Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38
307Ayes
173Noes
Carried · majority 134 · Government won167 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 307 · No 173 · DNV 167 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 9 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 38, which would have banned children under 16 from accessing social media, inserting that prohibition into the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 307 votes to 173, meaning the ban was removed from the Bill and the Lords amendment did not stand. The practical effect was to block an outright legal ban on social media access for under-16s taking immediate effect through this legislation. The government argued it had just launched a public consultation on the question, open until 26 May, with a response promised in the summer, and that legislating before that process concluded would be premature. Those who backed the Lords amendment argued that children were being harmed every day and that further consultation amounted to delay without justification. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 302 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported rejecting the amendment. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, and the Democratic Unionist Party voted against the government motion, meaning they backed keeping the ban. One Labour MP voted with the opposition. Three SNP MPs voted with the government. The division sits within a broader pattern of the government using this Bill's Lords amendments stage to resist several changes inserted in the upper chamber, with related votes on connected amendments following in April 2026.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment banning social media for under-16s, backing the government's approach of consulting first before legislating
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment imposing an immediate ban on social media access for under-16s, arguing the government is delaying action while children are harmed daily
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
273
1
87
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
98
18
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
60
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
1
6
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
3
0
6
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
5
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
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
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Government should reject Lords amendments on phone bans and social media age restrictions; consultation and regulation-making powers allow faster, more responsive action than statutory legislation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,099 words) →
Government should accept Lords amendments for statutory phone bans, social media age restrictions, cost caps on school uniforms, and heightened child protection consent requirements; the Government is blocking sensible cross-party improvements out of tribal ideology.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (3,008 words) →
Support a price cap on school uniforms and strengthen adoption/guardianship funding; on social media, reject the Government's consultation framework and demand concrete timelines and commitment to action, not discretionary powers.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,581 words) →
Welcome free school meals and allergy safety measures; urge Government to strengthen guidance on sibling contact in care and school uniform costs, though consultation on social media is justified given stakeholder disagreement.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,085 words) →
Benedict's law on school allergy safety is essential and must be enacted with full statutory force and proper funding; welcome Government's shift but demand full implementation and early sight of amendment wording.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,170 words) →
Age-gate specific harmful functionalities rather than entire social media platforms; support Government consultation to ensure effective, durable, future-proofed legislation rather than hastily-passed bans.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (636 words) →
Any social media or functionality restrictions must be clearly targeted, evidence-based, and effective; blanket bans risk unintended consequences and distract from holding tech companies accountable for existing harms.Scottish National Party · Voted aye · Read full speech (831 words) →
Lords amendment 17 on sibling contact in care should be accepted; guidance is insufficient—siblings deserve legal protection equivalent to parental contact rights.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (178 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0