UK government move to delay social media ban faces pushback in Lords | Social media ban
Peers will vote on Monday on a government move that could delay action on children’s access to social media by up to three years, triggering a backlash from campaigners and senior figures in the Lords.
Ministers tabled an amendment to the bill on child welfare and schools that would allow them to wait before new restrictions are imposed on them; Critics have warned this risks diluting earlier commitments to take action within months and could result in only limited interventions such as parental controls rather than comprehensive measures on access.
Campaigners are urging the Lords to reject the government’s approach and instead support a tougher proposal led by Tory MP John Nash. The change will force the government to raise the minimum age for children to access social media platforms to 16 within 12 months.
Members of the group have already supported Lord Nash’s proposal three times; the last one by 126 votes. But the government used its Commons majority to block the amendment, leading to the bill being reintroduced at a critical late stage in its passage.
With parliament expected to be dissolved next week, Monday’s vote will be seen as the last opportunity for colleagues to put the issue back on the political agenda. If the bill is not passed in time, the government risks losing it altogether.
Former Conservative schools minister Nash accused the government of saying one thing and legislating for another, arguing the new change contradicted assurances that action would come quickly.
“It is difficult to see the government’s conduct as anything other than deliberate deception,” Nash said. “They say they want action to be taken within months, not years. But they present amendment proposals that require waiting for three years. What will change after three years?”
“The platforms will become even stronger. More children will be harmed and, tragically, it will get worse. This is not a serious proposal and parliament should not treat it as a single proposal. Instead, today parliament has one last chance to reject the government’s shamefully inadequate approach and vote on my amendment, which sets out a commitment to raising the age to 16 in the face of the bill.”
“As this bill reaches its final stages, no one should have any doubt: I will not stop until we deliver on this commitment.”
Last week, singer Cheryl Tweedy publicly backed a ban on under-16s, calling the platforms “addictive” and “emotionally devastating”, while tech executives denied the platforms were addictive for children.
Campaigners echoed Nash’s criticism. Ellen Roome, the grieving mother of Jools Sweeney, who died during a suspected “passing out struggle”, said the issue was a test of political urgency. “It is beyond belief that the government is now asking for up to three years before taking action on social media,” he said. “Worse still, their ‘actions’ may mean as little as parental controls.
“This change is an insult to every parent who campaigns in memory of a child we lost so that other families do not have to go through what we went through. How many more children will be harmed every day by the destructive effects of social media?”
He added: “How many more children are we going to lose when the Prime Minister is giving himself the option of doing next to nothing? How does all this tie into the language we’ve been given – that it would be months, not years, before we act?”
“Tomorrow parliament has one last chance to reject this charade and vote on Lord Nash’s amendment to raise the age limit for harmful social media to 16 within 12 months. Please, I beg them, do it now.”
The government is expected to argue that much more time is needed to consider the evidence, especially given the difficulties of enforcing rules on global technology platforms.
