Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025
320Ayes
178Noes
Carried · majority 142 · Government won152 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 320 · No 178 · DNV 152 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 12 February 2025 to approve the Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025, passing by 320 votes to 178 in Division 100. The regulations set the user-number thresholds that determine which social media platforms and search engines fall into the strictest regulatory categories under the Online Safety Act 2023. Category 1 services, which face the most extensive duties, will include platforms with roughly 34 million average monthly active users, a level that brings sites such as Reddit within scope. The regulations matter because they define who must comply with the toughest online safety requirements, including obligations to protect children from harmful content and to give users tools to report problems. Critics argued that basing categorisation almost entirely on user numbers means smaller platforms hosting extremist, misogynistic, or other high-harm content escape the most stringent duties, leaving vulnerable users exposed. Supporters maintained that the approach is legally sound and that existing Ofcom powers can address harm on smaller services. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 310 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the regulations, as did four Democratic Unionist Party MPs and six independents. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, and Reform UK MP who voted opposed them. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The opposition's objection centred on what they described as a departure from Parliament's original intent when passing the 2023 Act, which they said allowed risk as well as size to determine categorisation.
Voting Aye meant
Support approving the threshold regulations as drafted, accepting that categorisation should be based primarily on user numbers rather than risk level, bringing major platforms like Reddit under the strictest duties
Voting No meant
Oppose the regulations as drafted, arguing they ignore Parliament's original intent to allow risk-based categorisation and leave small but dangerous platforms — particularly those hosting extremist or misogynistic content — outside the toughest regulatory tier
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
279
0
82
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
92
24
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
61
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
—
6
4
4
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
8
1
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
1
0
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Minister defended the regulations as following the Act's core requirement to consider how easily and widely content disseminates, argued the Secretary of State lacks legal power to add risk-only criteria, and emphasized Ofcom's taskforce will handle small but risky services separately.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,430 words) →
Strongly opposed the regulations as betraying Parliament's clear intent to allow functionality and risk-based categorisation; argued livestreaming and suicide forums should be category 1 to ensure child safety and safe-by-design platforms.SNP · Voted no · Read full speech (4,209 words) →
Opposed the regulations as voluntarily abandoning legal tools Parliament gave to Ofcom; argued the Act permits risk and functionality criteria alongside size, and the government is misinterpreting its own powers to the detriment of online safety.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,392 words) →
Opposed the regulations for ignoring Parliament's amendment permitting 'size or functionality' thresholds; argued the government is throwing away powers to regulate small but high-harm platforms that target vulnerable groups.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,356 words) →
Cautiously supportive, praised the Act's protections for children and proportionate categorisation but raised concerns that category 1 may omit smaller harmful platforms and requested reassurance on cost proportionality for businesses.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (914 words) →
Questioned the adequacy of protections against peer-to-peer child exploitation via livestreaming, highlighting lifelong mental health and digital footprint harms.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (122 words) →
Opposed the regulations for missing platforms promoting self-harm and targeted abuse; warned that fixed user thresholds can be gamed by services deregistering users to fall below the limit.UUP · Voted no · Read full speech (377 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0