Peers vote again on under-16s social media ban as new warning issued to government

Peers are preparing for a new vote on whether under-16s should be banned from social media platforms; This is a move that could lead to conflict in parliament.

Lord Nash, who put forward the age limit in the Welfare of Children and Schools Bill, emphasized the urgency of the issue.

“There can be no half measures, no wasted opportunity when it comes to our children and social media,” he warned.

The conservative colleague’s proposal was previously included in the draft law, gaining a majority of 111 after the final vote in the upper house.

However, MPs later voted by a majority of 134 votes to remove this specific clause and instead give the government a broader and more adaptable power.

On Wednesday, peers will be asked whether they want to insist on Lord Nash’s proposal or agree with MPs.

Twenty-one bereaved parents have written to members of the Lords, urging them to “vote to raise the age”.

Children’s access to certain social media services could be banned or restricted under a Commons-backed amendment put forward by ministers.

The Secretary of State will also gain new powers to impose social media curfews on young people or limit the time children can spend on social media.

Government consultations are ongoing on what measures should be taken against online harm.

Speaking ahead of the debate, Lord Nash said: “Today, my colleagues in the Lords have the opportunity to tell our elected colleagues once again that there can be no half measures and wasted opportunities when it comes to our children and social media.

“The harm that social media does to our children is increasing day by day.

“And it is now clear that the Government’s consultation was a rushed job with no guaranteed outcome and, worse, a job that was geared towards the supposedly positive benefits of social media.”

Lord Nash warned that ministers’ proposals would “bring in far-reaching powers” that they could use “at some point in the future, without effective parliamentary scrutiny, to disappoint the millions of parents, teachers, police officers, doctors and others who have campaigned for the age limit to be raised to 16 for the most harmful platforms”.

He added that his colleagues might support an amendment “raising the age limit for the most harmful platforms to 16, enacted by the summer, with 12 months until implementation to get it right.”

He said: “I urge my colleagues to please do this.”

In an open letter addressed to “parliamentarians”, 21 parents described the House of Commons vote as “not only disappointing, but devastating”.

Signatories include Ellen Roome and Matthew Sweeney, parents of 14-year-old Jools Sweeney; George and Areti Nicolaou, parents of 15-year-old Christoforos; and Hollie Dance, mother of 12-year-old Archie Battersbee.

They wrote: “We write as parents who wake up every day to a silence that should not exist, and go to bed knowing there will be no good nights, no laughter, no future with the child we raised and loved.”

They added: “The government’s proposal for a consultation with no binding commitment and no fixed end point is not a solution to a problem that is already costing the lives of many young people.

“We have already lost our children, we cannot accept a process that risks losing more as the discussions continue.

“We have watched tech companies fight every meaningful reform initiative. We know how they work.

“We know how easily protections are delayed, diluted or quietly revoked in the absence of a firm legislative commitment.”

Parents also said: “The government is seeking powers that will allow future measures to be scrutinized or challenged, with little or no opportunity for you as elected representatives.

“We cannot ignore what this means.

“This means there is a real risk of half-measures being taken.”

In the House of Commons earlier this month, education secretary 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 direct children to less regulated corners of the internet or leave young people unprepared when they go online.”

Ms Bailey said the consultation would help ministers “decide their next steps and ensure children grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world”.

The bill has been debated in both Houses but is currently in a stage known as ping-pong.

Both Houses must agree on the final draft before it becomes law.