UK MPs Reject Under-16 Social Media Ban but Approve Flexible Government Powers

Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom have rejected a proposal to impose an Australia-style ban on social media for children under 16, instead backing plans that would give ministers broader and more flexible powers to regulate young people’s access online.

The proposed ban targeted platforms such as TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. Australia introduced a similar nationwide ban for under-16s late last year, becoming the first country to adopt such a restriction. In January, peers in the House of Lords also expressed support for similar action in the UK.

Supporters of a ban included actor Hugh Grant. However, critics such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) warned that an outright prohibition could push young people toward less regulated and potentially more dangerous parts of the internet.

The Conservative Party (UK) argued that the situation amounted to an “emergency” and called for legislation to protect children online. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats (UK) said the government’s refusal to commit to a ban was “simply not good enough”.

Opposition also came from the father of Molly Russell, the teenager who died at the age of 14 after viewing harmful online content. He argued that authorities should prioritise stricter enforcement of existing online safety laws rather than introducing a blanket ban.

The proposal for a social media ban had been introduced as an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

However, during a debate in the House of Commons on Monday, Education Minister Olivia Bailey urged MPs to reject the measure and support a more adaptable regulatory approach.

“Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s,” Bailey said.

“Others, including children’s charities, have warned that a blanket ban could drive children towards less regulated corners of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared when they do come online.”

She noted that the government has launched a consultation to gather public views on how best to ensure children develop a “safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world.”

The consultation will explore options such as introducing a minimum age requirement for social media platforms and disabling potentially addictive features like autoplay.

Under the government’s alternative plan, Liz Kendall, the UK’s Science Secretary, would be granted powers to restrict or ban access to social media and chatbots for children of certain ages. The powers could also be used to limit harmful or addictive features on platforms.

In addition, Kendall could be authorised to restrict children’s use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and review the country’s digital consent age.

Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott from the Conservative Party pressed the government to impose stricter measures, including a clear age limit for social media use and a ban on mobile phones in schools.

She said research suggests “40% of children are shown explicit content during the school day”, adding: “That’s happening right now. This is an emergency. No more guidance, no more consultations. Legislate, do something about it.”

In the final vote, MPs rejected the House of Lords proposal for a blanket ban by 307 votes to 173, while backing Bailey’s plan, which leaves open the possibility of targeted restrictions in the future.

More than 100 MPs from the governing Labour Party (UK) abstained during the vote, including Sadik Al-Hassan, MP for North Somerset.

Speaking during the debate, Al-Hassan compared the potential harms of social media to dangerous medicines.

“Parents like me are locked in a daily battle that they simply cannot win alone, fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked,” he said.

“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.”