MPs rejected a ban on social media for children under 16 tonight, voting 307 to 173 against an amendment that had passed the House of Lords in January. It sounds like a defeat for child safety campaigners. In practice, it is more complicated than that, and what happened next matters more than the vote itself.

How we got here

In January, the House of Lords voted 261 to 150 to add a social media ban for under-16s to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, handing the government a significant defeat. The amendment, led by Conservative former schools minister Lord Nash with cross-party support, would have required social media platforms to introduce age verification within 12 months of the bill becoming law.

The government opposed it. Instead, ministers launched a three-month public consultation on children’s social media use, opening on 2 March and running until 26 May, and tabled their own alternative amendment. Tonight, the House of Commons had to decide which version of the bill to accept.

What MPs actually voted on

Two things were on the table. First, whether to accept Lord Nash’s amendment and lock in a ban. Second, whether to accept the government’s alternative, which does not mandate a ban but gives the Science Secretary broad new powers to act quickly if the consultation recommends it.

MPs voted against the Lords’ ban 307 to 173. But they then supported the government’s amendment, which gives Science Secretary Liz Kendall the power to restrict or ban children’s access to social media, chatbots, addictive features, and VPN use, without needing to pass new primary legislation. That last part matters. It means if the government decides to act after the consultation closes in May, it can move fast.

Why the government opposed an outright ban

Ministers argued a blanket ban could drive teenagers into less regulated corners of the internet. The NSPCC shared that concern. Critics on the other side, including Lord Nash, who called tonight’s vote “deeply disappointing,” argued that no ban means no protection, and that a consultation with no fixed outcome and no timeline is a way of not acting while appearing to act. Around 107 Labour MPs abstained rather than vote with their own government, a significant signal of where backbench opinion sits.

What has actually changed

Before tonight, the government had no fast-track mechanism to restrict social media access for children. Now it does. Whether Liz Kendall uses those powers depends on what the consultation concludes and what political pressure looks like over the next three months.

Lord Nash has already pledged to bring the amendment back in the Lords, and the bill now enters what is called “ping pong,” moving back and forth between the two chambers until both agree on identical wording. That process could take weeks. With 107 Labour MPs abstaining rather than supporting the government, ministers will want to avoid a prolonged fight.

Where the consultation stands

The government’s consultation runs until 26 May and covers several specific questions: whether there should be a minimum age requirement for social media, whether platforms should be required to switch off algorithmically-driven features including autoplay, whether the digital age of consent should rise from 13 to 16, and whether children should be restricted from using VPNs to access blocked content.

Parents, young people, schools, and civil society can all submit views at gov.uk. If you are in the UK, your response genuinely counts.

What other countries are doing

The UK vote happened against a backdrop of rapid global movement. Australia banned social media for under-16s in December 2025, with 4.7 million accounts removed in the first week. France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Malaysia, and Indonesia have all announced plans for restrictions. The UK government has said it will study Australia’s approach carefully.

The argument that “it cannot be done” is harder to make now that it demonstrably has been done, even if questions remain about effectiveness.

What this means for parents in the UK

No ban is coming imminently. The consultation runs until May, and any action after that will depend on the government choosing to use its new powers. The most likely path is that if the consultation produces a clear case for a ban, ministers act via secondary legislation before the end of the year.

For now, nothing has changed about what platforms are legally required to do. The Online Safety Act already requires platforms to enforce their own age limits and protect children from harmful content. Ofcom is actively enforcing those obligations.

The political will to act is real, the legal powers to do so quickly now exist, and the evidence from Australia is accumulating. Whether the UK government uses those powers is the question the next three months will answer.

Sources

• UK Parliament vote result, 9 March 2026: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/mps-vote-reject-social-media-220240669.html
• House of Commons Library briefing: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10468/
• LBC reporting: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/mps-reject-proposed-ban-on-social-media-for-under-16s-5HjdW7L_2/
• UK Government consultation (open until 26 May): https://www.gov.uk