UK MPs reject under-16 social media ban, but leave room for potential sanctions

UK lawmakers have rejected a ban on social media for under-16s, but the depth of feeling on the subject means the debate is unlikely to disappear.

The ban came as proposed amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and were put forward by Conservative peer and former minister John Nash.

MPs voted 307 to 173, majority 134, against the proposed amendments late on Monday. However, a ban is not off the table following House of Commons support for the Labour government’s aim to confer additional powers to the secretary of state.

The UK’s upper chamber, the House of Lords, had backed a move to ban under-16s from social media, which has gained traction following Australia’s pioneering implementation at the end of 2025. Last week, Indonesia became the first non-Western country to announce a similar ban.

The Labour government is holding its own consultation on a potential ban, while more than 60 Labour MPs have joined the Conservative Party in support of a ban. Under the proposed amendment, companies would be required to implement highly effective age assurance to check access to online platforms.

The debate leading up to the vote has been charged, with many MPs identifying their role not only as legislators but also as parents. In addition, other MPs have spoken about strong feelings among many of the constituents they represent, who support the ban.

Speaking in the Commons on Monday evening, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, Labour MP Olivia Bailey, acknowledged the “strength of feeling” in the Houses on social media, VPNs and phones in schools.

Shadow Education Secretary, Conservative MP Laura Trott, made head-turning comments in the debate preceding the vote. “A quarter of children in primary school have seen porn, and the vast majority access it via social media,” she said. “Some 70 percent of teenagers have seen real-life violence online, while only 6 percent were looking for it. In other words, the social media algorithm deliberately serves it to them.”

The Labour government’s consultation will examine the efficacy of the Lords amendments, but will also look beyond them on a range of other issues. They will seek views on children’s use of AI chatbot services, mandatory overnight curfews, whether platforms should be forced to turn off addictive features, and whether the digital age of consent in the UK general data protection regulation should be raised from 13.

The consultation will be open until 26 May with the government’s response expected in the summer. “We are also ensuring that we can act swiftly and decisively on the outcomes of the consultation,” Bailey said.

“That is why we are proposing an amendment in lieu to allow us to act via regulation-making powers. These powers will allow the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to restrict or ban children of certain ages from accessing social media services and chatbots, limit access to specific features that are harmful or addictive on these services, age-restrict or limit children’s VPN use, and change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR if the outcomes of the consultation show that that is necessary.”

“The specific measures will be shaped by what parents, children and experts tell us, and any regulations brought forward will require a vote in both Houses of Parliament, ensuring proper scrutiny.”

During the debate, Labour MP Lola McEvoy, argued that policymakers should “age‑gate” specific online features rather than entire social media platforms. She said the concept of age‑gating social media is already outdated in schools, and that the long delay in implementing the Online Safety Act means many emerging technologies now fall outside its scope.

McEvoy added that she favors a system in which new digital functions are licensed before they reach children. She said that currently these tools are only assessed after young people have been using them for some time, leaving regulators to analyze age‑related risks retrospectively, which she described as “very backwards.”

Article Topics

age verification  |  biometrics  |  children  |  Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill  |  legislation  |  social media  |  UK digital ID