Opposition Day: Protections for children from online harms
69Ayes
279Noes
Defeated · majority 210 · Government won297 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 69 · No 279 · DNV 297 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on 24 February 2026 on a Conservative opposition day motion calling on the government to take stronger or faster action to protect children from online harms. The motion was defeated by 279 votes to 69. Opposition day motions are non-binding parliamentary tools used by parties out of government to force a debate and a vote on a chosen topic. The vote does not change law or government policy. Because opposition day motions are not legislation, the result carries no direct legal effect. However, the debate gives opposition parties a platform to press the government on whether its existing framework, centred on the Online Safety Act, is moving quickly enough to protect children online. The outcome reflects the government's judgment that its current approach is adequate. The Conservative motion drew support from the Liberal Democrats (58 ayes), the Scottish National Party (5 ayes), Plaid Cymru (4 ayes), and smaller parties including the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and one member from Your Party. Labour and Labour and Co-operative members provided the bulk of the no votes, with 246 and 28 respectively, and were joined by the Democratic Unionist Party (4 noes) and Traditional Unionist Voice (1 no). Three independents also voted no. The Conservatives, who tabled the motion, recorded no votes in the data provided, suggesting their members either acted as tellers or have no vote recorded; the aye total of 69 is accounted for by the parties listed above. This pattern, where the government defeats an opposition motion with its own majority while smaller opposition parties back the motion, is typical of opposition day proceedings.
Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition's call for stronger or faster government action to protect children from online harms
Voting No meant
Reject the opposition's motion, arguing the government's existing approach — including the Online Safety Act framework — is sufficient or that the motion is politically motivated
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 No
0
246
115
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
58
0
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
28
14
Independent
—
1
3
9
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
4
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
1
0
0
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Children need urgent protection from harmful social media through primary legislation within weeks, with a film-style classification system (age 16+), algorithm restrictions, and digital consent age raised to 16; cross-party consensus is achievable and should not require lengthy consultation.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (6,329 words) →
The government is committed to swift action by summer through a short, sharp consultation that properly hears from children, parents, and experts; the motion is procedurally unacceptable as it would cede government control of the Order Paper to the Liberal Democrats for an unpublished Bill.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,030 words) →
The Liberal Democrat procedural motion is a gimmick and distraction; the real opportunity lies in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill returning to the Commons with Lord Nash's amendment banning social media for under-16s, which has genuine cross-party support.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (5,010 words) →
While online harms are urgent, a full public consultation involving parents, schools, and evidence (including learning from Australia) is essential before rushing through legislation; consultation is the right approach to get the policy right long-term.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (464 words) →
Procedural concern: the House is being asked to vote on a motion for Second Reading of a Bill that has not been published and may not exist, making meaningful debate impossible.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,658 words) →
The motion is procedurally improper because it grants the Liberal Democrats unilateral control of the Order Paper and parliamentary time for a Bill with no published detail; proper procedure would have the Liberal Democrats publish a substantive Bill first.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,045 words) →
While age-gating has merit, focusing solely on it risks reducing pressure on social media companies to open up their algorithms for broader scrutiny of how they affect society.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (159 words) →
Parents and families across constituencies are calling for urgent action on online harms; the government's consultation approach delays the urgent action that constituents demand.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,288 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0