UK government move to delay social media ban faces pushback in Lords

Ministers’ amendment to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill faces a rival amendment for a social media ban within 12 months. Photograph: Deborah Lee Rossiter/AlamyView image in fullscreenMinisters’ amendment to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill faces a rival amendment for a social media ban within 12 months. Photograph: Deborah Lee Rossiter/AlamySocial media banUK government move to delay social media ban faces pushback in LordsPeers and campaigners say proposal for three-year window to impose controls breaks promise of quick actionAletha Adu Political correspondentSun 26 Apr 2026 17.30 EDTSharePrefer the Guardian on GooglePeers will vote on Monday on a government move that could delay action on children’s access to social media for up to three years, which has triggered a backlash from campaigners and senior figures in the Lords.Ministers tabled an amendment to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill that would allow them to wait before introducing new restrictions, Critics warn it risks watering down earlier commitments to act within months and could result in only limited interventions such as parental controls rather than sweeping measures on access.What are the UK government’s plans to regulate social media for under-16s?Read moreCampaigners are urging the Lords to reject the government’s approach and instead back a tougher proposal led by the Tory peer John Nash. His amendment would force the government to raise the minimum age for children accessing social media platforms to 16 within 12 months.Peers have already 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, prompting its reintroduction at a critical late stage of the bill’s passage.Since the prorogation of parliament is expected in the next week, Monday’s vote will be seen as a last opportunity for peers to force the issue back on to the political agenda. If the bill does not complete its passage in time, the government risks losing it entirely.Nash, a former Conservative schools minister, accused the government of saying one thing and legislating for another, arguing the new amendment contradicted 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?“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.“As this bill reaches its final stages, let no one be in any doubt: I will not stop until we have that commitment.”Last week the singer Cheryl Tweedy publicly backed a ban for under-16s, calling platforms “addictive” and “emotionally destroying”, while tech executives denied their platforms were 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 was a test of political urgency. “It is beyond belief that the government now wants up to three years before it will act on social media,” she said.…

This excerpt is published under fair use for community discussion. Read the full article at the Guardian.