Peers defy government by pushing for UK social media ban for under-16s

The House of Lords has again supported a proposal to ban under-16s in the UK from social media platforms, as the government was urged to act quicker to protect children.

Peers voted 266 to 141 in favour of Conservative former minister Lord Nash’s amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

It is the second time peers have defeated the government over the proposal, which would give ministers 12 months to decide which social media platforms should be unavailable to under-16s.

Technology Minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra said “it is not if we act, but how” as she defended the government’s decision to consult on whether the UK should follow Australia by introducing a ban.

Hours ahead of Wednesday’s debate in the Lords, the government also said social media bans, digital curfews and time limits on apps are to be trialled in the homes of 300 UK teenagers. The pilots will last six weeks.

Some campaigners and experts have offered their support for a ban, but others have warned the restrictions could be circumvented or push children to darker corners of the internet.

Meta and Google have said the minimum age UK children can access social media should not be raised in response to questions from the science, innovation and technology committee on Tuesday.

Officials from TikTok and X told MPs that they remained “neutral” on the issue.

MPs overturned the first attempt by peers to amend the bill earlier this month and are expected to do so again, due to the government’s large majority, when the proposed legislation returns to the House of Commons for further consideration.

The bill is currently at the stage of its parliamentary journey known as “ping-pong”, where legislation moves between the Commons and Lords until agreement is reached on its final wording.

Responding to the result, Conservative shadow education secretary Laura Trott said peers have “once again done the right thing” and urged Labour MPs to back a ban.

During the debate on Wednesday, Lord Nash said he had been the director of technology companies in California and described “Californian techies” as “some of the most able, innovative, entrepreneurial, wealth and job-creating people in the world”.

He told the Lords: “But in relation to that cavalier approach that they have taken to harmful content online for our children, I think they’ve gone way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts, and we need to act now in a way that is truly effective.”

Lord Nash described the government’s consultation as “a shocker” and he became emotional as he paid tribute to bereaved parents who campaigned for a change in the law following the deaths of their children.

The former education minister, watched on by some of the families in the chamber, said: “I don’t want to be standing up here in six or 12 months banging the same old drum with even more bereaved parents in the gallery.”

‘Cannot afford to wait’

Liberal Democrat Baroness Benjamin, a former children’s television presenter, said the government was asking peers to “take a gamble on our children’s safety” as she warned the consultation “delivers nothing but more and more delay”.

Online safety campaigner Baroness Kidron said: “While we consult, children are harmed in real time and we cannot afford to wait.”

Non-affiliated peer Baroness Fox of Buckley questioned the success of the ban in Australia, noting: “Teens are being pushed underground away from mainstream platforms into darker corners of the internet without safeguards, zero moderation.”

For the government, Baroness Lloyd said Lord Nash’s proposal would “commit the government to a specific set of measures that may not ultimately represent the most effective or proportionate way to protect our children”.

Baroness Lloyd added the amendment “could risk unintended consequences and it would mean acting before listening to what the consultation tells us and what parents and children need”.

The government said nearly 30,000 responses from parents and children have been received as part of the consultation, which closes on 26 May.

The debate in the Lords came as a jury in Los Angeles found Meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, and YouTube owner Google intentionally built addictive social media platforms that harmed a 20-year old’s mental health.

Meta and Google said separately that they disagreed with the verdict and would both appeal.