LONDON —British lawmakers have voted against a proposal to introduce an Australia-style ban on social media for under-16sban under-16s from using social media. The Conservatives had pushed for the move via an amendment to the government’s flagship education legislation currently going through parliament: the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. A ban on sites like Tiktok, Instagram, and Snapchat was brought in for children in Australia at the end of last year — the first country to impose such a ban. Since then, other nations — including in Europe — have been flirting with the idea. The proposal had been backed by the House of Lords, but was defeated in the Commons on Monday night by 307 votes to 173. However, a ban could still materialize in the future after the Commons supported a government attempt to give additional powers to the secretary of state. Supporters include actor Hugh Grant, but critics such as children’s charity the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) warned of young people being driven to dark corners of the internet as a result. Opponents also include the father of Molly Russell, who took her own life at 14 after viewing harmful content online, who said the government should focus on robust enforcement of existing laws. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been accused of “dither and delay” by announcing the UK government will consult on a possible ban, without committing to one. In a statement after the Commons vote, the Liberal Democrats said his stance was “not good enough” and “families need concrete assurances now”. During the debate, shadow education secretary Laura Trott described the situation as an “emergency”, as she cited polling which suggested 40% of children are shown explicit content on smartphones during the school day. “No more guidance, no more consultations. Legislate, do something about it,” she said. Some 107 Labour MPs abstained on the amendment to the education bill, including Sadik Al-Hassan, who told the Commons parents were “locked in a daily battle that they simply cannot win alone, fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked”. “As a pharmacist, I know if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78%, it would be awithdrawn, reformulated or placed behind a counter with strict controls on who could access it,” Al-Hassan had said during the debate. “We would act, because that is what the evidence demanded. The same logic must apply here. “We have an identifiable source, we have overwhelming evidence of harm, and we have the power to act.” Liberal Democrat education spokesperson Munira Wilson accused the government of failing to grasp the issue. She 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.” But education minister Olivia Bailey cited concerns from children’s charities that an outright ban on under-16s using social media could drive them towards “less regulated corners of the internet”, or leave them “unprepared” for how to navigate the online world. She said the government’s consultation would “seek views to help shape our next steps” — which could ultimately still include banning children from platforms like Instagram and TikTok. One measure MPs did back on Monday was to grant additional powers to the technology secretary, Liz Kendall, to potentially introduce such a ban in future. She could also limit children’s use of VPNs and restrict access to addictive features of apps like autoplay videos. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will now return to the House of Lords to be further considered by peers. Lord Nash, the Conservative who proposed the amendment, has vowed to try to have it passed again. He said there’s “huge demand across the country to raise the age limit and protect children”. The bill will only become law if both Houses agree the final draft. — AgenciesLONDON —British lawmakers have voted against a proposal to introduce an Australia-style ban on social media for under-16sban under-16s from using social media. The Conservatives had pushed for the move via an amendment to the government’s flagship education legislation currently going through parliament: the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. A ban on sites like Tiktok, Instagram, and Snapchat was brought in for children in Australia at the end of last year — the first country to impose such a ban. Since then, other nations — including in Europe — have been flirting with the idea. The proposal had been backed by the House of Lords, but was defeated in the Commons on Monday night by 307 votes to 173. However, a ban could still materialize in the future after the Commons supported a government attempt to give additional powers to the secretary of state. Supporters include actor Hugh Grant, but critics such as children’s charity the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) warned of young people being driven to dark corners of the internet as a result. Opponents also include the father of Molly Russell, who took her own life at 14 after viewing harmful content online, who said the government should focus on robust enforcement of existing laws. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been accused of “dither and delay” by announcing the UK government will consult on a possible ban, without committing to one. In a statement after the Commons vote, the Liberal Democrats said his stance was “not good enough” and “families need concrete assurances now”. During the debate, shadow education secretary Laura Trott described the situation as an “emergency”, as she cited polling which suggested 40% of children are shown explicit content on smartphones during the school day. “No more guidance, no more consultations. Legislate, do something about it,” she said. Some 107 Labour MPs abstained on the amendment to the education bill, including Sadik Al-Hassan, who told the Commons parents were “locked in a daily battle that they simply cannot win alone, fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked”. “As a pharmacist, I know if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78%, it would be awithdrawn, reformulated or placed behind a counter with strict controls on who could access it,” Al-Hassan had said during the debate. “We would act, because that is what the evidence demanded. The same logic must apply here. “We have an identifiable source, we have overwhelming evidence of harm, and we have the power to act.” Liberal Democrat education spokesperson Munira Wilson accused the government of failing to grasp the issue. She 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.” But education minister Olivia Bailey cited concerns from children’s charities that an outright ban on under-16s using social media could drive them towards “less regulated corners of the internet”, or leave them “unprepared” for how to navigate the online world. She said the government’s consultation would “seek views to help shape our next steps” — which could ultimately still include banning children from platforms like Instagram and TikTok. One measure MPs did back on Monday was to grant additional powers to the technology secretary, Liz Kendall, to potentially introduce such a ban in future. She could also limit children’s use of VPNs and restrict access to addictive features of apps like autoplay videos. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will now return to the House of Lords to be further considered by peers. Lord Nash, the Conservative who proposed the amendment, has vowed to try to have it passed again. He said there’s “huge demand across the country to raise the age limit and protect children”. The bill will only become law if both Houses agree the final draft. — Agencies
