MPs have voted against a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media for the second time, as the prime minister summoned tech bosses to demand tougher action on internet safety.
The House of Commons rejected a Lords amendment to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill that imposed a new age limit on using social media platforms, amid pressure from parents and campaign groups for greater urgency in tackling online harms.
They voted by 256 to 150, a majority of 106, against a change to the bill brought by the Conservative peer Lord Nash .
However, MPs also passed a Labour amendment giving the government extra powers to implement age curbs once it has finished its own consultation into an under-16s ban, which closes next month. The Nash amendment had attempted to expedite that process with a default ban, giving ministers 12 months to decide which platforms should be barred.
“Instead of the narrow amendment proposed in the House of Lords, our consultation allows us to address a much wider range of services and features,” said Olivia Bailey, the government’s early education minister. “It also allows us to consider the different views about the way to move forward and that’s why it’s crucial that we do not pre-empt the government’s consultation.”
Laura Trott, the Conservative shadow education secretary, said: “I will keep fighting until the government offers a ban on social media on the face of the bill.”
As well as considering raising the age limit on social media from 13 to 16, the government consultation is looking at addressing the addictive nature of social media platforms by restricting features such as infinite scrolling.
Keir Starmer is preparing to meet senior leaders at the social media companies TikTok, X, YouTube, Snapchat and Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, to demand swifter progress on internet safety.
Speaking before the meeting scheduled for Thursday, Starmer said: “Parents rightly expect action and fast. That’s why we’ve already taken the powers needed to move quickly once our consultation ends. I will take whatever steps necessary to keep children safe online. Today is about making sure social media companies step up and take responsibility.”
The Molly Rose Foundation (MRF), an internet safety charity, said the solution was not a ban but a commitment to strengthening the online safety act.
“It’s time to look beyond this false sense of safety and for the prime minister to decisively commit to strengthening regulation to make unsafe and addictive design a thing of the past,” said Andy Burrows, MRF’s chief executive.
At Downing Street before the vote, bereaved parents and campaigners delivered a letter to the prime minister urging the government to restrict social media access for under-16s, introduce a ban on phones in schools and prohibit “addictive” social media features such as infinite scrolling and auto-play.
Esther Ghey, mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, said the government consultation was “delaying” action against online harms. “We know that social media is addictive, we know about the things young people are accessing online,” she said. “We know that young people are losing their lives. We know that tech companies have billions of pounds, and while this consultation is running, they will be putting money into lobbying the government. I really hope they listen to other parents.”
Ghey added: “Brianna was extremely isolated. This is because of the people she was talking to online and the people that were doing her harm. One of the arguments against the social media ban is that vulnerable, particularly LGBT youth, find their community online, whereas Brianna didn’t.
“We have an LGBT youth support group, and she went there a couple of times and refused to engage. Then, she went back home and on to her phone, back to the people that were doing her harm in the first place. I think that if she wasn’t on social media, she would have engaged far more in the real world. And that would have done her mental health wonders.”
“There needs to be some kind of accountability for what they’re doing to our children,” said Stuart Stephens, father of 13-year-old Olly Stephens. In January 2021, his son was lured to a field by a girl and fatally stabbed by two boys. “We were very naive and we believed these companies had a duty of care. I don’t think any child should be on social media under the age of 16 because their brains are not fully developed enough to deal with that.”
Louise Gibson lost her 11-year-old son, Noah, in December 2021, to what she believes was a social media challenge. She said she remained “hopeful” the Lords’ amendments will be accepted.
Ellen Roome, along with Gibson and three other parents, are suing TikTok in Delaware after the deaths of their children. She said: “My son Jools died four years ago this week, and I believe it was because of social media. It feels like we’re gaining momentum and moving forward.
“We just need the government to catch up. We’ve given technology companies the chance to actually change and they have chosen not to do enough. We now need the government to say ‘enough’, to take it away from them.”
