Lawmakers in the United Kingdom have voted against introducing an Australia-style ban that would prevent children under 16 from using social media, choosing instead to support a system that grants ministers more adaptable regulatory powers.
At the end of last year, Australia implemented a prohibition on social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat for users under the age of 16, becoming the first nation to adopt such a measure. Earlier in January, members of the House of Lords supported the idea of adopting similar rules in Britain.
Among those backing the proposal was actor Hugh Grant. However, critics including the children’s charity National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children warned that a complete ban might push young users toward less regulated and potentially more dangerous areas of the internet.
Following the vote, the Liberal Democrats argued that the government’s refusal to commit to a full ban was inadequate.
Opposition to the measure also came from the father of Molly Russell, who died by suicide at age 14 after encountering harmful online material. He said authorities should instead concentrate on enforcing existing digital safety regulations more effectively.
The proposal for a ban had been introduced as an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
During debate in the House of Commons on Monday, Education Minister Olivia Bailey urged MPs to reject the amendment and support a framework that allows more flexible controls.
Bailey noted that while many parents and advocacy groups favour a complete prohibition on social media for under-16s, some children’s organisations have cautioned that such a sweeping measure could drive young people toward unregulated online spaces or leave them ill-prepared when they eventually begin using the internet.
She explained that the government had recently launched a public consultation to gather views that will guide the next steps aimed at ensuring children develop a safer and healthier relationship with digital platforms.
The consultation will also examine whether social media services should enforce minimum age limits and whether features considered addictive such as autoplay should be disabled for younger users.
Under Bailey’s alternative proposal, the UK’s Science Secretary Liz Kendall would receive powers to block or limit access to social media platforms and chatbots for certain age groups.
The plan would also allow the government to restrict specific functions on social platforms that are deemed harmful or addictive. It could further enable authorities to control children’s use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and potentially adjust the legal age of digital consent in the UK.
Members of Parliament ultimately voted 307 to 173 against the Lords-backed amendment calling for an outright ban, instead approving Bailey’s proposal, which still leaves open the possibility of restrictions in the future.
Nevertheless, more than 100 MPs from the governing Labour Party chose to abstain from the vote. Among them was North Somerset MP Sadik Al-Hassan, who argued that if social media were treated like a drug, it would likely face strict prohibition.
Speaking during the debate, Al-Hassan said many parents feel overwhelmed in trying to manage their children’s social media use against platforms intentionally designed to keep young users engaged.
Drawing on his background as a pharmacist, he added that if a medication caused measurable harm to such a large proportion of people, regulators would remove it from the market, reformulate it, or limit access under strict supervision.
He argued that the same reasoning should apply to social media, pointing out that evidence of harm is substantial and that policymakers have the authority to intervene.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats’ education spokesperson Munira Wilson accused the government of failing to address the seriousness of the issue.
Wilson said the government’s refusal to commit to banning harmful social media use falls short of what families expect and urged ministers to ensure that the ongoing consultation does not lead to further delay in implementing protections.