opening up the possibility of removing refugees who have lived in the UK for as long as 20 years.

But in her speech, Mahmood argued that “restoring order and control at our border is not a betrayal of Labour values, it is an embodiment of them,” and insisted the majority of Labour MPs supported the changes.

Mahmood used the speech to step up her attacks on the Greens, accusing the party of wanting to create “a world without borders” and calling for “the most expensive and expansive migration policies anywhere in the world”.

A Green spokesperson said the home secretary was “deliberately misrepresenting Green Party policy”.

The Green Party said it recognised “the great contribution that migrants and refugees make to British society and we want to see policy that treats everyone with dignity rather than treating them harshly for political gain”.

Mahmood also criticised Reform UK, which she said would oversee a “nightmare” of “pulling up the drawbridge and shutting out the world” if the party was in government.

But in the Commons the prime minister directly and explicitly set out his view, when he told MPs the government “does not believe in regime change from the skies”.

He was also explicit in acknowledging his disagreement with President Donald Trump – perhaps his biggest and most consequential such disagreement yet.

Sir Keir Starmer took questions from MPs for around two-and-a-half hours, spelling out that he thought the American and Israeli actions were not right and implying they were not lawful either – but that it was both right and lawful to authorise the US to use UK airbases to bomb Iranian missile launch sites, in order to protect British allies in the Gulf from attack.

The memory of the Iraq war was referred to repeatedly across the chamber, including by the Prime Minister.

A conflict that happened more than a decade before he became an MP and more than two decades before he arrived in Downing Street was key to the case he made for his outlook now.

There is, without question, an argument about what would be lawful. For the Conservatives, shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson has set out why he believes UK involvement could be argued to be within international law.

But the prime minister disagrees and his instinct on the importance of acting lawfully was made abundantly clear – a position we shouldn’t be surprised about given he is a former senior lawyer.

Most Labour MPs appear broadly comfortable with Sir Keir’s judgement, as he faces criticism from both left and right.

The Conservatives and Reform UK say the UK should have been much more explicit in its support for allies the US and Israel. The Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Scottish National Party are, to varying degrees, more critical of President Trump.

An opinion poll by YouGov suggests far more people in Britain oppose the US’s actions than support them and far more oppose the UK allowing the US to use British airbases than support that decision.

Meanwhile, Chancellor Rachel Reeves will deliver her Spring Statement at lunchtime.

It was already an intentionally low-key affair: “it is not a fiscal event” her team emphasise – in other words there won’t be any tax or spending changes.

It is instead her response to forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility and we can expect an emphasis on stability and a desire to cut the cost of living, borrowing and debt and create the conditions for economic growth.

There have been at least some indicators recently pointing to a more positive economic picture but once again there has been another international shock, demanding a hasty addition of at least a few paragraphs at the beginning of Reeves’s speech.

The economic and diplomatic consequences of President Trump’s actions in recent days are only just beginning to unfold.

The airport warned of possible delays due to a “technical issue” affecting software provided by Collins Aerospace to several airlines.

Brussels Airport said a cyber-attack on Friday night meant passengers were being checked in and boarded manually, while Berlin’s Brandenburg Airport also reported longer waiting times due to the problem.

RTX, which owns Collins Aerospace, said it was “aware of a cyber-related disruption” to its system in “select airports” and that it was working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

The company added: “The impact is limited to electronic customer check-in and baggage drop and can be mitigated with manual check-in operations.”

It said the attack hit its Muse software – which allows different airlines to use the same check-in desks and boarding gates at an airport, rather than requiring their own.

We understand that British Airways is operating as normal using a back-up system, but that most other airlines operating from Heathrow have been affected.

Hundreds of flights have been delayed at the airports throughout Saturday, according to flight tracker FlightAware.

Lucy Spencer said she had been queuing to check in for a Malaysia Airlines flight for more than two hours, and that staff were manually tagging luggage and checking passengers in over the phone.

“They told us to use the boarding passes on our phone, but when we got to the gates they weren’t working – they’ve now sent us back to the check-in gate,” she told the BBC from Heathrow’s Terminal 4, adding that she could see hundreds of people queuing up.

Another passenger, Monazza Aslam, said she had been sat on the tarmac for over an hour “with no idea when we will fly”, and had already missed her onward connection at Doha.

The Charity Commission has published its findings into whistleblower allegations that followed a bitter boardroom dispute that saw Prince Harry resign, along with several trustees, earlier this year.

No sanctions have been imposed on the charity, with the current leadership remaining in place, but the commission criticised “all parties” for allowing a “damaging” dispute to play out publicly.

Prince Harry’s spokesman criticised parts of the report as falling “troublingly short”, while the charity’s chair said the “adverse media campaign” from those who resigned caused “incalculable damage”.

The commission has given the charity, which supports young people in southern Africa, a regulatory action plan to deal with “governance weaknesses”.

It’s a bittersweet outcome for Prince Harry who has left the charity, which his spokesman said had been “deeply personal” to him.

Much of the criticism from the commission focused on how the internal dispute descended into such a public argument in the media, which it said had damaged the charity’s reputation.

The row had seen Prince Harry accused of being a “toxic” brand by the charity’s chair, Sophie Chandauka – and he had stepped down, saying his and the trustees’ relationship with her was broken “beyond repair” and that they had faced “blatant lies“.

“Sentebale’s problems played out in the public eye, enabling a damaging dispute to harm the charity’s reputation, risk overshadowing its many achievements, and jeopardising the charity’s ability to deliver for the very beneficiaries it was created to serve,” said Charity Commission chief executive David Holdsworth.

Prince Harry’s team welcomed the finding that there had not been evidence of bullying, though a spokesman said the report “falls troublingly short” in that the “consequences of the current chair’s actions will not be borne by her”.

Ms Chandauka remains at the head of the charity, with the watchdog finding no reason for her not to continue.

She said: “We are emerging not just grateful to have survived, but stronger.”

A Sentebale spokesman said that the report confirmed that the new trustees had been validly appointed and could move forward “free from interference”.

The Charity Commission also said that although there was no evidence of widespread or systemic bullying or harassment, including misogyny or misogynoir (discrimination against black women), it acknowledged a “strong perception of ill treatment felt by a number of parties” and said it wasn’t its role as a regulator to adjudicate on individual claims of bullying.

The commission has not sanctioned any individuals, but its regulatory action plan is meant to address problems such as a lack of clarity over roles and a better mechanism for handling internal disputes.

It warned of “weaknesses in the charity’s management” that had added to disagreements.

The report highlighted how tensions had risen around a new fundraising strategy in the United States, with some trustees believed to have raised concerns about the charity’s finances.

The action plan warns of the importance of “sufficient funding to enable the charity to deliver for its beneficiaries”.

The Charity Commission website is still showing Sentebale’s financial position from August 2023 – but sources close to the charity say it is in good financial health.

The charity had been a very personal project for Prince Harry, which made his resignation even more difficult. Sentebale had been co-founded with Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, with both honouring the legacies of their mothers.

“For 19 years, its dedicated staff and steadfast supporters have provided vital care to over 100,000 young people across southern Africa, including young people living with HIV/Aids and those facing mental health challenges,” said a spokesman for Prince Harry.

Prince Harry’s spokesman said the charity had grown to become a “flowering force for good” and that he will “now focus on finding new ways to continue supporting the children of Lesotho and Botswana”.

Ms Chandauka said: “Despite the recent turbulence, we will always be inspired by the vision of our founders, Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso.”

The Charity Commission concluded that those running charities should not let disagreements make them forget their initial good intentions and should focus on those they were trying to help.

“Passion for a cause is the bedrock of volunteering and charity, delivering positive impact for millions of people here at home and abroad every day,” said Mr Holdsworth.

“However, in the rare cases when things go wrong, it is often because that very passion has become a weakness rather than a strength.

“Moving forward I urge all parties not to lose sight of those who rely on the charity’s services.

“The current trustees must now make improvements and ensure the charity focuses on delivering for those it exists to serve.”

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said shadows and a slick back bun hairstyle made one model appear “gaunt” while the pose and low cut design of a shirt in another image showed the model’s “protruding” collarbones.

The watchdog ruled that the “irresponsible” adverts must not appear again in their current form and that Zara must ensure all its images were “prepared responsibly.”

Zara has removed the adverts and said that both models in question had medical certification proving they were in good health when the pictures were taken.

The two banned adverts previously appeared on the retailer’s app and website in a carousel of images showing clothes on and off models.

One advert was for a short dress and the ASA felt shadows were used to make the models legs look “noticeably thin”.

It also said the positioning of her upper arms and elbow joints made her look “out of proportion.”

‘Protruding collarbones’

The other banned advert was for a shirt and the model was said to be in a position that made “protruding” collarbones a “focal feature” of the advert.

The ASA investigated two other Zara adverts but neither were banned.

Zara chose to remove all the images flagged and said it had not received any direct complaints.

The retailer told the ASA that none of the images had been modified beyond “very minor lighting and colouring edits”.

It added that it followed recommendations of a report called Fashioning a Healthy Future, which was published in 2007 by the UK Model Health Inquiry.

Zara said it specifically complied with recommendation three of that report which said models “should provide a medical certificate attesting their good health from doctors with expertise in recognising eating disorders.”

It comes after adverts by other retailers were banned earlier this year for models being too thin.

In July, an advert by Marks & Spencer was banned because the model appeared to be “unhealthily thin”.

The ASA said the pose of the model and the choice of clothing – including “large pointed shoes” which emphasised “the slenderness of her legs” – made the advert “irresponsible”.

Earlier this year, fellow retailer Next also had an advert for blue skinny jeans banned.

The ASA said the advert emphasised the thinness of the model’s legs using camera angles, and deemed it “irresponsible”.

Next said it disagreed with the advertising watchdog’s decision and said the model, while slim, had a “healthy and toned physique”.

The Next advert ban left BBC readers asking why adverts showing models who appear unhealthily overweight are not banned.

Here’s where things stand on Thursday 17 July 2025:

• The voting age will be lowered to 16 for all elections across the UK in time for the next general election, the government has confirmed
• Labour’s election manifesto last year pledged to lower the voting age to 16 – in line with Scottish and Welsh elections
• Keir Starmer says 16 and 17-year-olds are “old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes”
• But the Conservatives question why 16-year-olds will be able to vote but not “marry, go to war, or even stand in elections”. Reform are against lowering the voting age – but the Lib Dems say it’s a “no-brainer”
• In other changes, people will also be able to use bank cards as voter ID

‘Opportunity for us to have more of a say in our future’

We’ve been hearing from some young people who have been speaking to the Reuters news agency.

“I think it’s a really good thing” 23-year-old business consultant Leo Lardi tells Reuters, as the move gives the younger generation “an opinion and a vote on a lot of the issues that are facing the UK today”.

He says if he had the chance it would’ve made him think more about the issues that affect him.

“The future really affects those who are younger than us,” he adds.

Student Hannah McCullagh, 20, says it’s a “good opportunity for us to have more of a say in our future”.

“At the end of the day we decide who we vote in,” and they make the decisions that will affect young people through healthcare, jobs and education, she explains.

Mayor of London approves, but other political figures unimpressed

There’s ringing endorsement for today’s proposals from the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan.

In a social media post he says lowering the minimum age to 16 is “long overdue”, adding that “young people deserve a greater say in their future”.

Ex-Conservative MP Simon Clarke, who was previously a cabinet member, doesn’t agree.

He shares a chart from think tank More in Common, which suggests that the public opposes the idea of lowering the voting age.

As a result, Clarke calls the proposals “shameless gerrymandering”, and asks: “If we don’t think 16 is the age of adult maturity, why is the Government doing this?”

Conservative MP James Cleverly has also responded, saying “the cynicism is breathtaking”.

He observes that the plans to lower the minimum voting age were “dropped from the King’s Speech” and suggests they were only announced now that the Labour government is “tanking in the polls”.

Other countries that allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote

Several other countries around the world allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in all elections, while some others allow them to vote in specific circumstances.

According to Unicef, external, countries and territories where young people aged 16 and/or 17 are allowed to vote in all elections include:

• Argentina
• Austria
• Brazil
• Cuba
• Ecuador
• Guernsey
• Greece
• Indonesia
• Isle of Man
• Jersey
• Nicaragua
• North Korea
• Timor-Leste

Some countries and territories, such as Estonia, Germany, Israel, Puerto Rico, Scotland, and Wales allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in at least some elections, such as local or state elections.

Young people aged 16 in Belgium, Austria, Germany and Malta, and those aged 17 in Greece are allowed to vote in European elections.

In the US, 17-year-olds can vote in the presidential or congressional primaries or party caucuses in some states if they turn 18 before the general election.

When is the next general election?

The new rules mean that 16 and 17-year-olds can now vote in general elections, starting from the next one.

That is due to be held by August 2029 at the latest, as the maximum term for parliament is five years from when it first formed.

But the prime minister does have the option of calling one early if they choose to.

‘Landmark moment for democracy’ – National Union of Students

The National Union of Students (NUS) has welcomed today’s announcement to lower the voting age, describing it as a “landmark moment for democracy”.

Vice President Further Education at NUS UK, Qasim Hussain, says the decision has been achieved “by the tireless campaigning of generations of 16 and 17-year-olds who missed out on their chance to have a say in major democratic moments in the UK”.

“The young people who have been empowered today pay taxes if they work and are significantly impacted by political decisions on education, the minimum wage, climate and more. They will now have a say on these issues and how their taxes are spent,” Hussain says.

Labour policy ‘hopelessly confused’ – shadow minister

We can now bring you more comments from Conservative shadow minister for Housing Paul Holmes reacting to today’s announcement.

Speaking in the Commons, he says the government’s position on the voting age was “hopelessly confused”.

“Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they’re voting in?” he asks.

He also suggests that allowing bank cards as voter ID could “undermine the security of the ballot box”.

Voting age plan was in Labour manifesto – but not in first King’s Speech

Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 general election pledged to give “16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections”.

Of course, Labour won that election – but there was some doubt the commitment would be fulfilled when the changes weren’t included in the 2024 King’s Speech, which outlined the government’s early priorities.

Pressed on why lowering the voting age wasn’t in the speech, minister Lucy Powell said at the time there were “plenty of big bills that didn’t make it”.

She stressed it remained a manifesto commitment – and now the government says “an elections and democracy bill during this Parliament” will deliver the changes before the next general election.

‘Reforms open the door for millions more to get involved in elections,’ Electoral Commission

The CEO of the Electoral Commission has hailed the reforms which will “improve the resilience and integrity of our electoral system”.

Vijay Rangarajan adds: “Registration reform would open the door for millions more to get involved in elections, and the proposed changes to the political finance rules would strengthen the checks on money coming into UK politics and ensure a more proportionate and effective enforcement regime.

“We are ready to work with the electoral community to build understanding and compliance with any new requirements, and to support voters with information and education resources.”

At a glance: Four key changes proposed by the government – including bank cards as ID

We have been poring over the details of what is in today’s government announcement.

Here are the key takeaways:

• Voting age: Around 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds will be eligible to vote at the next general election
• Expansion of acceptable IDs: UK-issued bank cards will become legitimate forms of voter ID in Great Britain, providing the bank card displays the elector’s name
• Improving postal votes: The government is proposing a change to the deadline in Great Britain to apply for a postal vote, from 11 to 14 working days before a poll. This will align with the existing deadline in Northern Ireland. The idea is to get an “improved likelihood” of people getting their ballot in good time
• Changes to party donations: To tackle foreign interference, the government says it plans to tighten rules on political donations including on checks on contributions over £500 from unincorporated associations and closing loopholes used by shell companies

‘It’s only right’ to give 16-year-olds right to vote, Rayner says

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner says they are “delivering on our promise” on the lower voting age.

“Young people already contribute to society by working, paying taxes and serving in the military,” she writes in a post on X.

“It’s only right they can have a say on the issues that affect them.”

Lib Dems welcome proposals but fear ‘Elon Musk-shaped hole’ in plans

We’ve some reaction to bring you from the Liberal Democrats, who say changing the minimum voting age to 16 is a “no-brainer”.

MP Sarah Olney says her party has campaigned for this change for “well over 30 years” and so welcomes the decision.

But, she says there is an “Elon Musk-shaped hole” in the proposed changes, and suggests that the government should “go much further to close the door to foreign oligarchs interfering in British politics”.

For context: Tesla and X owner Elon Musk has been accused of intervening in UK politics after he shared a number of unsubstantiated claims on grooming gangs, and asked whether America should “liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government” in one social media post.

Farage says he’s against lowering voting age

Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, says he doesn’t support lowering the voting age to 16 “even though we get lots of votes”.

Speaking to ITV News, Farage says someone shouldn’t be able to vote in an election unless they’re able to stand as a candidate. A candidate must be at least 18 to stand for election.

“I’m really encouraged by the number of young people that are coming towards us,” he adds.

Voting at 16 was nerve wracking, but empowering

Unlike most of my colleagues in the BBC newsroom sitting next to me, I have the perspective of voting at 16, as I grew up in Scotland.

I voted in my first Scottish parliamentary election in 2016, a year after they changed the law to lower the age.

It’s one of the few countries in the world that has the lower age for voting, along with Wales, Argentina and Belgium, to name a few.

I remember the nervousness of holding my ballot paper and walking into the village hall, asking my mum for help on what to do and where to go.

But, it was exciting too. I could put my thoughts somewhere to try and make a difference, to be taken seriously.

School was fun – we discussed politics among ourselves, something I’m not sure we had really done before outside of the classroom.

Not everybody voted, but a lot of us did.

And it taught me from a younger age to learn about the people in charge, and to take it seriously.

What other measures are being introduced?

As well as lowering the voting age to 16, the government is also planning a host of other changes to the electoral system as part of a new Elections Bill.

These include expanding forms of voter ID to include UK- issued bank cards which display the voter’s name.

Some 4% of people who did not vote at last year’s general election said this was because of voter ID rules, according to the Electoral Commission.

Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali said the government would ensure this was done gradually “to make sure there aren’t any risks of abuses or things going wrong”.

The changes also include moving towards automatic voter registration, and tightening rules on political donations to protect against foreign interference.

Currently political parties can only accept donations from individuals registered on a UK electoral register or UK-registered companies which carry out business in the country.

However, there have been concerns that foreign nationals could get around the rules by donating through a foreign company that is registered in the UK.

No chance for Parliament to scrutinise changes until September, Tory MP says

Tory MP Paul Holmes has hit back at the government’s announcement while speaking in the Commons this morning.

“There will be no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny until September due to the recess,” Holmes says.

He also asks the democracy minister why the policy was not announced in the Commons.

Rushanara Ali reiterates Labour ran on a manifesto which pledged to give voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds, adding: “The truth is young people deserve to have a stake.”

Starmer: If you ‘pay in’ you should get a say on how your money is spent

Prime Minister Keir Starmer says lowering the voting age to 16 across the UK will give young people a chance to have their say on what their taxes are used for.

“I think it’s really important that 16 and 17-year-olds have the vote, because they are old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes, so pay in,” he tells ITV News.

“And I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the government should go.”

Voter ID to be extended to UK bank cards under plans

More now from Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali, who confirms the government is planning to lower the voting age to 16 in time for the next general election.

This is due to take place by 2029, but could be called earlier.

“At 16, a young person can work, they pay taxes, they can join the Army. So there’s no reason why from that age, they shouldn’t have a say in who governs our country,” she says.

Other changes announced today include expanding forms of voter ID to include UK-issued bank cards, moving towards automatic voter registration and tightening rules on political donations to protect against foreign interference.

We’ll bring you more details on those changes shortly.

Biggest change to the electorate since 1969

A pledge to lower the voting age to 16 was included in Labour’s election manifesto but it did not feature in last summer’s King’s Speech, which sets out the government’s priorities for the months ahead.

The minimum voting age is already 16 for local council elections in Scotland and Wales and elections to the Senedd and Scottish Parliament.

However for other elections, including to the UK Parliament, local elections in England and all elections in Northern Ireland, it is 18.

Lowering the voting age to 16 across the UK would be the biggest change to the electorate since it was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1969.

Voting age to be lowered to 16 by next general election

Around 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote at the next general election, under government plans to lower the voting age.

Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali tells the BBC the “seismic” change will ensure young people’s voices are heard.

She confirms the pledge will be part of a raft of measures introduced through a new Elections Bill.

We’ll bring you live updates, analysis and reaction, so stay with us.

Steve Witkoff said the idea was based on a “simplistic” notion of the UK prime minister and other European leaders thinking “we have all got to be like Winston Churchill”.

In an interview with pro-Trump journalist Tucker Carlson, Witkoff praised Vladimir Putin, saying he “liked” the Russian president.

“I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy,” he said. “He’s super smart.”

Witkoff, who met Putin 10 days ago, said the Russian president had been “gracious” and “straight up” with him. Putin told him, he added, that he had prayed for Trump after an assassination attempt against him last year. He also said Putin had commissioned a portrait of the US president as a gift and Trump was “clearly touched by it”.

During the interview, Witkoff repeated various Russian arguments, including that Ukraine was “a false country” and asked when the world would recognise occupied Ukrainian territory as Russian.

Witkoff is leading the US ceasefire negotiations with both Russia and Ukraine but he was unable to name the five regions of Ukraine either annexed or partially occupied by Russian forces.

He said: “The largest issue in that conflict are these so-called four regions, Donbas, Crimea, you know the names and there are two others.”

The five regions – or oblasts – are Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Crimea. Donbas refers to an industrial region in the east that includes much of Luhansk and Donetsk.

Witkoff made several assertions that are either not true or disputed:

• He said Ukrainian troops in Kursk were surrounded, something denied by Ukraine’s government and uncorroborated by any open-source data
• He said the four partially occupied regions of Ukraine had held “referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule”. There were referendums only in some of the occupied parts of Ukraine at different times and the methodology and results were widely discredited and disputed
• He said the four partially occupied oblasts were Russian-speaking. There are many Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine but this has never indicated support for Russia.

The US is set to hold separate talks in Saudi Arabia with Ukraine and Russia about a ceasefire at meetings over Sunday and Monday.

Ahead of that, Ukrainian authorities said Russia had launched drone attacks on Kyiv overnight, resulting in deaths of three people, including a five-year-old child.

Officials said that eight people had been injured.

Russia also struck the southern city of Zaporizhzhia on Friday, killing a family of three.

Meanwhile, on Sunday Russia’s ministry of defence said it had shot down 59 Ukrainian drones across a number of regions in the south as well as in Crimea, the peninsula illegally annexed by Russia in 2014.

During his interview, Witkoff also repeated several Kremlin talking points about the cause of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

He said it was “correct” that from the Russian perspective the partially occupied territories were now part of Russia: “The elephant in the room is, there are constitutional issues within Ukraine as to what they can concede to with regard to giving up territory. The Russians are de facto in control of these territories. The question is: will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories?”

He added: “There’s a sensibility in Russia that Ukraine is just a false country, that they just patched together in this sort of mosaic, these regions, and that’s what is the root cause, in my opinion, of this war, that Russia regards those five regions as rightfully theirs since World War Two, and that’s something nobody wants to talk about.”

Putin has repeatedly said that the “root causes” of his invasion were the threat posed to Russia by an expanded Nato and the sheer existence of Ukraine as an independent country.

Witkoff said in the Tucker Carlson interview: “Why would they want to absorb Ukraine? For what purpose? They don’t need to absorb Ukraine… They have reclaimed these five regions. They have Crimea and they have gotten what they want. So why do they need more?”

Asked about Keir Starmer’s plans to forge a “coalition of the willing” to provide military security guarantees for a post-war Ukraine, Witkoff said: “I think it’s a combination of a posture and a pose and a combination of also being simplistic. There is this sort of notion that we have all got to be like [British wartime prime minister] Winston Churchill. Russians are going to march across Europe. That is preposterous by the way. We have something called Nato that we did not have in World War Two.”

He said a ceasefire in the Black Sea would be “implemented over the next week or so” and “we are not far away” from a full 30-day ceasefire.

He also gave details of how Trump wanted to co-operate with Russia after relations had been normalised. “Who doesn’t want to have a world where Russia and the US are doing collaboratively good things together, thinking about how to integrate their energy polices in the Arctic, share sea lines maybe, send LNG gas into Europe together, maybe collaborate on AI together?”