Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Updated advice from the nations’ CMOs is so important because it can cascade through health systems to guide professionals and parents.
Finally, the Bill calls on Government to conduct more research and further develop the evidence and guidance that is so important for future action. Given how rapidly these devices and services are developing, it is vital that parents and carers are given up-to-date advice on the harm their children might be exposed to.
Why has this not been done before? The technology companies that are profiteering off this rewiring of childhood are incredibly effective at casting doubt over any evidence of a link between screen time and negative impacts on children. This is not the first time an industry has fought against a tide of evidence in order to keep peddling their product. In the 1960s, the tobacco industry was lobbying hard against the link between smoking and cancer. In the absence of evidence of a causal link, they cast doubt on the overwhelming correlational evidence available.
In the end, our Government acted on the basis of correlational studies using criteria set by the epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill. The criteria attempt to help policymakers to make decisions when causal studies do not exist. His criteria included that
“Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.”
For example, the fact that students across the western world began reporting feeling increasingly lonely in school from 2012 is important. Another criterion is that
“Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect”—
essentially, the dose-response effect.
Studies of multiple large datasets, including the UK’s own millennium cohort study, show that teenagers who are heavy users of social media are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, eating disorders, body dysmorphia and other mental health harms. It could take years for evidence of a causal link, through scientific studies, to be established. In the meantime, our children’s mental and physical health degrades, their education continues to be affected, and evidence of a correlation gets stronger and stronger. As lawmakers, we must use tools such as the Bradford Hill tests to make the best possible decisions with what we know now. We must act on excessive screen time today, in the same way that we acted on smoking back then. Like debates that were had on smoking and car seatbelts, it took a process of legislation, rather than one big-bang event. That is why starting with these initial steps today, then following them through with major action soon, will be so important.
Let me address head-on the arguments made against taking action to curb social media and smartphone use by children. As I see it there are five common arguments against action. First is that there is not enough evidence to act. Over the past few months, I and others have had a number of evidence sessions and engagements with experts that have shown that that is plainly untrue. Even so, where should the burden of evidence sit? Should it sit with parents and campaigners who have noticed the damage being done to their children, with children themselves who are calling for more support, or with the companies who are selling them products and services that are designed to be addictive and have completely transformed the nature of their childhood?
When it comes to protecting children from harm, a precautionary approach is surely advised. For almost any other product, companies would have to prove that it was safe before selling it to children, rather than being free to sell that product as they wish, until the evidence of harm becomes so overwhelming that something needs to be done. It is instructive that the US Surgeon General advice states that social media has not yet “been proved safe.”
Second is the argument that this is simply the latest in a line of moral panics. People used to fear that watching too much television would turn their eyes square; in the Victorian era, that reading novels would degrade intellect; or in the 20th century, that playing violent videogames would turn all our children into thugs. But for every example of overblown moral panic, we have many more examples of genuine public health crises that we took too long to address, but eventually were forced to tackle. Research that has come out this morning from More in Common demonstrates that this is not an issue of luddite older generations bemoaning shifting social trends. Concerns about social media and smartphone use are dominant in every generation, and half of generation Z regret the amount of time that they are spending on social media.
The third argument I hear is that the genie is out of the bottle, and it is too late to do anything now. Phones and social media are undoubtedly here to stay, but their harms do not need to be. Regulation can find a way of allowing children to experience the benefits of this technology, without being exposed, relentlessly, to its harms. As introducing seatbelt laws saved thousands of lives from road traffic accidents without killing off the car industry, introducing a virtual seatbelt can protect children from excessive screentime. Action in other countries, and our experience with the Online Safety Act 2023, early though it is, has shown that tech companies are not beyond the power of Governments.
The fourth argument, which tends to come from big tech, is that proper age verification is too difficult, and age restriction unproven—that the technology does not exist or is imperfect. As companies such as Yoti and many other age verification platforms show, that is no longer the case. I am also a technology optimist. The reason why this technology is not yet pervasive is insufficient demand. Introduce the regulation, and technology will have to catch up—we will see that in Australia later this year.
There are some suggestions that it is not the Government’s job to get involved and that this is an issue of parental responsibility. That misses the point that this is a collective action problem. Parents and children alone are not able to establish new, shared rules for something that is addictive at a societal level. The reason why smartphones and social media are causing so much stress and conflict in families is that we are giving parents the unenviable choice of either removing devices and ostracising their children or giving into demands for access and living with the health, sleep and learning consequences.
Additionally, not only are parental controls at device, operating system and app level confusing and opaque, but our own existing data laws give children as young as 13 the power over their data that means that they can opt out of those parental controls in year 8 of secondary school. We disempower parents on a problem that is common across society, then when they ask for help, we say that it is a matter of personal responsibility. I hope that today’s debate can bury the argument that responsibility for this problem lies with parents struggling with that impossible challenge.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
I just thought my hon. Friend might like know that I will not be making any of the arguments that he is arguing I should not argue.
Josh MacAlister
I welcome the Minister’s intervention, and I am glad to have boxed off those five.
There are moments when politics falls behind the public mood. The process and traditions of our democratic system make it difficult to keep up with the rapidly evolving world of tech and social media, but this Parliament works best when it is a reflection of the problems and concerns of the people and a Chamber for earnest problem solving and action. Over the last few months, I have been encouraged by the sheer volume of support for this Bill and this debate, which comes from across the country, across the ages and across the House. My firm belief is that unless we as politicians are able to be the disruptors on this issue and solve it, we will be left being disrupted by it. Acting assertively together and sooner will bring benefits for our tech industry and public services, the quality of family life in the UK and, most importantly, the opportunities for our children. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), from the far and beautiful north-west, has made an extremely strong case for the original Bill that he envisaged bringing before this House. I am afraid that today I will speak not to celebrate progress, but to lament the gutting of what could have been a landmark Bill.
Sadly, this Government, like the last—notwithstanding the Online Safety Act 2023—have dithered, diluted and capitulated, and I am afraid that what remains is a hollowed-out gesture and an opportunity missed. As the hon. Gentleman said, the evidence is strong, the damage is profound and the public support is overwhelming. Documentary after documentary details the significant damage being done to our young people on a daily basis. Parent after parent in millions of homes across the land is screaming for help and assistance from the Government. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, we are allowing smoking for the brain in our youngest children, with the long-term impact that that will have. I am afraid to say that in the face of all that overwhelming evidence and momentum, the hon. Gentleman has been done over in bringing forward this Bill. When we look at what we are presented with, as I said, we have nothing more than a gesture.
The first point is that the CMO should bring forward guidance. As the hon. Gentleman surely knows, there is already plenty of guidance out there for parents—the NSPCC has online guidance, as does Internet Matters. Lots of organisations, including schools themselves, are issuing guidance for parents. In truth, the CMO producing guidance within 12 months will be no more effective than those organisations have been, and possibly less. As the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, we are dealing with a collective action issue. An organisation can issue guidance, and a small percentage of parents may pick up that guidance and observe it, but if the percentage is below 20%, so strong is the peer pressure and so addictive is what we are dealing with that those parents end up in screaming matches with their teenage children on a daily basis.
Dr Arthur
By explaining that there are so many fragmented and—no doubt—contradictory sources of information, surely the right hon. Gentleman is making the argument for there to be a single source of advice to parents right across the United Kingdom? Surely this Bill will create an authoritative set of guidance for parents that they can share with their children.
Kit Malthouse
I am not convinced that the guidance created by this Bill will be any more authoritative than that created by the NSPCC or by Internet Matters. The point I was making was not necessarily that the guidance is going to be pivotal, but that we need to get to a critical mass of observance before guidance is likely to have any impact. The original Bill was likely to do that, not least through the ban in schools, which created a nucleus of clear space for children that could be translated into homes. Many Members may have heard on the BBC this morning a short piece on the Fulham boys school, which has an absolute ban on even bringing a smartphone to school. That ban during the school period has resulted in the periods before and after school also being phone-free, and therefore much more social and beneficial to those pupils.
Chris Bryant
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be slightly less sceptical about the value of CMO advice. As he knows, I have campaigned for many years on acquired brain injury, particularly in relation to concussion or sub-concussive events in sport. It was a very significant change when, under the previous Administration, the British Government brought forward specific advice in relation to concussion in sport. That has changed practices in lots of sports around the country, and I am hopeful that authoritative advice of this kind could make a significant difference.
Kit Malthouse
I would be willing to accept the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement if this were advice to schools, but it is not; it is advice to parents and carers. If there were going to be authoritative advice for schools, as well as other organisations that have charge of children—scout troops, children’s clubs, and other publicly funded organisations that look after children—I would have said, “Possibly,” even though there is to be a 12-month delay before the CMO tells us stuff we already know, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington pointed out.
The second step is for the Government to publish a plan for research within 12 months. That is not the conclusion of research, and there is no time limit—just a plan, a vague aspiration that we should have a plan, with no commencement, no sense of budget and no idea of when it might come. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington has been sold a cosmetic pup.
The third and final point is that the Government have to publish this “assessment”—whatever that may be—which, as far as I can see, is fundamentally to tell us something we already know, and which the hon. Gentleman has illustrated extremely vividly. We should all be furious about the delay and prevarication that is being injected into what could have been a huge step forward for parents and children.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am one of the people who is very angry about this, and my right hon. Friend is a co-sponsor of this Bill, so his disappointment must be even greater. However, does he agree that one way forward would be for this Bill, with its present inadequate drafting, to get its Second Reading and go into Committee? The people’s representatives in Committee would then be able to restore the Bill into something closer to what they expected.
Kit Malthouse
I was going to come on to that later, but my hon. Friend is completely right.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I support very much what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the need for urgent action. What conversations were had before 4 July last year about tightening up legislation around smartphones, because this problem did not start on the day of the general election, but was there when his party was in government?
Kit Malthouse
As I said at the start of my speech, I lament the dithering and delay by the previous Government, too. There were attempts by Back Benchers—and I was one for the last two years of the Government—to change the Online Safety Bill to take exactly these sort of measures. That was rebuffed by Ministers at that stage, and I regret that completely. To me, this is a national, if not international, emergency, about which we are being far too passive and complacent. I am not necessarily making a political point about this; it is about the weight of Government and, frankly, the weight and influence of big tech against the health and welfare of our children. That applies to Governments of all stripes in all countries across the world.
It is not just we in this Chamber who should be furious. There are plenty of people out there in the country who should be furious, because two key things were promised in the original Bill. The first was an absolute school ban. All Members will know that when they go to visit schools, one of the features coming through strongly when we talk to headteachers is the increase in parental aggression towards schools. The source of conflict at the school gate is around all sorts of issues, not least the use of phones in schools. By advocating a complete blanket ban on phones in schools, we would be removing at one stroke a source of conflict between parent and teacher, as well as at the same time creating completely clear space for those kids to concentrate on their education. In school upon school across the country, they are bringing in their own policies, often in the teeth of opposition, whether parental or from children. Their life is made immeasurably more difficult by not having an absolute ban.
The second thing that was promised and the second reason why we should be furious was the raising of the digital age of consent. By not including that in the Bill, we are consenting to those tech companies—as they have admitted in meetings in the run-up to this Bill—using children’s data to addict them to their services. We know that happens, and we see it happening. Anybody who has a teenage child and has tried desperately to move them off from cradling this precious phone at the dinner table or even from watching TV at the same time will see how they cannot get away from their phone and will realise the addictive nature. The fact that neither of those two steps is now in the Bill is, I am afraid, deeply lamentable.
It feels to me as though the Government have capitulated to big tech. I had a look online to see—I am not casting aspersions—but it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us in his remarks what meetings he had with big tech companies in the run-up to this Bill, and whether he has consulted or spoken to them. [Interruption.] The Minister is indicating zero, and that is useful to know, but I cannot then understand why the Government have pressured the new Member for Whitehaven and Workington to produce what is, frankly, a cosmetic pup, betraying our children and capitulating to big tech. I am afraid that this Bill is a shell of what it could have been, and as a result is yet another missed opportunity to improve the lives of our young people.
Helen Hayes
The Education Committee will certainly continue to take this issue extremely seriously and to monitor what happens, and I will say a little about that in a moment.
We know that screen time is quite literally rewiring young brains, resulting in lower cognitive abilities and affecting language acquisition, critical thinking, social skills and attention span.
When the Government have evidence of harm, they have a duty to act. The point of legislation in this case is its power to change societal norms in a way that will make a difference to parents and professionals who are currently struggling to limit the harms of screen time, but lack the back-up to do so. There are many comparable examples, with smoking and seatbelts being the most obvious, in which the evidence of harm became clear but the debate raged for many years, with counter-arguments against legislation.
Kit Malthouse
As the hon. Lady says, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) has done an enormous amount of work, and it is obviously desirable for the Government to act in the face of evidence. Does she think that the Bill, as negotiated with the Government, constitutes action?
Helen Hayes
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for helping me out at a difficult moment. I have now found the correct place in my speech, and I will tell him what I believe should happen next.
The debate about both smoking and seatbelts raged for years, with much controversy at the time. Some were demanding higher and higher levels of proof, while others argued that the matter could be dealt with simply through guidance and through individuals’ choosing to change their behaviour.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill. I must start by declaring an interest: I am a mother of three children who enjoy nothing more than staring at their screens day in, day out—if they could, they would be on them 24/7. No longer are our children clamouring to go out and play or to see their friends; instead, they want to do everything through a screen. They want to watch endless YouTube videos. I never realised that the unpacking of a toy or slime making could hold such interest. It seems that they take their joy in watching others do things online—even, rather bizarrely, playing computer games—instead of actually doing them in the real world.
I would be a hypocrite if I did not call out my own behaviour on this front. I, too, am addicted to my phone. Yes, I need it for this job, so I can justify some of my use, but I often find myself endlessly doomscrolling, and I am too embarrassed to tell the House how many hours I spend staring at it every week. At least my addiction started when I was a fully developed adult, after a childhood of play and socialisation when I learned much-needed life skills. This generation of children is not so lucky.
The huge amount of time spent online is incredibly damaging in so many ways. It is no coincidence that we see a mental health crisis in our young people at the same time as mass adoption of smartphones and access to social media. Some may underplay the importance of social media and screens in the challenges we face as a society, and indeed it can be difficult to conclusively prove the role of one particular factor in the effects we are seeing, but I suggest that when it comes to our children, we should always err on the side of caution and protect them from potentially harmful influences. In a recent survey, social media and excessive screen time was ranked as the top issue affecting children’s mental wellbeing. To put that in context, it was ranked higher than alcohol and bullying.
Another significant risk to mental health is exposure to harmful online content. I am incredibly concerned about that, especially given the proliferation of extreme pornography, harmful content and unrealistic body images. If children spend all their time in this fantasy world that is completely disjointed from reality, of course it will change how they view people, relationships and the world in general. That is supported by Ofcom’s 2024 research, which showed that older teens are finding it harder to distinguish the real from the fake online. The more mundane things in life that do not trigger a dopamine hit seem an even less appealing way to spend time to a child jacked up on likes and shares. Children’s attention spans are getting shorter, and they have an ever-increasing need for higher levels of stimulation. Is it any wonder that our children seem less interested in reading a book or baking a cake nowadays?
The evidence from Health Professionals for Safer Screens shows that children who routinely spend extended periods on their smartphones have poorer eyesight, inhibited speech and language development, interrupted sleep, and rising rates of anxiety. We are allowing our children to become addicts. Social media is designed with exactly that in mind. It is meant to be addictive and compelling. It wants users to stay online for prolonged periods and to keep engaging with content. Those of us who use it ourselves know this all to be true, so how on earth do we expect our children to manage and moderate appropriately?
Ofcom’s 2024 research showed that the overall use of social media sites or apps among five to seven-year-olds had increased year on year. Online gaming among that group had also increased significantly, as had the watching of livestreamed content. Under current data protection law, the age at which children can access information society services—ISS—is 13. ISS includes most social media platforms and content streaming services. It is important to acknowledge that the Online Safety Act 2023 introduced protections for children by ensuring that online platforms will have to remove illegal content such as child sexual abuse material, prevent children from accessing harmful content—for example, that encouraging suicide, self-harm or bullying—and introduce age-checking measures to restrict access to pornographic material. Those are all very welcome improvements, but they need to be put in place at pace and be effectively enforced.
I commend the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for all his work on this important topic. I will do all I can to support him in making the online world safer for our children. The Bill is an important precursor to the myriad changes needed in this area, and I know that many parents will support him in calling for the digital age of consent to be looked at again. While the Bill does not call for the age limit to be raised to 16, it does call for the UK’s chief medical officer to look at this important issue in detail and, ultimately, issue a statement on whether it should be raised.
Some 75% of Brits now back raising the minimum age from 13 to 16, as per a recent survey by More in Common, for all the reasons that have been raised today, and 129,000 people signed an e-petition calling for social media companies to be banned from letting children under 16 create social media accounts. It is past time for tech companies—and Members of this House—to take responsibility for keeping our children and young people safe.
I am not normally in favour of blanket bans, and I often talk about the importance of parents and carers taking responsibility for their children. However, in this instance, I deviate a little. As a parent who is wrangling with this exact issue myself, I know how difficult it is to tell a child that they cannot do something that every single other child in their class is doing. If their group of friends interacts only online, what are the consequences for my child if I prohibit them from joining in? Isolation? Loneliness? Loss of self-esteem? There are very real costs that should not be underestimated, which is why the state needs to step in. Members will not often hear me say this, but the state needs to step in and remove the option for all, helping parents across the country who want the best for their children without the downsides.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend vividly illustrates the problem with this kind of collective action and peer pressure. Has she reflected on the fact that it is not just the addictive nature of the application that is pulling in our kids, but the fact that they are free, and therefore everybody is encouraged to get them? We then get 100% coverage, and it is very hard to deny them to our child, if they will be the only child without.
Rebecca Paul
I concur with everything my right hon. Friend says. It is completely accessible to all our children, so it is very hard for one child to be kept separate from it. That is why it is important that we address it.
However, increasing the digital age of consent is just the first step—we have so much more to do. We also need to ban smartphones in schools for children under the age of 16. On a typical workday, 42% of older teenagers say their smartphone is distracting them from schoolwork, and half say that social media has distracted them enough to impact their grades. Notably, only 11% of schools are genuinely smartphone free, and children at these schools get GCSE results one to two grades higher, so there is clearly a big upside to banning smartphones in schools. I urge the Government to seriously consider implementing this much needed restriction, which would be a game changer, protecting children and improving educational outcomes in one fell swoop. Our schools need this ban in statute, not just in guidance, in order to be able to effectively police and enforce it. I pay tribute to Smartphone Free Childhood for all its work to raise awareness on this important issue.
In closing, I hope that Members will support the Bill today, which would move us forward in our mission to protect our children from an increasingly insidious online realm that they are simply not equipped to navigate. I also hope that this is just the beginning, and that in moving forward we will see the digital age of consent raised to 16 and a ban on smartphones in school. The value of those two changes alone would be huge for our society, and would safeguard the wellbeing of this and future generations of children. I cannot think of anything more important.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I come to this debate as somebody who bought their first mobile phone 30 years ago, at the age of 23—I was hoping Members would look more surprised at that. [Laughter.]
Mr Quigley
I thank the Minister for that. I remember clearly the joy of phoning the landline from bed and asking my housemates to bring me a cup of tea, the excitement of sending and receiving my first text message and the infantile joy of playing Snake while waiting for a train. No one could have predicted where we would be by this point.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for introducing the Bill, which is an essential step forward for online safety. It demonstrates his genuine commitment to addressing this critical issue and raises awareness in this place and across the country of the pressing need for a legally recognised age of internet adulthood to correspond with the very adult content available online. For too long, tech bosses have moved forward unchecked while our children have borne the consequences of algorithms that, at best, are designed to create a generation of screen addicts and, at worst, expose young people to harmful and disturbing content.
Fifteen years ago, many tech leaders claimed that the rising mental health crisis among children and young people was unrelated to screen use. However, emerging data refutes that. A study from King’s College London revealed that nearly 25%—one in four, for those who still use old money—of children and young people engage with their smartphones in a manner consistent with behavioural addiction. Indeed, we are not dealing with the same passive tech bosses who were satisfied in just promoting that addictive quality to sell their platforms to children. Even in the past year, the digital landscape has shifted so much that some tech bosses are actively refusing to remove violent material and eating disorder content from their platforms, under the guise that doing so would infringe those individuals’ free speech. As we all know, there is a considerable disparity between the two, which is why I strongly support raising the age of digital adulthood.
This issue is particularly urgent in my constituency of the Isle of Wight West, where young people face some of the highest rates of under-18 mental health and self-harm-related hospital admissions in the south-east—they are also among the highest in the country. Accessing the necessary support is made even more difficult by the island’s isolation. The high cost and limited availability of ferry travel—hon. Members were waiting for me to say that—creates significant barriers, leaving many young people struggling without the help they need. Already facing the pressures of an increasingly connected world, they are further disadvantaged by transport restrictions that make seeking specialist care on the mainland far more challenging.
Tech companies have proved time and again that they see kids as nothing more than pound signs. The more time that platforms can keep children glued to their screens, the more money they make, and they achieve that by maliciously harvesting their data and using it to push content designed to keep them hooked, prioritising what is most addictive over what is safest. By prohibiting tech companies from collecting data from under-16s, the Bill would aim at the heart of the exploitative algorithms designed to keep young users online for longer. It would ensure that children are no longer targeted with addictive content designed to prioritise profit over their wellbeing. I therefore support the Bill.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) on bringing his private Member’s Bill to the House. I am proud to be one of its sponsors. It has clearly been a complicated journey to get to this point, and the Bill may not resemble quite what he originally had in mind, but the sheer fact of introducing the Bill has lit up a national conversation about the impact of smartphone use and social media on our children. The conversation was growing ever louder, but it has now spilled over passionately into the inboxes of nearly every Member of the House.
The Bill may not be as ambitious as some would like, and the wheels may turn slowly in this place—far slower than the lightning pace of modern tech—but I assure every one of my constituents in South Devon who wrote to me about the Bill and who campaign loudly on this topic that their voices have been heard. Within the bounds of our political system, we as MPs, parents and grandparents not only have heard them, but share their concerns. I hope that this is just the first step on a journey that will be far-reaching and fairly swift.
I know that I am not alone in being somewhat disappointed that the Bill is but a shadow of its former self and that the Government are so timid in what they are willing to do to try to save our children and young people from something that is clearly causing them considerable harm. That is why the Liberal Democrats have decided to pick up the baton and table an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, calling on the Government to bring UK data law into line with many other European countries by raising to 16 the minimum age that a user must be before an internet company can collect, process and store their data without parental consent.
I look forward to seeing the guidance from the UK chief medical officer on the impact of smartphones and social media on children. Six years is a long time in the tech world and we know that much has changed since the guidance was last written in 2019. I also welcome funding for more research into the impacts of social media and phone use. I expect the new research will not differ too much from what has already been written, following studies from various developed countries, including the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia: that over the past 10 years, a period in which smartphone usage has exploded, the number of mental health admissions to hospital in teenagers has risen by 65%; that admissions for eating disorders among girls aged 11 to 15 have gone up by a staggering 638%; that childhood myopia is up 50%; that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnoses are up 56%; and that more and more children are struggling with difficult speech and language challenges. No, we cannot say for sure that there is a direct causal link, but we can see the trendlines in the graphs. We know they started rising before the pandemic was ever heard of, and we know it is not just the UK that is experiencing such troubling developments.
We do a lot to protect our children in this country, and that is down to a mixture of practice, custom and legislation. We generally do not let our children smoke or drink, and we certainly do not let them drive cars. We put babies in ever more sophisticated car seats, and we know that it is not a good idea to put fizzy drinks in babies’ bottles. Yet a recent Ofcom report said: 100% of 17-years-olds have a mobile phone; 28% of five to seven-year-olds have one; and, most worrying still, 17% of three to four-year-olds have one. Yet medical professionals from all disciplines tell us of the harm children are experiencing from long hours spent glued to a screen.
As a proud co-sponsor of the Bill, I too have heard from health professionals who have given evidence to us on mental health, obesity, eyesight and more. We heard heart-rending stories from parents whose children had been subject to the most horrific online abuse and from some who have, unbearably, lost their precious children as a result of harms in the digital world. While their stories were extreme and deeply troubling, somehow, incredibly, it did not even seem that shocking that the online world had wrought such devastating harm to real lives.
What is happening online is clearly impacting the everyday lives of children and teenagers, and we, as responsible adults and legislators, have a duty to try and mitigate those harms. I am thinking particularly of the horrible, dangerous misogyny of the likes of Andrew Tate, which is being lapped up by boys who are under his influence—boys who then spread his misogynistic hate speech. I am thinking of the violent pornography which is being accessed and viewed by children as young as nine or 10; pornography that is not just naked pictures like you would find in an old-fashioned top-shelf magazine, I’m told—
Caroline Voaden
Thank you.
We know that violent pornography that celebrates assault and rape is leading to an increase in harmful practices, such as strangulation, that it warps the way young people view sexual relationships, and that it is directly impacting on health and wellbeing, particularly of young women, across the country.
Yesterday, this Chamber heard some brilliant and impassioned speeches from many women hon. Members, timed to coincide with International Women’s Day tomorrow. And on a day that celebrates women, we think about girls too. I do not want our girls to think they have to share nude photos to be liked, or to worry themselves sick about the shape of their body to the point that they stop eating.
We have heard about the rise in the number of children who have speech and language challenges. It is known that sticking a baby in front of an iPad will not help it learn to communicate. Babies need interaction with human faces and voices to learn. We heard about how children’s eyesight is worsening because they spend so many hours looking at a closely held screen. We all know about the incessant rise in poor mental health, anxiety and depression among teenagers. Parents across my constituency of South Devon are desperate to protect their children, but overwhelmed by the digital world and the power it has over young people. They want us to support them with legislation, so that they can push back against the might of the tech giants. We must not let the tech giants lobby us in the way that tobacco companies did so successfully for decades.
Children are addicted to screens because of wicked algorithms that lure them in and keep them hooked; struggling with their body image because they do not look like the influencers they are watching; depressed at their lives because they do not resemble the doctored, airbrushed, Instagram image of perfection they see on their screens; and brainwashed by influencers who spew toxic messages through their pages. They know this, but they find it hard to counteract it, and we know that the brightest brains in the tech world have designed social media apps to do exactly that. One former Facebook employee said:
“You have a business model designed to engage you and get you to basically suck as much time out of your life as possible and then selling that attention to advertisers.”
We must unlock the potential of technology by designing it with children and young people in mind. Our amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill would not ban children under 16 from social media; instead, and more importantly, online services would need to change how they deal with children’s data and create a less addictive, more child-friendly online environment. Our amendment calls on the Government to prioritise robust standards for digital technology, so that rights and privacy are upheld by design and default.
In Devon, 2,591 parents have signed the pact saying that they will not buy their child a smartphone, yet we know that tech use is one of the biggest causes of friction in families, and parents need our support to back that choice. It is a public health matter. The Liberal Democrats are open to the idea of a legal ban on smartphone use in schools, enshrining existing guidance into law. We hope the Government will look seriously at that. This measure should not be about restricting freedoms; it should be about creating an environment conducive to learning and free from distractions. We also understand the need for discretion, and exceptions must be made for young carers or children who use smartphones to monitor health conditions, ensuring fairness and practicality.
Parents must be empowered to protect their children online, including through digital literacy education, and advice and support for parents on best practice is key. I also want to see a public health programme similar to those we have seen on seatbelts and smoking over the years, so that no parent can be left unaware of the potential harms of letting small children become addicted to a device that will cause so much harm as they grow.
Jess Asato
I am incredibly grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. That is very true. We have seen a huge 40% increase in the use of strangulation of women in sexual relationships, and there is much to suggest that this is related to more and more young people watching strangulation in pornography online. That is another subject, but I would definitely like to see that go as well.
It is really important that the commencement of age verification in the Online Safety Act, which was introduced by the previous Government and supported by those on the Labour Front Bench at the time, must be upheld and to the most robust standards. I look forward to the Minister saying that that is exactly what the Government will do.
Jess Asato
I am grateful to the Minister.
Social media is fuelling the rise of extremist misogyny online and normalising harassment and violence against women and girls in real life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) so bravely recounted in this place yesterday, we are not immune to that in this place. Some 90% of girls say they have been sent an explicit picture or video. The New Britain Project, More in Common and the National Education Union recently ran a focus group in my constituency with parents about their children’s access to smartphones. In the group, a mother spoke of how her daughter was so regularly sent dick pics that, by the age of 15, she was used to drawing a little sombrero on the picture, sending it back and blocking the sender. The mother said:
“No child that age should be seeing male penises. It is quite traumatic, isn’t it, for a kid to be witnessing that kind of thing? But it is everywhere.”
Children should not be forced to find a way to cope—with funny pictures—because something incessantly traumatises them. We would not accept our children being flashed in the streets, so why is it different online? Why do we not expect the tech companies to act? Their products allow this to happen to our children all day, every day, yet we still do not have any movement from them.
We know that the problem is only getting worse, particularly with the use of Al and the rise of nude deepfakes. Thankfully, the Government are now taking strong action on deepfakes, but I urge them to go further by considering age verification for app stores, so that our young people know that when they access app stores, the content is right for their age and level of development.
Online sexual crimes committed against children have risen by 400% since 2013. A generation is growing up chronically online, raised by the internet, and we cannot stand idly by in the name of freedom or freedom of speech. There is no freedom in addiction, in being harmed or in children being underdeveloped because they have not experienced socialisation, the great outdoors, the pleasure of books, or simply not being harmed by being sent horrible things that they should not have to see.
Children in the online world are taught to look up to role models with unhealthy opinions, unrealistic beauty standards and conspicuous wealth beyond their dreams. Children are being marketed to and sold to, all day, every day. When they cannot afford or look like what they see, they feel worthless. Children are cyber-bullied. They are exposed to content that encourages self-harm and competitive anorexia, and romanticises suicide. That has already caused untold harm for parents who have seen their children take their own lives after engaging with such material. Our children are becoming infected by an epidemic of loneliness.
At some point, we in this place have to say, “Enough is enough.” As a parent of young children, I know that parents cannot and should not be expected to do this alone; we need a decisive legal and cultural shift that reclaims childhood for the real world. Every month there is a “How to detox from social media” article about taking ourselves away from toxic social media—just like how to detox after Christmas. We read that content as adults, because we also struggle to stop looking at social media, so why do we expect our children to exercise self-control that we ourselves do not have?
The UK must follow countries such as Australia by raising the age of online consent from 13 to 16. Some 55% of Gen Z and 86% of parents in the UK support that idea, and 130,000 people recently signed a petition on the UK Parliament website to that effect. I also believe that we need to create a new watershed of social norms by banning smartphones at school. Too many of the headteachers I speak to who are doing the right thing by banning smartphones in their schools tell me that they get complaints from students and parents who see that other schools do things differently. It makes it harder for parents to enforce rules and norms in their own homes when they cannot point to principles that the whole country adheres to.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Our children’s use of phones and social media give us many things to worry about, but broadly speaking they are grouped into three categories.
The first is about content, going from pornography and violence and the insidious effects of curated lives, influencers and celebs on our children and their sense of self-worth, their body image and so on through to dodgy news and views propagated across the internet not by worth, let alone veracity, but by engagement and likes. All of those things have vortexes that children can get sucked deeper and deeper into.
The second is about contact. Contact includes, in the worst cases, child abuse and the generation of child sexual abuse material, and goes through to, at a lower level, contact that can be from other children, such as what we call in this House cyber-bullying, although no child ever uses that phrase; they just talk about people being very mean to each other online.
The third is about the sheer amount of children’s time that gets sucked into these activities. It is the compounding factor, because it is the thing that makes the other two things, content and contact, worse and more risky. It also has an effect on children’s sleep, on their concentration and even on their physical development, and it crowds out the other things that we want children to be doing and that children themselves want to be doing, when they do actually do them. If we ever do get a child away from their phone for a full weekend, they talk about how wonderful the experience was with their friends.
The Online Safety Act 2023 did some good things on content and on contact. There was more to do, but it made some good progress. We have a lot more to do, in particular on the topic of time and the addictiveness of social media, and that is where I think the work of the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) has been incredibly valuable. I commend him on all his work in the lead up to this point and his use of convening power to bring together so many individuals and organisations. Those conversations, some of which I had the opportunity to attend, covered a huge range. Obviously the Bill we have in front of us today is, shall we say, somewhat thinner than the Bill envisaged.
Kit Malthouse
I also attended events that the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington pulled together. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the strong characteristic that came out of all of them was deep and profound anger among parents about what has been allowed to develop?
Damian Hinds
I think that is right. The other thing I was struck by in some of the sessions was the great unity of views. Whether it was trade unions, charities, parent groups, doctors or parents, there was a great commonality of view about what needed to be done.
I understand what happens sometimes with private Members’ Bills and the need to make progress and to have Government support, but I say to the Government that this is a huge missed opportunity. If the Minister looks behind him, he will see all his colleagues who have rearranged their Fridays and rearranged their surgeries and all their appointments because they believe in this subject. He should heed the list that his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington read out of all the organisations that came together in support of action in this area. It is so worth doing, and we have made good progress with the Online Safety Act, but there is further to go.
There are things we can do with a private Member’s Bill that it is harder sometimes to do with Government legislation, because of the party political controversies that come in. This is a missed opportunity, because this may well be the only private Member’s Bill with a good chance of success in this area, being at the top of the ballot, in this entire Parliament.
The Bill as drafted is unlikely to require this House to divide, because there is not much in it that anyone could disagree on. I will, if I may, focus my comments on the things that the Bill envisages, such as the CMO’s advice for parents on the use of smartphones and social media, and the plan for research that the Secretary of State will prepare on the effect of the use of social media on children and the appropriateness and effectiveness of the so-called digital age of consent. I will say one very simple thing to the Minister about that research: the evidence is not perfect today; it will not be perfect in one year; it will never, ever be perfect. If we hang around waiting for perfect evidence, we will never act in the way that we should. Why is it not perfect? Because this is a phenomenon that has happened across the entire world at the same time. There is no control group.
Given that this is such a huge topic, the studies that there are, which try to narrow it down to something manageable, tend to end up looking at either Facebook or Twitter, neither of which is particularly relevant for teenagers. When we have proxy studies, they are generally inadequate. For phone use in schools, studies tend to look at a school that has a phone ban and a school that does not. That is a totally invalid scientific comparison, because there could be all sorts of other things going on, and the sort of school that is likely to do well in GCSEs is also likely to bring in a phone ban, so we cannot prove the direction of causality.
People will also tell us that there has not been enough time, because the technology is constantly developing. It may have been around for 20 years or so, but the current version of it has only been around for 18 months, so there has not been time to say conclusively what the effects are. None of that is about to change. The evidence will continue to be imperfect.
However, the evidence that we do have is pretty clear. We know, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who chairs the Education Committee, mentioned, that there can be some benefit from relatively small amounts of screen time. The 2019 programme for international student assessment—PISA —study covered this in some detail, looking at multiple countries. It talked about a “Goldilocks” effect, whereby about an hour of screen time a day seemed to be correlated with increased wellbeing. But the same study found that in almost every country studied, with the fascinating exception of the Dominican Republic, high levels of internet usage were associated with lower levels of life satisfaction. There are lots of other studies, which colleagues have referred to, that look at happiness, quality of relationships, eyesight, sleep, concentration and so on.
Then there is the rising prevalence of mental ill health in young people. Often, when people look at the numbers on mental ill health, particularly in teenagers, they reach immediately for their preferred explanation for why teenagers are having these difficulties, and sometimes it gets quite political. It is important to note that the rise in teenage mental ill health is not a uniquely British phenomenon. On the two main measures of mental wellbeing used in the 2021 UNICEF-Gallup “Changing Childhood” study—“How often do you experience feeling worried, nervous or anxious?” and “How often do you experience feeling depressed or having little interest in doing things?”—the UK was broadly in line with the average of 21 countries, including France, Germany and the US. Actually, it was slightly better on most of the measures.
There are ample other studies from around the world, including the World Health Organisation’s multi-country “Health Behaviour in School-aged Children” study, France’s EDC—I will not attempt the language—study, which is quite a long time series, and the shorter time series in the United States, “Trends in Mental Wellbeing”. The best study of all is the NHS’s “Mental Health of Children and Young People in England”. I say in passing to the Minister that I do not think we have yet had a commitment from the Department of Health and Social Care to carry on with that time series. It is incredibly valuable, and that is a relatively simple thing that the Government could do.
I have said that the rise in teenage mental ill health is not a uniquely British phenomenon. It is also not only about covid. A lot of the studies in recent years have set out to answer the question, “What happened to children’s mental health during covid?” That is a perfectly legitimate question, but if we look at the shape of the curve, it looks very unlikely that it started in covid, and in the NHS study, it carries on growing long after covid, up until the most recent wave.
The Minister said this in a debate in Westminster Hall the other day, and he is right that it is entirely invalid to infer causality from correlation, but the Bradford Hill criteria, which his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington mentioned, are relevant, particularly the criteria of consistency, strength, plausibility, coherence and analogy, as well as temporality. In any event, it seems odd that we allow something to happen to our children because we cannot 100% prove that it causes harm, rather than because we can prove that it is safe. That is not the way in which we deal with children’s toys, food or medicine.
I turn the question around and say to people who query the direction of causality: with something like self-harm, are you honestly trying to tell me that incidents of self-harm in our country are nothing to do with the prevalence and normalisation of imagery around self-harm on social media? As I say, I worry that if we continue to seek perfect information, we simply will not act as we should. I have pages more to say, but I will not say them, because I know that many colleagues wish to speak.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but having spent a great deal of time talking about raising the digital age of consent and having asked my constituents to email me if they wanted me to be present in this House today specifically to vote for that, rather than working in the constituency, I wish that he had presented a Bill that said that, because we could then have voted on it and it would have passed. Of course, the Government might have killed it off at a later stage, but I actually think they might have been too embarrassed to do that.
There is nothing in this Bill that requires legislation. The Secretary of State could ask the UK’s chief medical officers to provide their advice, as clause 1 requires, and they would do so. The Secretary of State could publish a plan for research, as required by clause 2, and an assessment, as required by clause 3. The sad truth is that this Bill achieves precisely nothing, and the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington should be a little bit ashamed of having campaigned so vigorously and then presented this Bill.
Chris Bryant
I have seen an awful lot of Bills in my time, since 2001, and nearly every one has contained something that did not actually need to be in legislation but that, none the less, was put in as a declaratory statement by the House. When a Bill has big support, it tends to be something that effects change. That might very well be the same effect that we have today.
Sir Ashley Fox
I agree with the Minister that often a Bill will contain something that is merely declaratory. Has he ever seen a Bill that is wholly declaratory and contains nothing that actually requires legislation?
Kit Malthouse
As I think we all know, the Government are likely to adjourn the debate on the Bill. Will my hon. Friend’s case be made if the case for adjournment is that the Minister commits that he will go and do these things anyway, and therefore the legislation is unnecessary?
Sir Ashley Fox
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point.
I maintain that this Bill is a waste of time. I will vote for it today, if we get the opportunity. Unfortunately, I understand that the debate is going to be adjourned, which suggests that the Government are not that serious about taking it forward. I will vote with a heavy heart, because I really think the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington could have achieved so much more if he had had the courage of his convictions.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
I will run through some of the contributions to the debate and then give specific answers to some of the points that have been made. First, I will probably have the unanimous support of the House in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am slightly worried that he was referred to as a patron saint earlier, because the danger with patron saints is that they tend to be martyred at some point in their career, and I do not wish that for him. As I said earlier, I am not going to make any of the arguments that he told me not to make, because I do not subscribe to them. I am also not going to make any arguments today against action—that is an important point that the House needs to recognise. Everybody accepts that action in this sphere is inevitable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) gave us some shocking statistics from her constituency, as have many other Members. The hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who is no longer in her place—[Interruption.] Oh, she is here; sorry, I would not want to mislead the House. She fessed up to her own social media use, but she did not tell us how many hours a day it is, so we were watching her throughout the debate to see how much time she was spending on social media.
It is absolutely true that many of us are just as addicted as many young people, and while our specific concern is about the effects on the mental health of children, there are of course issues for the whole of society. Other Members have referred to misinformation and how it is propagated, and how to access good, reliable information in a world that is profoundly chaotic, where algorithms do not necessarily subscribe to truth in the way that previous understandings of the media used to. I note that the hon. Member for Reigate said that the state must step in—we will hold her to that on many more occasions in future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) made some very important points, including that it is sometimes the most vulnerable children who experience these effects. She also pointed—as did several other Members—to the desensitising effect on boys, in particular, who see versions of sex online that normalise a set of expectations about what a relationship with another person might be and what sex might involve that are wholly alien to most people’s understanding of what they should be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) made a point that was also made in a previous Westminster Hall debate on this issue: does the burden of proof lie with those trying to prove that there is no harm, or with those trying to prove that there is harm? It is important that we look at the evidence in the round and come to a coherent, sensible, one-Government decision on how we can make progress in this field.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with a wiser person than me, who said that our psychology is neolithic, our institutions are from the middle ages and our technology is of today, and that we have to get better at being able to engage with that technology?
Chris Bryant
I think it was John Prescott who said something about ancient values in a modern setting. As we move forward, we need to secure the liberty of the individual at the same time as we protect the vulnerable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) made the point that she has had twice as much correspondence on this subject as on any other this year. She made a really important point, which applies not only to this area, but to many other areas in which we work with young people: if we possibly can, it is very important to be able to extend the years of childhood that a child gets to enjoy. Many years ago, I wrote a report about teenage pregnancy in my constituency. That is another aspect of trying to ensure that where children delay their first sexual experience, it is almost certainly better for them and leads to better personal, social and other outcomes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) made a point about children attending A&E with psychiatric conditions. I urge him to be slightly cautious about the statistics here, because the work that I have done on acquired brain injuries suggests that sometimes people are actually presenting with a brain injury, rather than a psychiatric condition. That is one of the areas where we need to be much more intelligent about how we get data that informs our research.
We heard from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding)—incidentally, I see “Esher and Walton” written down and think, “That must be a Conservative Member of Parliament,” so it is such a delight when I find that it is not.
Melanie Ward
In my constituency and across my area of Fife we have a real problem with violence and aggression in schools. Every week for the last month there has been a violent attack by children on children, and on almost every occasion it is filmed, shared on social media and amplified. Does the Minister agree that that is a real reason why we need action?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The use of a mobile phone as another form of aggression is a very disturbing part of the trend we have seen. She is quite right that we need to consider action in that field.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton referred to services that are “inherently addictive by design”. I think there is actually a contradiction in terms there. They are not inherently addictive; they are addictive by design. Those are two quite different things. We should strive to achieve no services provided for children being addictive by design, which is precisely one of the things that the Government are determined about.
I should say to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) that I indicated earlier that I had had no meetings with tech by making a zero with my fingers, but that is not quite true. I had a meeting a few months ago with Baroness Jones and TikTok, although I expressed as strongly as many Members have in this debate the kind of views that they have in relation to the operation of TikTok. It is not that I have been convinced by TikTok—if anything, we were trying to put the argument to it about the need for responsible activity in this field.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. In his negotiations with the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), he will have consulted and taken direction from No. 10. One of the concerns, given that he has instituted an investigation into the impact of UK legislation on American tech firms, is that President Trump might be upset if we were to take these kinds of steps. How much of that has been a consideration in him effectively filleting this Bill?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to subscribe to conspiracy theories. I have had no role in any negotiations with my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington or with Downing Street on these matters, and I have not taken into consideration anything in relation to what Donald Trump might think about this field.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) said that he is 32, which is obviously very difficult to believe. He referred to smartphones in 2007, but 3G was launched in 2001. I am slightly conscious that when I was at school, the only thing we were rowing about was whether we were allowed to take electronic calculators into O-level maths exams, so I sometimes feel a little out of my depth with all these young expressions of interest.
Kit Malthouse
It is a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you could give us guidance as to whether we actually have the right Minister responding to this Bill. If there were negotiations with the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) about the Bill, one would expect the Minister who had conducted those negotiations, and who was therefore able to speak to the decisions that have been made, to appear at the Dispatch Box. Have we got the right person?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, that is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Government to decide which Minister they put up to speak.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid you will have to put up with me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) referred to the fear of missing out, which is such a potent aspect of many young people’s lives. It had its previous version before digital arrived, but it is so much more acute now, and it cuts in so many different ways at the same time. She also referred to Ellen Roome and the issues in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which we will discuss in the Public Bill Committee next Tuesday and Thursday, and then on Report in a few weeks’ time. I look forward to her contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), with whom I cannot compete for youth, made a very important point: one of the positive effects that social media can introduce, and which was not available to me when I was trying to work out, at the age of 15 or 16, whether I was gay, is that there is a diaspora—there are other worlds where there are people a bit more like me. That is a release for many young people, so being able to harness what is good in social media, and to lose what is bad, is the key task for us.
Nothing could matter more than the mental, physical and spiritual health of our young people. There are many aspects to that health, including addiction to alcohol, drugs, gambling and, I would argue, as many others have done today, smartphone use. Harmful messages about body image, violent and risky sex, radicalisation, bullying, self-confidence and taking one’s own life are all part of that. Physical health is, of course, part of mental and spiritual health. As many Members have mentioned, getting out and about, eye-to-eye contact and brain development all matter. Let us be absolutely clear: excessive smartphone use is engaged in all aspects of mental, spiritual and, I would argue, physical ill health.
Algorithms can be set to increase addictive scrolling. Apps with weak age verification processes expose children to completely inappropriate material. The business model for some tech companies is not always conducive to children’s health. We also have to consider the benefits of limited, rather than excessive, use of smartphones. A lot of modern life is accessed online, including homework. Social media can gather diaspora, but that too can be a minefield.
If hon. Members have not seen “Under the Volcano”, which is a Polish film about a Ukrainian family stuck in Tenerife at the point of Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine three years ago, they should watch it, because the children in the film are absolutely terrified of what social media is going to tell them about what is happening back at home. I am also conscious that for some neurodiverse youngsters, social media is an absolutely vital means of ensuring their health.
We fully recognise the difficulties facing parents, teachers and youth workers in adjudicating rows, as has often been referred to. Teachers know that they are part of a child’s life for only 20% of their time, so the social expectations on parents are just as important as anything else. I fully recognise the complaint that I hear regularly from young people in my constituency: “There’s nothing else to do around here.” A hundred years ago, in every one of our constituencies, there would have been youth clubs, Scouts and Guides, and lots of different organisations that specifically catered for young people to do active things outside the home. Many of those things barely exist today, and that is part of what we need to look at.
Let me talk specifically about what we will do and what we are doing. I wish that the Online Safety Act 2023 had been introduced in 2020, 2021 or 2022, because it was far too delayed. It is extremely frustrating for Ministers that it has taken so long to get to this point. We are working with Ofcom to implement every element of the Act as fast as we can, but some elements are written into the Act itself. The Secretary of State wrote to Ofcom on 16 October last year to say that we want to implement everything as fast as we can, while taking on board the criticisms that some people have made of Ofcom.
The illegal content codes have now passed parliamentary scrutiny and will come into force this month; I hope that will produce some change. The draft children’s safety codes which have been referred to are nearly finalised. The child safety regime will be in effect by the summer, which is good news, and the Online Safety Act itself, in section 178, says that it must be reviewed. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has launched its own feasibility study of the impact of smartphones and social media use, which will report in May. It is being run by the University of Cambridge and a consortium of experts. We hope that the Bill will help us to build on that feasibility study, so that we have the information that we need to take a considered view. We will work to roughly the same timetable as the one for which the Bill provides. The closer we can get to a causal and direct relationship between smartphone use and mental health issues, and to clear evidence of the best, most effective, and most appropriate and proportionate intervention by the Government, the better.
We are introducing further measures in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Under clauses 91, 124 and 81, new requirements for the design of processing activities by information society services likely to be accessed by children, so that they can be protected and supported, will make a significant difference.
The Bill’s recommendations chime very much with what we intend to do, and are helpful in that direction. Of course we want the Online Safety Act to bed in; of course we want to implement the data Bill and those new provisions; of course we want to conduct fuller, more authoritative research and provide clear advice for teachers and parents across the land; and of course this is not the end of the matter. I shall be amazed if there is not further legislation in this area in the coming years. I commend the campaigners who have made such a strong case to us, via my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington.
The words of the paediatrician mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) are ringing in my mind. There is no option of inaction for this House or this country. There has to be action, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington for introducing the Bill today.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jeff Smith.)
Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.