MPs Vote Down Social Media Ban for Under-16s

Parliament has rejected a proposal to ban children under 16 from using social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat, though ministers have been handed new powers that could still lead to restrictions down the line.

MPs voted 307 to 173 against the amendment on Monday night, which had previously been backed by the House of Lords and championed by Conservative peer Lord Nash. Over 100 Labour MPs chose to abstain.

Instead of an outright ban, the Commons backed a government plan giving Science Secretary Liz Kendall the power to restrict or ban children from accessing social media and chatbots, limit their use of VPNs to get around any restrictions, cap addictive features like autoplay videos, and change the age of digital consent in the UK. A consultation launched last week will also examine whether platforms should carry a minimum age requirement.

Education minister Olivia Bailey argued against a blanket ban, saying that children's charities had warned it could push young people towards "less regulated corners of the internet" or leave teenagers "unprepared when they do come online." She said the consultation would "seek views to help shape our next steps and ensure children can grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world."

However, critics aren't buying it. Shadow education secretary Laura Trott called the situation an "emergency," referencing polling that suggests that 40% of children are shown explicit content on their phones during the school day. "No more guidance, no more consultations. Legislate, do something about it," she said.

Among Labour's abstainers was Sadik Al-Hassan, who drew on his background as a pharmacist: "As a pharmacist, I know if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78%, it would be withdrawn, reformulated or placed behind a counter with strict controls on who could access it. We would act, because that is what the evidence demanded. The same logic must apply here."

The Lib Dems have accused the government of failing families. Education spokesperson Munira Wilson said: "The government's failure to commit to a ban on harmful social media is simply not good enough – families need concrete assurances now. We need the government to confirm that their consultation will not result in yet more dither and delay."

Lord Nash, whose amendment was defeated, called the result "deeply disappointing" and said MPs had "chosen to gamble on a process which may lead to half measures." He pledged to revive the amendment when the bill returns to the House of Lords, which it now must, since both Houses need to agree on a final version before it becomes law.

The bill has broader child safety provisions beyond social media, including a requirement for councils to assess a child's home environment within 15 days of them appearing on a register of children not in school, which was introduced in response to the 2023 murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and stepmother in Woking, Surrey.

The push for a social media age limit has gained momentum since Australia became the first country to enforce one in December. Actor Hugh Grant has publicly backed a ban, while the NSPCC has urged caution. Ian Russell, father of Molly Russell who took her own life at 14 after viewing harmful content online, has said the focus should be on properly enforcing the laws already on the books.