Peers are set to vote on Monday on a government amendment that could delay restrictions on children's social media access for up to three years, sparking backlash from campaigners and senior Lords figures. The amendment to the children's wellbeing and schools bill would allow ministers to wait before introducing new controls, with critics warning it risks watering down earlier promises of swift action.
The government's proposal has been met with strong opposition from campaigners and the Conservative peer Lord Nash, whose own amendment would force the government to raise the minimum age for social media access to 16 within 12 months. Peers have backed Lord Nash's proposal three times, most recently by a margin of 126 votes, but the government used its Commons majority to block the change.
Lord Nash accused the government of 'deliberate deception', arguing that the new amendment contradicts assurances that action would come quickly. 'They say they want action in months, not years. But they table amendments which propose waiting three years,' he said. 'The platforms will grow more powerful. More children will be harmed, and tragically worse.'
Campaigners echoed these concerns, with Ellen Roome, mother of Jools Sweeney who died during a suspected 'blackout challenge', calling the amendment an 'insult to every parent who has campaigned in memory of a child we have lost'. She urged parliament to reject the government's approach and back Lord Nash's amendment.
The government is expected to argue that more time is needed to consider evidence and address challenges in enforcing rules on global tech platforms. With prorogation expected within a week, Monday's vote is seen as a final opportunity for peers to force the issue back onto the political agenda.
