Opposition Day: Protections for children from online harms
69
Ayes
—
279
Noes
Defeated · Government won
297 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**Division 2266 — Protections for children from online harms** **24 February 2026 | Result: Defeated — Ayes 69, Noes 279** Parliament voted on a Liberal Democrat Opposition Day motion calling for stronger protections for children from online harms. The motion was defeated by a substantial margin, with 69 MPs voting in favour and 279 voting against. Opposition Day motions are procedural opportunities for non-governing parties to force a debate and vote on an issue of their choosing, though they do not automatically change the law. The vote matters because it reflects a live policy dispute over whether the existing Online Safety Act goes far enough to shield children from harmful content on social media platforms. The Liberal Democrats were pushing for measures that would in effect ban under-16s from harmful social media services, while leaving family-friendly platforms such as Wikipedia or Tripadvisor accessible at lower age thresholds. The government's rejection of the motion signals its position that current regulatory arrangements -- centred on Ofcom's powers under the Online Safety Act -- are sufficient, at least for now. The division broke sharply along government-versus-opposition lines. Every Labour and Labour Co-operative MP who voted did so against the motion, accounting for the overwhelming majority of the 279 Noes. The Liberal Democrats provided the bulk of the Aye votes with 58, joined by the SNP's 5 MPs, all 4 Plaid Cymru MPs, and 2 independents. The Conservatives, despite being a major opposition party, were entirely absent from the division -- all 116 of their MPs did not vote. The DUP and Traditional Unionist Voice voted with the government against the motion.
Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition's call for stronger or more urgent action to protect children from online harms, beyond what the government is currently doing
Voting No meant
Reject the opposition's motion, defending the government's existing approach to child online safety — likely arguing current legislation (such as the Online Safety Act) is sufficient or that the motion is politically motivated
348 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 297 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
246
116
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
58
0
14
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
28
14
Independent
2
3
8
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
4
Reform UK
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
—
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1
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