‘Don't let more children die’: Grieving mothers issue urgent plea to ban social media for U-16s ahead of crunch vote

Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google

Twenty-one bereaved parents have written to members of the House of Lords, urging them to support raising the minimum age at which children can access social media.

Ellen Roome, one of the signees, suspects her son Jools Sweeney died in 2022 after taking part in a viral challenge he saw on social media. 

She told LBC she is pressing for a ban to prevent more children from suffering a similar fate. 

“While we've got children seeing harmful material, then there's a risk that something happens to them or there's a risk that they could die like our children. 

“I don't have other children… I don't do this [campaign] to make a difference for my other children. I do this because I wholeheartedly believe that a ban would protect other children,” Ellen said.

Lord Nash proposed the age limit as part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Conservative former minister’s proposal had been written into the draft new law after a vote in the upper chamber, which he won by a majority of 111.

But MPs voted to strip it out by a majority of 134, instead agreeing to give the Government a wider and more flexible power.

Later today, peers will be asked whether they would like to insist on Lord Nash’s proposal or agree with MPs.

Ellen said: “As bereaved parents, we absolutely think they need to support this and it's frustrating but it’s back in the Lords again and hopefully they’ll vote to raise the age to 16.”

Ruth Moss, whose daughter Sophie took her own life in 2014 aged 13, has also signed the letter urging parliamentarians to back an under 16s ban.

Read more: British teens to trial social media ban with Lords and Labour in standoff over measure

Read more: Children need a social media ban, not another consultation, writes Laura Trott MP

She said if social media was banned for this age group when Sophie was still alive, it could have been a very different story.

“On a personal level, it would have made a huge difference to Sophie's life and to my life and trying to control the tech that my child was using. Itt would have been immensely helpful to have that in place,” Ruth told LBC.

She added that it is “really important” that peers vote in favour of raising the age limit, describing it as “a public health measure for our children.” 

"For me it's a similar argument to the other [bans] that have happened in the past, such as tobacco or gambling. We just wouldn't give those things to our children. 

“We know that social media does harm our children, that it's addictive that the tech companies know that their products are not suitable for children, yet we continue to argue as to whether we should allow children to use them.”

“There'll be thousands and thousands of families that are struggling with this issue and children that are undergoing daily harm,” Ruth said. 

She warned that a further delay means “more children will be harmed” and “in the extreme end of that we see children that die because of that”.

Instead of a sweeping ban, a Commons-backed amendment put forward by ministers could see children banned or restricted from accessing selected social media services.

The Secretary of State would also gain new powers to bring in social media curfews for young people, or limit the amount of time children can spend on social media. 

A Government consultation on what action should be taken to address online harms is under way.But the bereaved parents are “deeply concerned” about the consultation.

Their letter reads: “It was announced at the eleventh hour, in the days before your previous vote. It proposes an ‘expert panel’ of academics but leaves little or no space for those on the frontline, those who see the consequences every single day, such as GPs, police officers and others who are dealing with the reality of harm as it unfolds.

“Beyond this, the Government is seeking powers that would allow future measures to be introduced with little or no opportunity for you, as elected representatives, to scrutinise or challenge them.

“We cannot ignore what this means. It means there is a real risk of half-measures.Measures that sound like action, but do not prevent harm. Measures that will not stop other families from becoming like ours, families who are left desperately sad and broken forever. And if those measures are passed in this way, you may not have the chance to stop them. More parents will lose their children in circumstances that could and should have been prevented.”

In the Commons earlier this month, education minister Olivia Bailey told MPs: “Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s.

“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.”

Ms Bailey said the consultation would help ministers decide their “next steps and ensure children can grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world”.The Bill has been debated in both Houses but is in a stage sometimes known as ping-pong.Both Houses must agree on its final draft before it can become law.

The impact of suicide reaches far and wide. Call Samaritans for free on 116 123, email jo@samaritans.org or visit samaritans.org for more information.