Peer pushing for social media ban says ‘no time for game-playing’ before vote

A peer pushing for a restriction on social media use for under-16s to be introduced within a year has said it is “no time for parliamentary game-playing”.

Peers have twice voted to introduce an age limit in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but both efforts were rejected by MPs in the Commons.

On Monday, the House of Lords will vote on a new amendment tabled by Conservative former schools minister Lord Nash, which seeks a legal requirement to raise the age of access for social media platforms deemed harmful to 16 within a 12-month window.

A meeting on Thursday at Downing Street between Sir Keir Starmer and executives from technology companies Meta, Snap, Google, TikTok and X saw the Prime Minister say that things “must change”.

Sir Keir said: “Things can’t go on like this, they must change because right now social media is putting our children at risk.

“In a world in which children are protected, even if that means access is restricted, that is preferable to a world where harm is the price of participation.”

But Lord Nash has said the Government is “inexplicably” not committing to action now.

MPs on Wednesday voted by 256 to 150, majority 106, to side with the Government on its plan to tackle social media-linked harms affecting children.

As part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, ministers are set to gain a flexible power to curb children’s social media use with curfews, scrolling limits and restrictions on location sharing.

The Government could also choose to block under-16s from specified platforms.

A consultation, set to close next month, has been set up to help ministers decide what action they should take.

Default ban

But Lord Nash has proposed a default ban on children using the social media platforms deemed harmful.

He said: “We are dancing on the head of a pin while children are being harmed as a result of social media platforms which – as now confirmed in US courtrooms – are deliberately addictive by design and are harmful.

“My new amendment offers a way through this parliamentary standoff that takes the Prime Minister at his word and allows us to use the consultation to fine tune the details of action in the best interests of our children.

“My message to the Government and fellow peers across the House is simple. Whilst the catastrophic effects of social media are felt every day this is no time for parliamentary game-playing. Vote for my amendment today to get on with giving our children their childhood back.”

Ellen Roome, who believes her 14-year-old son Jools Sweeney died while attempting an online challenge, said she “fully” supports Lord Nash’s amendment.

She said: “This is about protecting children before harm happens. Right now, the systems in place are not strong enough to keep young people safe online, and families are being left to carry that burden alone.

“Lord Nash’s amendment is a crucial step towards shifting that responsibility where it belongs. It strengthens protections, demands greater accountability from technology companies, and recognises that children’s safety must come before profit.

“This is not about party politics. It is about putting meaningful safeguards in place to prevent harm and to give children the safe online environment they deserve.

“I fully support this amendment and urge Lords to back it. The Government need to act now and not kick the can down the road whilst children continue to be harmed or indeed die from social media harms.”

‘Healthy relationship’

A Government spokesperson said: “We’ve been clear that we will take action to make sure children have a healthy relationship with mobile phones and social media.

“As the Technology Secretary has stressed, this isn’t a question of whether but how we will act.

“This is a complex issue with no single right answer. That’s why we have launched a consultation looking at everything from age limits and safer design features to a social media ban, as well as pilots with hundreds of UK families, to ensure we take the best approach, based on the latest evidence.”