Why is Labour facing defeat over a social media ban for children?

Even in these turbulent times, it is highly unusual for a vote in the unelected House of Lords to push the House of Commons into defeating a government bill, but the controversial question of banning under-16s from social media has brought such a prospect into view.

Rather suddenly, the question seems to be when and how such restrictions will be introduced, rather than whether they are needed at all. A ban will be perceived in some quarters as yet another government policy flip-flop, affecting millions of families. It also tells us something about the state of politics.

Labour’s fairly uncontroversial Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill is quietly winding its way through parliament, but it has been ambushed. A determined effort by Tory peers and some Labour rebels saw an amendment inserted that would require social media companies to ban children under 16 from using their platforms. If adopted, it would require social media sites to introduce “highly effective” age checks within 12 months of the bill becoming law.

In principle, that would be the normal course of action when a bill returns to the House of Commons, especially given Labour’s substantial working majority of almost 150. However, another Labour backbench rebellion is being organised by some of the same people who forced a government retreat on welfare reform last year. They’ve already gone public, with the publication of an open letter to the prime minister calling for an under-16s ban, signed by 60 Labour MPs. The Conservatives want an immediate ban, and the official policy of the Liberal Democrats is the same.

Labour’s other problem is that it cannot say its current policy – of no immediate ban – is backed by a clear manifesto commitment. Its pre-election document stated only: “Children and young people face significant harm online, with inappropriate content too easily available at their fingertips on a smartphone… Labour will build on the Online Safety Act, bringing forward provisions as quickly as possible, and explore further measures to keep everyone safe online, particularly when using social media.” So a defeat is perfectly possible.

To pause and see how things are going in Australia, which introduced such a ban in December. Keir Starmer is said to be “open to”, or even “in favour of” a ban in principle, but sceptical about the practicalities. Lisa Nandy, culture secretary, has warned of “real concerns raised by the NSPCC and others about whether it pushes children to darker, less regulated places on the internet”. Technology secretary Liz Kendall has announced a “swift” three-month public consultation on the question, but this won’t be able to fully take into account the Australian experience. So the government would like to buy time, but the opposition parties and Labour rebels want immediate action.

A compromise in which the bill is passed as originally drafted, without a ban, but with some mechanism to introduce a ban at some point later. Of course, the obvious question is why the Bill was brought prior to a public consultation (which could have been launched shortly after Labour came to power).

An actual defeat in the Commons, or withdrawing the bill, would be seen as a setback for Starmer and Kendall and a bonus for Kemi Badenoch – who has been vocal on the issue, allied to her campaign to ban smartphones in schools. By some counts, it would be the government’s 14th U-turn in about 18 months. On the other hand, there’s also the danger that another tragic suicide of a teenager from online bullying will be blamed on ministers’ failure to act.

Parents and experts vary on the merits and practicalities of a ban, but there’s no doubt it’s a popular policy. A YouGov poll in December suggested 74 per cent of people “supported” or “strongly supported” a ban, with only 19 per cent opposed. Teachers, a sizeable pressure group within Labour, also want it. It seems a ban is on the way, so why has the government and Starmer landed on the wrong side of public sentiment once again?