Fresh breakthrough in plans to curb social media for under-16s in UK as peers end stand-off with MPs

A parliamentary impasse over protecting children from harmful online content has been resolved as peers backed down after the government voted to introduce new social media restrictions for under-16s.

The House of Lords and the House of Commons are deadlocked over the Child Welfare and Schools Bill, particularly regarding digital content accessible to young people.

The breakthrough came on Tuesday, as ministers vowed to impose social media restrictions for under-16s regardless of ongoing public consultation.

The move was accepted by Lord Nash, a former education minister and Conservative MP who led the push in the Lords. Peers have previously voted four times to force the House of Commons to agree to a ban on such content.

Lord Nash told the upper house: “(I) Kudos to the Government for its active involvement, albeit at the last minute, in the social media issue and for making a binding commitment to introduce some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16, and for focusing on features such as addictive features, harmful, algorithmically driven content and foreign matching, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy, and which we know has led to a lot of harm and a lot of deaths.

“This is welcome news for the millions of parents, voters, teachers, health care professionals and others who have asked for it, and my amendment would do exactly that.”

Education Minister Baroness Smith of Malvern paid tribute to Lord Nash and his commitment to children’s safety.

He said: “The strength of the government now reflects the commitments we have repeatedly made in this House; it is not a question of whether we act on this issue, but how we act.

“The Minister of Foreign Affairs should now use this authority instead of consulting. The status quo cannot continue.

“We are consulting on the mechanism and it is the right thing to do, but we are also clear that in the event of any consequences we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions on children under 16.

“I can also confirm that restrictions such as curfews will be considered in addition to, rather than instead of.”

Baroness Smith added that ministers had “narrowed the timeframe for delivery”, with a three-month progress report followed by a 12-month timetable for arrangements to be made.

A single six-month extension is only available in exceptional cases.

But his Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Clement-Jones accused the Conservatives of “effectively disarming” by accepting the concession and said they should continue to press the Government to act faster.

He said: “Giving platforms nearly two years to adapt is completely unacceptable and unsellable to parents whose children are suffering right now.”

He put to the vote an amendment that would “shorten the government’s bloated schedule”, but the amendment was rejected by 181 votes, 91 votes to 90.

Lord Nash said he shared the concerns about the time frame but had heard the Government’s statement that they planned to work faster than they were allowed to do.

Technology Minister Liz Kendall told the Press Association they would submit proposals for restrictions “before the summer” and hoped the legislation would come into force by the end of the year.

Campaigners welcomed the lockdown pledge as a “major step forward” but said they were “disappointed” by the Government’s pace of action.

A statement signed by 21 parents whose children died in circumstances where social media played a part, including Ellen Roome and Esther Ghey, said: “The government’s legally binding commitment last night to impose some form of age or functionality restriction on children under 16 is a major step forward.

“For the first time we have heard the Government openly admit that the status quo cannot continue and that the safety of children online is more important than the convenience of the platforms that are failing them.

“Of course we will keep them. Of course we will continue to campaign; each of us owes this to the memory of our children and we will not stop until the details match our promise.

“But this is a real victory, and it belongs to every parent, peer, MP and supporter who refuses to let this go.”