The MPs have opposed an Australia-style ban on social media under-16s, and have supported a flexible ministerial authority.

MPs reject call for under-16s social media ban, backing more flexible powers https://t.co/OkX8kW8Jfq

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) March 10, 2026

The end of last year introduced a ban on children in Australia on the use of sites such as TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat, the first country to do so, and related proposals were supported in the House of Lords in January.

It has also had its supporters, like actor Hugh Grant, but critics like the children’s charity National Society to Prevent Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) cautioned that youngsters would be tempted to go to the darker sides of the internet because of it.

According to the Conservatives, it was an “emergency,” and the legislature should be enacted by the ministers to save the children.

In reaction to the finding, the Liberal Democrats indicated that it was “not enough” to fail to pledge a ban.

Others who also oppose it are the father of Molly Russell, who committed suicide at the age of 14 after reading harmful content online, who claimed that the government should instead concentrate on the effective implementation of the existing laws.

As proposed amendments to the Children Wellbeing and Schools bill, plans to ban were proposed.

However, on Monday, the education minister, Olivia Bailey, urged the MPs to reject the change and advocate for more flexible restrictions in the Commons.

She said, ”a blanket ban on social media has been demanded by many parents and campaign groups for the under-16s.”

“Others, such as children’s charities, have also cautioned that children would be drawn to less regulated parts of the internet or that the teenagers would not be well prepared to go on the internet, should they go on.”

“This is why the government has already initiated a consultation to capture opinions in order to inform our next move and make sure that children are able to grow up with a safer, healthier, and more enriching interaction with the online world.”

The consultation will also consider the possibility of placing an age restriction on the use of social media sites, and the sites should turn off addictive functions like autoplay.

The alternative plan presented by Bailey will provide Science Secretary Liz Kendall with the ability to limit or prohibit the access of social media services and chatbots by children of a specified age.

Kendall will be able to block access to social media to “certain features that are harmful or addictive” too, and may also “block or limit the use of the Virtual Private Network (VPN) to children and the case of digital consent age in the UK.”

Conservative shadow education secretary Laura Trott urged the government to impose an age restriction on the use of social media and also introduce a phone ban in schools.

She claimed that according to polls, 40 per cent of kids are exposed to explicit material at school, “That is what is being done to kids right now. This is an emergency. There will be no more advice, no more consultations. Pass the law, take action about it.”

The Lord’s proposal of an outright ban was defeated by a vote of 307 to 173 by MPs, and Bailey was supported in his bid, which kept the door open to some sort of ban.

Over 100 Labour MPs had abstained, including Sadik Al-Hassan of North Somerset, who told the house that if social media were a drug, it would be prohibited.

In the debate, he said: “Parents like me are in a daily war which they cannot possibly win on their own, a war against platforms carefully engineered to hold children addicted.”

“As a pharmacist, what I understand is that once a drug is causing such quantifiable harm to 78 per cent of the patients, it would be recalled, redeveloped or be placed behind a counter with limited access to the drug.”

“Reason would do it, since it was required by evidence. The same reasoning should be true here.”

“We have a knowledgeable source, we have overwhelming evidence of harm, and we can do something about it.”

Lord Nash, a conservative former education minister, who introduced the amendment at the Lords to stop the under-16s using social media, said that the “outcome of the vote in the Commons was very disappointing.”

He claimed that the MPs had opted to roll the dice on a procedure that could result in half-baked measures, and said he would join peers in trying to do everything that is possible to bring to life the amendment.

Education spokesperson of the Liberal Democrats, Munira Wilson, accused the government of not understanding the problem.

She said: “The lack of a promise by the government to ban potentially harmful social media is simply not satisfactory – families should be given tangible promises at this point.”

“Their consultation must not lead to further dither and delay, so we need the government to assure us of that.”