House of Lords votes to ban social media for under-16s

The UK House of Lords has voted 261-150 to amend the children's wellbeing and schools bill, requiring social media platforms to implement age verification to block under-16s within a year. The move follows Australia's recent legislation and comes as the government launches a three-month consultation on online child safety, though peers argue the evidence already exists and delay is dangerous.

The House of Lords has voted decisively to impose a social media ban on British children under 16, pushing the UK closer to following Australia's controversial lead in restricting youth access to platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat.

In a Wednesday evening vote, peers backed an amendment to the children's wellbeing and schools bill by 261 to 150. The amendment, introduced by Conservative life peer Baron John Nash, would require social media services to implement robust age verification systems within 12 months to block under-16s entirely. It also mandates the chief medical officers to publish guidance for parents on children's social media use.

The bill now returns to the House of Commons, where MPs could vote to remove the amendment. However, the government appears to be preparing alternative routes to achieve the same goal.

Government Position Shifts

The Lords vote came just one day after technology minister Liz Kendall told the Commons the government would "look closely at the experience in Australia" and launched a three-month public consultation on keeping children safe online. The consultation will examine both a potential under-16 ban and raising the "digital age of consent" from 13 to 16.

Reports suggest the government may offer MPs a compromise: using secondary legislation powers under existing bills rather than requiring new primary legislation. This would allow a ban to be introduced much faster through statutory instruments, bypassing lengthy parliamentary scrutiny.

"Societal Catastrophe"

During the Lords debate, Baron Nash painted a grim picture of social media's impact on youth mental health and behavior.

"We face nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media," he said, citing massive increases in children contacting mental health services, rising eating disorders among 17-19 year olds, disruptive school behavior, and sexual exploitation.

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Floella Benjamin, a former children's television presenter and co-sponsor of the amendment, criticized the government's consultation as dangerous delay.

"There is no need for a consultation, which will cause even further delay. We have all the evidence we need; we have to stop this catastrophe now," she argued.

Civil Liberties Concerns

Opponents warned the ban represents overreach and attempts to scapegoat social media for complex societal problems.

Baroness Claire Fox, director of the Academy of Ideas think-tank, argued: "At this rate, all that Parliament would have to do is ban the internet for everyone and all problems would be solved. There is a danger of looking for easy answers and scapegoating social media for all society's ills."

The Open Rights Group also opposes the ban, warning it would necessitate widespread age verification across the internet, raising privacy and surveillance concerns.

Technical Implementation Questions

The amendment's requirement for age verification within a year raises significant technical challenges. Platforms would need to:

Implement robust identity verification systems that can't be easily bypassed
Handle data protection compliance under GDPR while verifying ages
Potentially require government-issued ID verification, creating privacy risks
Deal with VPNs and other circumvention methods

Australia's recent legislation, which the UK is watching closely, has already faced legal challenges. Reddit has sued the Australian government seeking exemption, arguing the ban is unworkable and violates user rights.

What Happens Next

The amendment must survive the Commons vote to become law. If MPs remove it, the government could still pursue the ban through secondary legislation or introduce new primary legislation.

The three-month consultation will gather evidence on the proposed ban and age of consent changes. However, with the Lords already having voted and peers like Baroness Benjamin demanding immediate action, the political pressure for swift implementation is mounting.

The debate highlights a fundamental tension between protecting children from potential harm and avoiding heavy-handed internet regulation that could fragment the online experience and require pervasive identity verification.