MPs reject under‑16s social media ban

Published: 10 March 2026

The English Chronicle Desk

The English Chronicle Online — UK News

The House of Commons has rejected proposals for an outright ban on social media use by under‑16s, instead backing a more flexible system of ministerial powers that could restrict or limit children’s access to harmful online features. The decision, taken after hours of debate on Monday, marks a significant moment in the UK’s ongoing struggle to balance child protection with digital freedoms.

The proposal for a blanket ban had been inspired by Australia, which last year became the first country to prohibit children under 16 from using platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat. The idea gained traction in the UK after peers in the House of Lords supported similar measures in January, with high‑profile figures including actor Hugh Grant lending their voices to the campaign.

But critics, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), warned that a blanket ban could backfire, driving young people into darker, less regulated corners of the internet. The father of Molly Russell — the 14‑year‑old who took her own life after viewing harmful content online — also opposed the ban, arguing that enforcement of existing laws would be more effective.

Education minister Olivia Bailey urged MPs to reject the Lords’ amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, arguing that flexibility was essential. “Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban,” she 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.”

Instead, Bailey outlined a new consultation launched by the government to gather views on how best to protect children online. The consultation will examine whether platforms should impose stricter age requirements, disable addictive features such as autoplay, and limit children’s use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which can bypass age restrictions.

Under Bailey’s plan, Science Secretary Liz Kendall will be given powers to restrict or ban children of certain ages from accessing social media services and chatbots. She will also be able to limit access to specific features deemed harmful or addictive, and adjust the UK’s age of digital consent.

MPs voted 307 to 173 against the Lords’ proposal for an outright ban, instead supporting Bailey’s flexible approach. More than 100 Labour MPs abstained, reflecting divisions within the party.

North Somerset MP Sadik Al‑Hassan, a pharmacist, argued passionately for stronger action. “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. “If a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78%, it would be withdrawn, reformulated or placed behind a counter with strict controls. We would act, because that is what the evidence demanded. The same logic must apply here.”

The Liberal Democrats condemned the government’s refusal to commit to a ban. 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.”

Wilson’s comments reflect wider frustration among campaigners who believe the government has been too slow to act on online harms, despite years of warnings from charities, parents, and coroners investigating child deaths linked to social media.

Supporters of Bailey’s approach argue that flexibility allows ministers to respond to emerging risks without imposing a one‑size‑fits‑all ban. They note that children’s online experiences vary widely, and that some platforms provide educational and social benefits when used responsibly.

They also point out that enforcement of a blanket ban would be difficult, given the ease with which children can access platforms through VPNs or borrowed devices. Instead, they argue, targeted restrictions on harmful features — such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmic recommendations — could reduce risks while preserving positive aspects of online engagement.

The government’s consultation will run for three months, seeking input from parents, teachers, charities, and technology companies. Key questions include:

Should platforms impose stricter minimum age requirements?

Should addictive features such as autoplay be disabled for children?

Should ministers have powers to restrict VPN use among under‑16s?

Should the age of digital consent in the UK be raised?

The outcome of the consultation will shape future legislation, with ministers promising to act swiftly once responses are analysed.

The UK is not alone in grappling with the issue. Australia’s ban has drawn international attention, with some praising its boldness and others questioning its practicality. In the US, several states are considering similar measures, while France has introduced laws requiring parental consent for under‑15s to join social media platforms.

The debate reflects growing global concern about the impact of social media on children’s mental health, with studies linking excessive use to anxiety, depression, and sleep disruption. Campaigners argue that governments must act decisively to protect young people, while tech companies insist they are improving safety features and parental controls.

For now, the UK has rejected a blanket ban, opting instead for a more nuanced approach. But the issue is far from settled. The consultation could lead to significant restrictions, and ministers have left the door open to future bans if evidence demands it.

Parents, charities, and campaigners will be watching closely to see whether the government delivers meaningful change or simply delays action. For families struggling with the daily challenges of managing children’s online lives, the stakes could not be higher.

Read More At>>