The UK government's move to delay a social media ban for children faces a significant challenge in the House of Lords on Monday, as peers prepare to vote on an amendment that could postpone action for up to three years. This proposal has drawn sharp criticism from campaigners and senior figures, who argue it breaks a promise of swift action.
Government Amendment Sparks Controversy
Ministers have tabled an amendment to the children's wellbeing and schools bill that would allow a three-year window before introducing new restrictions on children's access to social media. Critics warn this could dilute earlier commitments to act within months and may result in only limited measures, such as parental controls, rather than comprehensive access restrictions.
Campaigners urge the Lords to reject the government's approach and support a tougher alternative proposed by Conservative peer Lord John Nash. His amendment would compel the government to raise the minimum age for accessing social media platforms to 16 within 12 months.
Lord Nash's Amendment Gains Support
Peers have already backed Lord Nash's proposal three times, most recently by a margin of 126 votes. However, the government used its Commons majority to block the change, leading to its reintroduction at a critical late stage of the bill's passage. With prorogation expected next week, Monday's vote is seen as the last chance for peers to force the issue back onto the political agenda. If the bill does not complete its passage in time, the government risks losing it entirely.
Lord Nash, a former Conservative schools minister, accused the government of saying one thing and legislating for another. He argued that the new amendment contradicts assurances that action would come quickly. "It is hard to see the government's position as anything other than deliberate deception," Nash said. "They say they want action in months, not years. But they table amendments which propose waiting three years. What will change in three years?"
He added: "The platforms will grow more powerful. More children will be harmed, and tragically worse. This is not a serious proposal, and parliament should not treat it as one. Instead, today, parliament has a final chance to reject the government's shamefully inadequate approach and vote for my amendment, which would put a commitment to raising the age to 16 on the face of the bill."
Campaigners and Public Figures Speak Out
Last week, singer Cheryl Tweedy publicly supported a ban for under-16s, calling platforms "addictive" and "emotionally destroying." Meanwhile, tech executives denied their platforms are addictive to children. Campaigners have echoed Nash's criticism. Ellen Roome, the bereaved mother of Jools Sweeney, who died during a suspected "blackout challenge," said the issue tests political urgency. "It is beyond belief that the government now wants up to three years before it will act on social media," she said. "And worse still, their 'action' could mean as little as parental controls."
Roome added: "This amendment is an insult to every parent who has campaigned in memory of a child we have lost, so that other families do not have to go through what we have. How many more children will be harmed every day by the catastrophic effects of social media?" She implored parliament to reject the government's proposal and vote for Lord Nash's amendment, which would raise the age limit for harmful social media to 16 within 12 months.
Government's Position
The government is expected to argue that more time is needed to consider the evidence, particularly given the challenges of enforcing rules on global tech platforms. However, critics maintain that the delay undermines the urgency of protecting children from online harms.
