House of Lords Votes Overwhelmingly for Social Media Ban for Under-16s
In a significant parliamentary development, the House of Lords has voted decisively to support a proposed ban on social media access for children under the age of 16. Peers backed the cross-party amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill by 261 votes to 150, delivering a substantial majority of 111. This outcome represents a notable defeat for the Government and ensures the matter must now be considered by MPs in the House of Commons.
Growing Momentum for Australian-Style Restrictions
The vote follows mounting pressure from campaigners, including prominent actor Hugh Grant, who argue that parents are facing an "impossible position" in protecting their children from online harms. Supporters of the proposed Australian-style ban contend that urgent legislative action is required to safeguard young people's mental and physical health.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall recently announced a three-month consultation to examine the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a ban. This review will also consider possible overnight curfews and measures to combat "doom-scrolling" behaviours, with findings expected in the summer.
Peers Demand Immediate Action Over Further Delay
Conservative peer Lord Nash, a former schools minister who has championed the ban, criticised the Government's consultation as "unnecessary, misconceived and clearly a last-minute attempt to kick this can down the road." Proposing the amendment, he told the Lords that many teenagers spend "five, six, seven or more hours a day" on social media platforms.
"The evidence is now overwhelming as to the damage that this is causing," Lord Nash asserted. "We have long passed the point of correlation or causation. There is now so much evidence from across the world that it is clear that by every measure – health, cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, economic productivity – children are being harmed."
He emphasised the urgency of the situation, stating: "This is going to happen. The only question is when. We have the opportunity to do it now in this Bill, and every day which passes, more damage is being done to children. We must act now."
Cross-Party and Crossbench Support for Protective Measures
Paediatrician Baroness Cass, an independent crossbencher, argued that "the first duty of Government is not to consult, it is to act." She added: "If we think children may be in danger, we act first and we ask questions later."
Filmmaker and children's rights campaigner Baroness Kidron suggested that "a consultation is the playground of the tech lobbyist and inaction is the most powerful tool in politics." She accused the Government of showing "it will only act under pressure, not principle."
Tory peer Baroness Bertin, who led an independent review of pornography, described the business model of social media companies as "sort-of borderline criminal, but certainly very toxic and it is so sophisticated." The former Downing Street press secretary claimed: "They have already made off like bandits with our children's innocence."
Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Benjamin, a former Playschool presenter and vice-president of Barnardo's, declared: "Now is the time for us to act decisively because each minute we wait more damage is done to our children's wellbeing."
Concerns About Digital Literacy and Implementation
However, some peers expressed reservations about a blanket prohibition. Liberal Democrat Lord Clement-Jones warned that such a ban "risks protecting children in a sterile digital environment until their 16th birthday, then suddenly flooding them with harmful content without having developed a digital literacy to cope."
Responding to the debate, education minister Baroness Smith of Malvern acknowledged widespread concerns about children's online safety and screen time. "Rest assured, Government hears those concerns, and we are prepared to act to deal with them," she stated.
The minister noted "a range of different views on the action that we need to take, even as there is a consensus that action is needed." In an attempt to reassure peers, she promised to bring forward a future amendment enabling the secretary of state to enact the outcome of what she termed a "short, sharp" consultation.
"The question is not whether the Government will take further action. We will act robustly. The question is how to do this most effectively," Baroness Smith concluded.
Campaigners and Families Welcome the Vote
Following the division, Lord Nash said: "Tonight, peers put our children's future first. This vote begins the process of stopping the catastrophic harm that social media is inflicting on a generation."
Online safety campaigner Ellen Roome, who believes her 14-year-old son Jools died while attempting an online challenge, told the Press Association she was "really delighted" with the result. "Everybody's campaigned really hard for it," she added.
The amendment received backing from a coalition of public figures and organisations. Hugh Grant was among signatories to a letter sent to party leaders supporting the ban. The letter was also signed by Esther Ghey, mother of 16-year-old Brianna Ghey who was murdered in 2023. Ms Ghey has previously spoken about her daughter's "social media addiction" and desire to be "TikTok famous," which left her "in constant fear about who Brianna might be speaking to online."
Other signatories included singer Peter Andre, actress Sophie Winkleman, and organisations Parentkind and Mumsnet. The letter argued: "Children are being served up extreme content without seeking it out. Parents know this has to stop. But they cannot do this alone, and they are asking for politicians to help."
Additional Measures on VPN Services
In a related move, peers also supported a ban on providing Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to children by 207 votes to 159, a majority of 48. This measure addresses concerns that VPNs can be used to bypass age verification restrictions when accessing adult content online.
The changes made by the Lords to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will now proceed to the Commons for consideration. The legislation will enter the parliamentary process known as "ping-pong," where it is debated between the two Houses until a final agreement is reached.
