Lords to vote on move to delay social media ban

The proposal flies in the face of their recent commitments to months, not years, before taking action and critics warn it could result in only limited interventions such as parental controls rather than sweeping measures on access.

Members of the House of Lords are being urged to reject this and vote again for Lord Nash’s amendment, which would replace the power to act with a legal requirement to raise the age of access for harmful social media platforms to 16 within a 12-month window.

Lord Nash’s amendment has already been backed by the Lords three times and was most recently passed by the House of Lords with a majority of 126 on 20 April.

Read More: ‘Our kids are unprotected’: MPs vote against U16 social media ban for third time

Read More: Social media companies deny platforms are inherently addictive

But the government used its Commons majority to block the change, prompting its reintroduction at a critical late stage of the bill’s passage.

Education minister Olivia Bailey said at the time that a planned consultation is the way forward before any plan to tackle social media-linked harms is implemented.

Since the prorogation of parliament is expected in the next week, Monday’s vote will be seen as a last opportunity for peers to force the issue back onto the political agenda.

If the bill does not complete its passage in time, the government risks losing it entirely.

Lord Nash, former Minister for Schools, accused the government of saying one thing and legislating for another: ‘It is hard to see the Government's position as anything other than deliberate deception," Nash said.

"They say they want action in months, not years. But they table amendments which propose waiting three years. What will change in three years?"

"The platforms will grow more powerful. More children will be harmed, and tragically worse. This is not a serious proposal, and Parliament should not treat it as one. Instead, this week, Parliament has a final chance to reject the Government's shamefully inadequate approach and vote for my amendment, which would put a commitment to raising the age to 16 on the face of the Bill".

"As this Bill reaches its final stages, let no one be in any doubt: I will not stop until we have that commitment".

Last week, singer Cheryl Tweedy publicly backed a ban for under-16s, calling platforms “addictive” and “emotionally destroying”.

Campaigners, including Ellen Roome, the bereaved mother of Jools Sweeney, who died during a suspected 'blackout challenge', said the issue was a test of political urgency.

“It is beyond belief that the government now wants up to three years before it will act on social media,” she said. “And worse still, their ‘action’ could mean as little as parental controls".

"This amendment is an insult to every parent who has campaigned in memory of a child we have lost, so that other families do not have to go through what we have. How many more children will be harmed every day by the catastrophic effects of social media?"

"How many more children will we lose while the Prime Minister gives himself the option of doing almost nothing? How does any of this square with the language we were given - that it would be months, not years, before action?" she added.

"This week, Parliament has a final chance to reject this charade and vote for Lord Nash's amendment, which would raise the age limit for harmful social media to 16 within twelve months. Please - I implore them - just do it now".

Ms Bailey said the consultation, which is set to close next month, goes further than the Lords' amendments to consider risks beyond social media, such as gaming and AI chatbots.

The Government will respond by the summer and has made a legislative commitment to report to Parliament within six months. It has also committed to a statutory ban on phones in schools.