Lords vote in favour of under-16s social media ban for third time - with measure facing Commons deadlock
Peers have voted for a third time to bind the Government to curbing children’s social media use.
Listen to this article
As part of a proposal by Lord Nash, under-16s face being blocked from social media tools or websites which are thought to cause “obsessive, addictive or other unhealthy behaviours”.
They also face being banned from features which could expose them to “serious harm, manipulation or exploitation”, or illegal content such as extreme pornography or weapons sales.
Peers had previously backed an earlier proposal by Lord Nash for a default age limit on social media sites deemed “harmful”, which the Commons twice rejected.
Read More: A ban on social media will help Sir Keir Starmer, not just our kids' safety
Read More: Peer pushing for social media ban says ‘no time for game-playing’ before vote
In a stand-off between the two Houses of Parliament, MPs instead supported a flexible power for the Government to bring in measures such as curfews, scrolling limits or bans on specific websites.
Ministers have vowed to decide which action to take following a consultation, which closes next month.
But by backing Lord Nash’s new proposal on Monday, peers have agreed that ministers “must, rather than just ‘may’, raise the age of access for those harmful social media sites to 16 within 12 months”.
He pointed to Technology Secretary Liz Kendall’s appearance on TV when she said the Government must “look seriously” at how effective “highly effective age verification measures” are on social media.
Lord Nash said: “I listened very carefully to what she said yesterday, and if you can get a fag paper between us, it’s a pretty thin one indeed.”
In addition to giving the Government a 12-month deadline to bring in an age cap in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, peers have demanded ministers “seek to protect children under the age of 16” from features which meet a set of criteria, including programmes “likely to cause, encourage or facilitate compulsive, obsessive, addictive or other unhealthy behaviours among children”.
Lord Nash said: “At the heart of my amendment are ‘safety by design’ principles, with the responsibility resting firmly with the companies themselves.”
He told the Lords: “It is essential that we play catch up with the pace of change online much faster than we are.
“It would be such a small step for the Government to now accept the principles of my amendment, not to have what some have called a ‘blanket ban’, but merely to be used highly selectively and definitely not to apply to apps for particular vulnerable groups.”
Baroness Kidron, the independent crossbench peer who founded the digital child safety organisation 5Rights, said in the debate: “I personally would prefer the language of banning unfit companies access to children rather than banning children.”
She added: “It is staggering that two years into this Government, every promise made to parents has been kicked down the road.”
Lady Kidron warned that without Lord Nash’s amendment, ministers could choose not to bring forward any curbs.
Education minister Baroness Smith of Malvern said the Government was “testing options now, taking evidence from families themselves and putting the legislative powers in place to act quickly once the consultation closes”.
She continued: “It means we can move in months, not years.
“And as has been said on numerous occasions, the Government’s consultation looks beyond a simple social media ban to a wider range of harms, from addictive design to time spent online, allowing for a more comprehensive and effective response with long-lasting outcomes.”
Responding to the vote, which he won by 284 to 158, majority 126, Lord Nash said: “The Government’s position is not far from our own – they are talking the talk, but inexplicably have yet to come to a firm position and walk the walk.
“We cannot afford parliamentary posturing while children are being harmed, and in some cases may be losing their lives, on platforms that are addictive and unsafe by design.”
MPs in the Commons, where the Labour Government has a majority, must consider whether to accept or reject Lord Nash’s amendment before it is written in to law.