MPs reject call for under-16s social media ban, backing more flexible powers

MPs reject Australia-style social media ban for under-16s, favoring flexible regulations

Members of Parliament (MPs) have turned down a proposal to ban social media for children under 16, opting instead for more adaptable government controls. The idea, inspired by Australia’s recent implementation of a similar restriction, had previously gained support from the House of Lords in January. However, it faced criticism from various groups, including children’s charities, who argued that such a measure might push young users toward unregulated online spaces.

While some, like actor Hugh Grant, backed the ban, others raised concerns about its potential impact. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), for instance, warned that a strict prohibition could leave teenagers vulnerable to exposure on less monitored platforms. The Conservatives framed the issue as an urgent matter, urging swift legislative action to shield children from online dangers.

“Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s,” said Education Minister Olivia Bailey. “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.”

Bailey’s alternative plan focuses on empowering Science Secretary Liz Kendall to restrict or limit access for certain age groups, as well as to target specific harmful features on social media platforms. This includes the possibility of regulating addictive elements like autoplay and adjusting the UK’s digital consent age. The proposal aims to create a safer online environment without imposing a universal ban.

During the debate, Liberal Democrats criticized the government’s approach, stating that it lacked sufficient commitment to the issue. Munira Wilson, the party’s education spokesperson, called the decision “simply not good enough,” emphasizing the need for concrete measures to protect families. Meanwhile, the father of Molly Russell, a 14-year-old who took her own life after encountering distressing online content, argued for stricter enforcement of current laws rather than new restrictions.

The vote in the Commons saw 307 MPs opposing the Lords’ proposal for a full ban, while 173 supported it. Over 100 Labour MPs chose to abstain, including Sadik Al-Hassan of North Somerset, who likened social media to a drug. “If a substance caused such measurable harm for 78%, it would be withdrawn, reformulated, or placed behind a counter with strict controls,” Al-Hassan asserted. “We have an identifiable source, overwhelming evidence of harm, and the power to act.”

Conservative Lord Nash, who introduced the amendment in the Lords, expressed disappointment with the Commons’ decision. “MPs have chosen to gamble on a process which may lead to half measures,” he said, vowing to work with peers to push for the amendment’s revival. The consultation process, launched by the government, now seeks input on potential solutions such as age verification for platforms and reduced exposure to addictive content.