Westminster Hall
Monday 2nd November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 20 hours, 51 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:30
16:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
This House has considered E-petition 75233. Relating to a proposed ban on social media for under 16 seconds. I declare an interest as a parent of a 15 year old and an 11 year old, who are very much dealing with these issues and us as a family at the moment. So it is it is a very timely debate, but it's always a pleasure to serve under your chair, sir Roger and I start by thanking Leo Rhodes, who from Thirsk and Malton, who started this petition, and the 217,682 people who signed it, including 267 in Folkestone and Hythe.
And I also want to pay tribute to the smartphone free childhood group in my constituency for their tireless organising and campaigning on this issue, as well as to the head teachers, students, parents and others in my constituency who have engaged with me on this issue and driven change in our schools. Sir Roger, In June, the Prime Minister announced that social media companies will be prohibited from offering their services to under 16 seconds, and because of this Labour government, the power is now there. In section 214 A of the Online Safety Act regulations are due before the end of the year, and the first rules are expected to apply from spring next year.
The published model is a banned list of platforms similar to Australia. Now, Leo, the petitioner, does not support a ban. He believes that for many young people, social media is how they communicate with friends and some view social media as a lifeline, a community, a supportive network. He is making a serious argument about friendship, belonging and self-expression, and Barnardo's makes a point that I think that all adults need to hear, which is that the online world has become vital, a vital civic space for young people, partly because the real world spaces have been eroded over decades, made worse by austerity.
Think about the closures of libraries, youth centres, grassroots sports facilities which this government is seeking to address. Now, all of that is true, but at the same time, does it mean that we should allow these companies to provide their products on whatever terms they choose, especially when their products are made to be addictive, create so many dangers and cause so many harms that these companies are simply not addressing, all while raking in huge profits. And here's the interesting thing groups have disagreed. They have disagreed in public about a ban. All have signed one joint statement smartphone free childhood, the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation, People versus Big Tech and Flip Jen, which is a Gen Z led organisation.
They all say that a binary debate between banning children from social media or not can simplify what is , in reality a very complex issue, and instead their position is that access to children should be made conditional on their ability to demonstrate that they are safe. And I will.
And I also want to pay tribute to the smartphone free childhood group in my constituency for their tireless organising and campaigning on this issue, as well as to the head teachers, students, parents and others in my constituency who have engaged with me on this issue and driven change in our schools. Sir Roger, In June, the Prime Minister announced that social media companies will be prohibited from offering their services to under 16 seconds, and because of this Labour government, the power is now there. In section 214 A of the Online Safety Act regulations are due before the end of the year, and the first rules are expected to apply from spring next year.
The published model is a banned list of platforms similar to Australia. Now, Leo, the petitioner, does not support a ban. He believes that for many young people, social media is how they communicate with friends and some view social media as a lifeline, a community, a supportive network. He is making a serious argument about friendship, belonging and self-expression, and Barnardo's makes a point that I think that all adults need to hear, which is that the online world has become vital, a vital civic space for young people, partly because the real world spaces have been eroded over decades, made worse by austerity.
Think about the closures of libraries, youth centres, grassroots sports facilities which this government is seeking to address. Now, all of that is true, but at the same time, does it mean that we should allow these companies to provide their products on whatever terms they choose, especially when their products are made to be addictive, create so many dangers and cause so many harms that these companies are simply not addressing, all while raking in huge profits. And here's the interesting thing groups have disagreed. They have disagreed in public about a ban. All have signed one joint statement smartphone free childhood, the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation, People versus Big Tech and Flip Jen, which is a Gen Z led organisation.
They all say that a binary debate between banning children from social media or not can simplify what is , in reality a very complex issue, and instead their position is that access to children should be made conditional on their ability to demonstrate that they are safe. And I will.
16:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
As a parent of a 15 year old and a 17 year old, sorry, it's been a while ago, a parent, a 19 year old and a 17 year old. I, I, well, I've been speaking to them about this for so long. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should give young people more credit for their ability to understand and articulate the challenges that they face online. They are not simply passive users of social media, and their views deserve to be taken seriously in this debate. I think it is important that we get over to everyone listening that we want to do things together.
We are not doing things to young people. We really want to do things with young people.
We are not doing things to young people. We really want to do things with young people.
16:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I had my own intervention. He's absolutely right. It's absolutely key that the young people affected by this have an absolute seat at the table to be heard, to have their views taken into account by ministers when the position is being finalised, about both the ban and how companies might escape from that . And then feeling included is fundamental. So I thank him for that and agree entirely. I will.
16:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank him for doing so, and I declare an interest as the proud patron of a local youth charity, face, who actually co-hosted my Coffee With Claire event. Listening to young people and those of all ages across my community, that I ran along with an online survey to do just that and listen to people, including young people, about their experiences and views. I wonder if he would agree with me that it feels important that as the regulations are looked at, that we try and look at how we avoid cliff edges where young people may be completely cut off from social media and then exposed to all on one day.
And there is a possibility for some as we look to lower the voting age, that their first day of accessing social media could be on the first day that they cast their first vote as well.
And there is a possibility for some as we look to lower the voting age, that their first day of accessing social media could be on the first day that they cast their first vote as well.
16:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she's absolutely right. We cannot have cliff edges. We have to be building the skills for young people to understand how to deal with this online world so that when that point comes, there's not simply a cliff edge of not just ability to navigate, but for the support that is available. Because let's face it, young people absolutely do rely on these for all sorts of different supports, these technologies. Now, these organisations are clear that companies must earn the right to offer services to under 16 seconds by meeting strict safety standards.
And that means fixing the design, not just taking down the odd post, removing a contact from strangers, disappearing messages and live location sharing , and endless scrolling, autoplay, harmful algorithmic feeds, streaks and notifications. There must be mechanisms to catch new features that put children at risk, and the consequences must be ones that companies cannot simply absorb as a cost of doing business. Now at the Labour conference, my right hon. Friend the member for Wigan has said that there will be a way for companies, if they want to innovate and they want to change, to be able to get themselves essentially off a banned list, but that it is up to them now.
She is also. She also said that it's a sign of failure, that we've got to the point of taking children off social media altogether. And I respectfully agree with her. And so my question to the minister is whether the regulations laid later this year will create that route off the list of all. The ban come first and the route later on. Now, let's take questions at. Young people are actually asking me about a ban because they are good ones. First of all, won't we just get around a ban now? It's a fair question, and the Australian figures here are sobering.
The Australian regulator, E-safety, found that between March and April this year, 12% of children had used makeup to make them look look older or use someone else's ID to circumvent the ban. I will.
And that means fixing the design, not just taking down the odd post, removing a contact from strangers, disappearing messages and live location sharing , and endless scrolling, autoplay, harmful algorithmic feeds, streaks and notifications. There must be mechanisms to catch new features that put children at risk, and the consequences must be ones that companies cannot simply absorb as a cost of doing business. Now at the Labour conference, my right hon. Friend the member for Wigan has said that there will be a way for companies, if they want to innovate and they want to change, to be able to get themselves essentially off a banned list, but that it is up to them now.
She is also. She also said that it's a sign of failure, that we've got to the point of taking children off social media altogether. And I respectfully agree with her. And so my question to the minister is whether the regulations laid later this year will create that route off the list of all. The ban come first and the route later on. Now, let's take questions at. Young people are actually asking me about a ban because they are good ones. First of all, won't we just get around a ban now? It's a fair question, and the Australian figures here are sobering.
The Australian regulator, E-safety, found that between March and April this year, 12% of children had used makeup to make them look look older or use someone else's ID to circumvent the ban. I will.
16:36
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I'm very grateful to Honourable Gentleman for giving way. I confess I would rather see the social media companies give way and accept ways of cleaning up their act, rather than young people having to give way and lose their access. But on the checks he mentioned, passports and driving licences will be required. Doesn't that disadvantage disproportionately poorer households who are less likely to have those documents?
16:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He raises a very interesting point, and as I'll go on to say, Ofcom have recognised various different ways of age verification because we can't be excluding people based on whether or not they have one or other particular document. And in this E-safety survey, they found that 11% of cases a parent had actually helped the child to get around the ban. And so these are sobering statistics that really have to we have to take into account. But most children still on restricted platforms in Australia, they're didn't actually need to get around anything.
Around 3 in 5 said the platform had simply taken no action on their existing account. The technology didn't fail in their situation. The companies just didn't use it. We, sir Roger and I are in a different place. As I understand it, Australia asks these platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children using it. The UK position is that we require highly effective age assurance, and last week Ofcom confirmed that four methods of age verification could be used to meet the test at 16. And my question to the government would be whether you foresee using any or all of those methods set out in the Ofcom report as a mechanism to police about.
And I will take. John.
Around 3 in 5 said the platform had simply taken no action on their existing account. The technology didn't fail in their situation. The companies just didn't use it. We, sir Roger and I are in a different place. As I understand it, Australia asks these platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children using it. The UK position is that we require highly effective age assurance, and last week Ofcom confirmed that four methods of age verification could be used to meet the test at 16. And my question to the government would be whether you foresee using any or all of those methods set out in the Ofcom report as a mechanism to police about.
And I will take. John.
16:38
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. I'm very grateful for him giving way. He's making a really powerful exposition of the arguments in this. He mentioned Australia, which has prompted a number of colleagues and MPs, including myself, to sign a letter to government saying that what this really needs in order to avoid the mistakes and the perils that Australia has got in, is that it needs five essential things from government, including age verification, which you mentioned, but also parents. We need privacy by design, and we also need we need companies to be accountable by default. Does he agree that those are some of the steps that need to be in any effective ban in order for it to be effective?
16:39
16:39
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. Does he share my concern with the Molly Rose Foundation's research that shows 61% of Australian 12 to 15 year olds are still accessing these platforms they're supposed to be banned from. And does he agree with me that that potentially exposes some weaknesses in the concept of a platform based ban, and actually a functionality based ban should be considered to instead?
16:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Absolutely right. We have to be making sure that we're not just dealing with lists, that we're dealing with functionality. And my understanding is if we're going to do this sort of, you know, I don't know what the word is. We're putting down the gauntlet to stop children having access to that. The next question is, if you want to have access for these companies, how do we actually allow that safely? And if that can't be proved, then they can't have access to children as far as I am concerned.
But my friend makes a very important point. I just want to address the issue of VPNs, because some people often say, well, look, children are just going to get around it. Most children who work around age checks do it in simpler ways. And in Australia, only 1 in 20 had actually used one. Platforms already know a great deal about where their users are, and a duty must be on them to understand where their users are and to stop children accessing it. But Barnardo's goes further and wants VPNs age gated. My understanding is that the government has ruled that out for now, and so I do ask the minister what evidence would make them think again on this, because I think it is a really important point.
And where the evidence is, is obviously key on this. Now, the second question that young people often ask me about this is, won't we just move somewhere worse, if a ban comes into place now, young people report using messaging apps and gaming platforms more in Australia following the ban, and their E-safety regulator did a three month evaluation of 803 children aged 10 to 15 before the ban came into force and again in March to April this year. And the share using messaging apps daily or more, rose from 40.5% to 52%, and the share playing video games online every day rose from 26% to 29%.
Also significant. And so that is why the rules must follow the features wherever they appear, including gaming, messaging, AI and app stores. A third question is if something goes wrong, can I still tell somebody? Research for the Molly Rose Foundation found that girls confidence to tell a teacher falls from 55% to 36% if they are still on a banned app. And the message must be to that cohort that it's a platform that broke the rules in that situation, not you. These are not sanctions on individuals, they are duties on the companies. A fourth question is what about my support network mentioned by an honourable member earlier?
Now for LGBT, neurodivergent and isolated young people especially, we do need a transition plan. So before restrictions take effect that young people know how to retain access to confidential advice and networks and safe online support, alongside investment in welcoming local youth services, a sixth question is where is the proof that a ban would work now? The long term studies are not yet in. But last week, as I said, Ofcom published in its first report on content harmful to children and nine months after the children's safety duties came into force, they concluded that there had been no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content and that in a four week period, 14% of 11 to 17 year olds saw suicide or self-harm content, 23% saw content promoting eating disorders, and 61% saw bullying content, most often through their personalised feeds.
Now I will take an intervention.
But my friend makes a very important point. I just want to address the issue of VPNs, because some people often say, well, look, children are just going to get around it. Most children who work around age checks do it in simpler ways. And in Australia, only 1 in 20 had actually used one. Platforms already know a great deal about where their users are, and a duty must be on them to understand where their users are and to stop children accessing it. But Barnardo's goes further and wants VPNs age gated. My understanding is that the government has ruled that out for now, and so I do ask the minister what evidence would make them think again on this, because I think it is a really important point.
And where the evidence is, is obviously key on this. Now, the second question that young people often ask me about this is, won't we just move somewhere worse, if a ban comes into place now, young people report using messaging apps and gaming platforms more in Australia following the ban, and their E-safety regulator did a three month evaluation of 803 children aged 10 to 15 before the ban came into force and again in March to April this year. And the share using messaging apps daily or more, rose from 40.5% to 52%, and the share playing video games online every day rose from 26% to 29%.
Also significant. And so that is why the rules must follow the features wherever they appear, including gaming, messaging, AI and app stores. A third question is if something goes wrong, can I still tell somebody? Research for the Molly Rose Foundation found that girls confidence to tell a teacher falls from 55% to 36% if they are still on a banned app. And the message must be to that cohort that it's a platform that broke the rules in that situation, not you. These are not sanctions on individuals, they are duties on the companies. A fourth question is what about my support network mentioned by an honourable member earlier?
Now for LGBT, neurodivergent and isolated young people especially, we do need a transition plan. So before restrictions take effect that young people know how to retain access to confidential advice and networks and safe online support, alongside investment in welcoming local youth services, a sixth question is where is the proof that a ban would work now? The long term studies are not yet in. But last week, as I said, Ofcom published in its first report on content harmful to children and nine months after the children's safety duties came into force, they concluded that there had been no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content and that in a four week period, 14% of 11 to 17 year olds saw suicide or self-harm content, 23% saw content promoting eating disorders, and 61% saw bullying content, most often through their personalised feeds.
Now I will take an intervention.
16:42
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I very much appreciate the honourable member for giving way. For a long time we've had big tech companies in Silicon Valley and in China dictating what it's like to grow up as a child here in the UK, but on the point of self-harm, often integrated into social media or chat bots. And some of these chat bots are giving unregulated medical advice. Sometimes people with eating disorders are learning how to get low calorie diets or how to access weight loss drugs. Does he agree to me that with me, that any regulation on social media companies must include chat bots, whether they're integrated into social media or standalone chat bots?
16:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the honourable member for his intervention. I do, I do agree there is a whole plethora of sources of harm on the internet, and a chat bot like that is exactly one example. Another example that somebody was telling me about is suicide forums that exist, and they encourage all sorts of awful views and behaviours. And it's, it is perhaps not directly part of this exact debate, but I mean, the government having the ability to stop that stuff outside, in addition to the social media debate, is absolutely key. And as I understand it, more powers may be needed to go that far.
But I agree it's absolutely necessary. Tragically, we can't even rely on the company's own numbers either. Ofcom stated in their report that their exposure data only account for content detected by service providers. In other words, they count what they catch, they don't count what they miss, and Parliament treats harmful content that Parliament treats as harmful may not even be prohibited under the company's own rules. Ofcom say the data are indicative rather than direct measures. Now that none of that proves that a safe platform is impossible. But it does show that complying with today's rules is no certificate of safety.
Sir Roger, it is clear that, given the scale of harm we are seeing, we should be applying the precautionary principle. It is right that the government does impose a circuit breaker ban now, as the government has promised, and in the meantime, the government is right to be working on a system for deciding how platforms can earn the right to serve under 16 seconds by showing that they are safe, including by removing addictive and harmful features. Some say that Ofcom does not have the capability to police whether sites are safe in practice. And in February 2025, I led a debate calling for a ban on social media and I asked this chamber why we cannot simply reverse the burden so that it would not be for the regulator to prove that an app is harmful, but the company to prove that it is safe.
Now, I think that it's the right question, and I believe that the government agrees with that, and that agrees that is the right question to ask. But I'd welcome the Minister's confirmation that that is the way the government is looking at it. An off ramp can only ever be acceptable. If the burden genuinely shifts, then incomplete data or uncertainty about about safety must mean no exemption and not another long investigation while children remain exposed. So assuming companies do demonstrate safety, I five questions for the minister about this potential off ramp. First of all, what exactly must a company show on harmful content, including what it misses on contact from strangers, on addictive design, and on risks to the most vulnerable children to to be able to demonstrate that their platforms are safe.
Secondly, who checks what evidence that that evidence independently with access to the real product rather than just a company's own statistics? Thirdly, will the regulations expressly state that insufficient evidence means no exemption, rather than the regulator being required to prove everything as they currently do, which is very, very difficult. When we come up against a well resourced social media companies. Fourthly, will major changes to an app or algorithm trigger a reassessment if new evidence of harm emerges? How quickly can an exemption be suspended or withdrawn? The Molly Rose Foundation says exemptions must be hard earned, with stretching demands to keep them and requirements reviewed and updated annually.
And finally, will Ofcom have the powers, expertise and resources to be able to access data needed to administer this system? How the access to resources and data to administer it. So, Roger, I'm going to end by turning to the young people who sign this petition. They are right to put freedom at the heart of this debate, the freedom to express themselves and to find their community. But that must also mean freedom from harassment and from content that damages their well-being and from design. That makes it harder to put the phone down and spend time on other things that they themselves value.
And those freedoms do matter as well. And I recognise that restrictions will limit choices. That is why the aim must not be permanent exclusion, but requiring companies to offer something better and most importantly, safe. These children, young people, should not have to choose between connection and safety, and companies should earn the right to serve you. Serve them by respecting both. Thank you.
But I agree it's absolutely necessary. Tragically, we can't even rely on the company's own numbers either. Ofcom stated in their report that their exposure data only account for content detected by service providers. In other words, they count what they catch, they don't count what they miss, and Parliament treats harmful content that Parliament treats as harmful may not even be prohibited under the company's own rules. Ofcom say the data are indicative rather than direct measures. Now that none of that proves that a safe platform is impossible. But it does show that complying with today's rules is no certificate of safety.
Sir Roger, it is clear that, given the scale of harm we are seeing, we should be applying the precautionary principle. It is right that the government does impose a circuit breaker ban now, as the government has promised, and in the meantime, the government is right to be working on a system for deciding how platforms can earn the right to serve under 16 seconds by showing that they are safe, including by removing addictive and harmful features. Some say that Ofcom does not have the capability to police whether sites are safe in practice. And in February 2025, I led a debate calling for a ban on social media and I asked this chamber why we cannot simply reverse the burden so that it would not be for the regulator to prove that an app is harmful, but the company to prove that it is safe.
Now, I think that it's the right question, and I believe that the government agrees with that, and that agrees that is the right question to ask. But I'd welcome the Minister's confirmation that that is the way the government is looking at it. An off ramp can only ever be acceptable. If the burden genuinely shifts, then incomplete data or uncertainty about about safety must mean no exemption and not another long investigation while children remain exposed. So assuming companies do demonstrate safety, I five questions for the minister about this potential off ramp. First of all, what exactly must a company show on harmful content, including what it misses on contact from strangers, on addictive design, and on risks to the most vulnerable children to to be able to demonstrate that their platforms are safe.
Secondly, who checks what evidence that that evidence independently with access to the real product rather than just a company's own statistics? Thirdly, will the regulations expressly state that insufficient evidence means no exemption, rather than the regulator being required to prove everything as they currently do, which is very, very difficult. When we come up against a well resourced social media companies. Fourthly, will major changes to an app or algorithm trigger a reassessment if new evidence of harm emerges? How quickly can an exemption be suspended or withdrawn? The Molly Rose Foundation says exemptions must be hard earned, with stretching demands to keep them and requirements reviewed and updated annually.
And finally, will Ofcom have the powers, expertise and resources to be able to access data needed to administer this system? How the access to resources and data to administer it. So, Roger, I'm going to end by turning to the young people who sign this petition. They are right to put freedom at the heart of this debate, the freedom to express themselves and to find their community. But that must also mean freedom from harassment and from content that damages their well-being and from design. That makes it harder to put the phone down and spend time on other things that they themselves value.
And those freedoms do matter as well. And I recognise that restrictions will limit choices. That is why the aim must not be permanent exclusion, but requiring companies to offer something better and most importantly, safe. These children, young people, should not have to choose between connection and safety, and companies should earn the right to serve you. Serve them by respecting both. Thank you.
16:48
16:48
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Sir Roger. And it's an honour to serve again under your chair. I thank the member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing this debate and to the 416 constituents in Camborne and Redruth and Hayle who signed the petition. I want to start my speech with a line from Ofcom's own report on children's exposure to harmful content online, published just 11 days ago. Children's exposure to eating disorder content on user to user platforms did not significantly change over the first nine months after the children's safety duties in the Online Safety Act came into force in July 2025.
This Saroja is damning. The status quo fails outright to protect children from harmful eating disorder. Content pushed by recommender algorithms. I'm going to focus my speech on eating disorders, not because they are the be all and end all of the banning social media debate, but they are emblematic of where we have not been bold enough. Eating disorders are an issue that many children and their parents must grapple with. Across the country, and it is one of the key reasons that I became an MP. I do not wish to. The experience of my family or any other on any other.
Which is why reading Ofcom's comments compelled me to speak today. Pro-eating disorder content can be found far and wide across social media terms such as thinspo looks maxing and Anna, short for anorexia, are used across social media to evade moderation. It is, for all intents and purposes, these algorithms shamelessly, shamelessly pushing them to vulnerable children's feeds. All the same, a meta review of 50 studies involving 10 to 24 year olds found consistent links between social media usage and eating disorders. Among those with eating disorders, 97% said social media hindered rather than supported their recovery. And whilst it is often girls whose algorithms push this eating disorder content or to whom this these algorithms content is pushed, this is increasingly true of boys too.
The Children Children's Commissioners February report found that through short term social media content, children are routinely exposed not only to prescription weight loss drugs, as the member from Winchester just suggested, but steroids too, through both organic content and influencer marketing. Influencer marketing. To return to my central point, the current approach fails to regulate these algorithms sufficiently enough to protect children from harmful eating disorder content. An under 16 social media ban is blunt, and no age verification system is perfect, but it's the proposal before us and goes some way to matching the scale of the harm that is being done when an industry's business model depends on capturing children's attention, we cannot keep asking children and parents to carry all the risk.
The burden must fall on the platforms. We must act now to support our most vulnerable children, from being exploited to their immense harm.
This Saroja is damning. The status quo fails outright to protect children from harmful eating disorder. Content pushed by recommender algorithms. I'm going to focus my speech on eating disorders, not because they are the be all and end all of the banning social media debate, but they are emblematic of where we have not been bold enough. Eating disorders are an issue that many children and their parents must grapple with. Across the country, and it is one of the key reasons that I became an MP. I do not wish to. The experience of my family or any other on any other.
Which is why reading Ofcom's comments compelled me to speak today. Pro-eating disorder content can be found far and wide across social media terms such as thinspo looks maxing and Anna, short for anorexia, are used across social media to evade moderation. It is, for all intents and purposes, these algorithms shamelessly, shamelessly pushing them to vulnerable children's feeds. All the same, a meta review of 50 studies involving 10 to 24 year olds found consistent links between social media usage and eating disorders. Among those with eating disorders, 97% said social media hindered rather than supported their recovery. And whilst it is often girls whose algorithms push this eating disorder content or to whom this these algorithms content is pushed, this is increasingly true of boys too.
The Children Children's Commissioners February report found that through short term social media content, children are routinely exposed not only to prescription weight loss drugs, as the member from Winchester just suggested, but steroids too, through both organic content and influencer marketing. Influencer marketing. To return to my central point, the current approach fails to regulate these algorithms sufficiently enough to protect children from harmful eating disorder content. An under 16 social media ban is blunt, and no age verification system is perfect, but it's the proposal before us and goes some way to matching the scale of the harm that is being done when an industry's business model depends on capturing children's attention, we cannot keep asking children and parents to carry all the risk.
The burden must fall on the platforms. We must act now to support our most vulnerable children, from being exploited to their immense harm.
16:52
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you very much, sir Roger. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. The petition we are debating today calls for the government to rethink its ban on social media for under 16 seconds. I want to set out why I agree with the aims of the petition, and substantially with the 457 constituents of mine that have signed it. While I recognise the government's policy was brought in with the best of intentions, I have serious concerns that it won't be workable and that it will take away a lot of value. I'm glad Parliament has spent a lot of time debating the harms caused by poorly regulated social media.
Urgent action is needed, but I think in looking at the current state of the online world, we've lost sight of what social media could and should be. I will and do strongly criticise how tech companies have increasingly sought to make social media addictive, and turned a blind eye to horrific exploitation and abuse online, as well as deeply harmful content. Along the lines of what my hon. Friend has just outlined. We must force them to act in these areas, but their failure to do so so far must not lead us to conclude that social media itself is an unfixable problem, when it can bring positives to people's lives.
I will give way.
Urgent action is needed, but I think in looking at the current state of the online world, we've lost sight of what social media could and should be. I will and do strongly criticise how tech companies have increasingly sought to make social media addictive, and turned a blind eye to horrific exploitation and abuse online, as well as deeply harmful content. Along the lines of what my hon. Friend has just outlined. We must force them to act in these areas, but their failure to do so so far must not lead us to conclude that social media itself is an unfixable problem, when it can bring positives to people's lives.
I will give way.
16:53
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I'm very grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. On the Education Select Committee, when we were looking at online harms, we had every major social media corporation sat in front of us and they, despite our characterization as their their features being inherently addictive, did not recognize that description. Does he agree with me that with that kind of denial going on, we have very few options left available to us other than to ensure that actually, it's the corporation's access to our children that is restricted, not children's access to social media.
16:54
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I'm really grateful to my hon. Friend and I absolutely agree with him that the way social media companies have denied a lot of the problems and have treated this as just a non-serious issue is deeply, deeply wrong and alarming. And I hope he'll agree with some of the proposals I have later in this speech for how we may look at that. So the petition emphasizes the community and connection that social media currently offers young people, and I have personal experience of that. I've spoken about this in debates before, but when I was around 13, I realised that my sexuality wasn't like those around me.
I wasn't straight, but living in a rural area and growing up in a homophobic, close knit religious community, I had few people to talk to about that. Social media, in my case, was such a valuable tool to be able to connect with other LGBT people in similar situations to me. If I hadn't had that, I would have been far more alienated and alone, lacking peer support. A blanket ban on social media, I fear, could risk making that a reality for many, and I can't support that. Not after the lifeline online conversation gave me growing up.
And that doesn't just go for LGBT people either. Growing up in rural areas more generally can create barriers for children whose friends may live some distance away. Online spaces can help widen social circles if used properly and maintain friendships made in the real world, too. And I don't want young people to lose that because of the way tech companies are acting. Without a doubt, we need to seriously strengthen safeguards, and there is clearly significant work that needs to be done to keep children safe online. But a blanket ban is clumsy and risks being completely ineffective.
I worry that a named platform approach, in particular, as is proposed, would result in a constant game of whack a mole between children and Ofcom, as the former migrate to new platforms as the old ones are made unavailable. Young people are far more digitally literate than I think older generations have sometimes grasped, and they move faster than I believe any regulator could. So whilst well-meaning, a blanket ban could drive children, in my view, to fringe platforms which are even less well regulated and where extreme content could be even more prevalent. And that is an outcome I am sure nobody wants.
Earlier this year, the NSPCC, the centre of expertise on child sexual abuse, the Molly Rose Foundation and a long list of other child safety experts all signed a letter to the government warning that a blanket ban was a blunt response. Instead, they are united in calling for more accountability from the big tech companies. The NSPCC, for example, has been clear that the government needs to stop companies from designing their platforms in a way that is addictive to children, and use the full force of the law to make sure social media platforms are safe for children to use.
I support a functionality based approach limiting certain features without creating a situation where children who will find a way to use social media regardless are led on to more extreme platforms, and we're seeing some of the risks with this right now in Australia, where they have had a social media ban in place. According to research from the Molly Rose Foundation, 61% of Australian 12 to 15 year olds are still accessing platforms that they're meant to be banned from. This is clear evidence in my mind of why platform based bans aren't the answer, and why we must change course.
A functionality based approach would benefit users of all ages. Frankly, limiting addictive and AI generated content that is increasingly plagued the major sites in recent years. Because addictive content does affect adults, too, not just children. Targeting functionalities could also stop the race to the bottom when it comes to short form content. The popularity of those short form videos exploded with TikTok a few years ago, and now pretty much every platform has a shorts feature. Even LinkedIn has experimented with one, and it seems that many platforms have felt a need for a short feature to remain competitive, even when it doesn't quite seem to fit.
Take YouTube, for example, which was always designed for long form content, or Instagram, who have increasingly promoted their reels function over the more traditional post feed they were known for. And I think a lot of the short form content has exacerbated a lot of underlying problems, particularly in relation to algorithmically driven harmful content, which we need to bear in mind. But I can certainly envision a scenario where several platforms would likely not really have an issue getting rid of their short feature, which has led to so many of the problems we're talking about. If others did so too, which is where regulation could step in, any regulation of social media companies needs to take into account the decisions that they are making and why they are being made, so we can force them to do things better.
And on the subject of YouTube, I would just briefly like to to sort of highlight that YouTube is explicitly included in the ban. And I think that is particularly difficult. There are, of course, problems with it as a platform. I've criticised it too, but it is a platform with a lot of educational content, for example. And so I would argue there is an equality angle there actually, because while that's valuable for anyone, removing it could be a real blow for students who are trying to improve their school grades but don't have the funds to pay for private tutors, for example.
It's a real possibility that this type of ban could create some significant inequalities around access to resources. I will give way.
I wasn't straight, but living in a rural area and growing up in a homophobic, close knit religious community, I had few people to talk to about that. Social media, in my case, was such a valuable tool to be able to connect with other LGBT people in similar situations to me. If I hadn't had that, I would have been far more alienated and alone, lacking peer support. A blanket ban on social media, I fear, could risk making that a reality for many, and I can't support that. Not after the lifeline online conversation gave me growing up.
And that doesn't just go for LGBT people either. Growing up in rural areas more generally can create barriers for children whose friends may live some distance away. Online spaces can help widen social circles if used properly and maintain friendships made in the real world, too. And I don't want young people to lose that because of the way tech companies are acting. Without a doubt, we need to seriously strengthen safeguards, and there is clearly significant work that needs to be done to keep children safe online. But a blanket ban is clumsy and risks being completely ineffective.
I worry that a named platform approach, in particular, as is proposed, would result in a constant game of whack a mole between children and Ofcom, as the former migrate to new platforms as the old ones are made unavailable. Young people are far more digitally literate than I think older generations have sometimes grasped, and they move faster than I believe any regulator could. So whilst well-meaning, a blanket ban could drive children, in my view, to fringe platforms which are even less well regulated and where extreme content could be even more prevalent. And that is an outcome I am sure nobody wants.
Earlier this year, the NSPCC, the centre of expertise on child sexual abuse, the Molly Rose Foundation and a long list of other child safety experts all signed a letter to the government warning that a blanket ban was a blunt response. Instead, they are united in calling for more accountability from the big tech companies. The NSPCC, for example, has been clear that the government needs to stop companies from designing their platforms in a way that is addictive to children, and use the full force of the law to make sure social media platforms are safe for children to use.
I support a functionality based approach limiting certain features without creating a situation where children who will find a way to use social media regardless are led on to more extreme platforms, and we're seeing some of the risks with this right now in Australia, where they have had a social media ban in place. According to research from the Molly Rose Foundation, 61% of Australian 12 to 15 year olds are still accessing platforms that they're meant to be banned from. This is clear evidence in my mind of why platform based bans aren't the answer, and why we must change course.
A functionality based approach would benefit users of all ages. Frankly, limiting addictive and AI generated content that is increasingly plagued the major sites in recent years. Because addictive content does affect adults, too, not just children. Targeting functionalities could also stop the race to the bottom when it comes to short form content. The popularity of those short form videos exploded with TikTok a few years ago, and now pretty much every platform has a shorts feature. Even LinkedIn has experimented with one, and it seems that many platforms have felt a need for a short feature to remain competitive, even when it doesn't quite seem to fit.
Take YouTube, for example, which was always designed for long form content, or Instagram, who have increasingly promoted their reels function over the more traditional post feed they were known for. And I think a lot of the short form content has exacerbated a lot of underlying problems, particularly in relation to algorithmically driven harmful content, which we need to bear in mind. But I can certainly envision a scenario where several platforms would likely not really have an issue getting rid of their short feature, which has led to so many of the problems we're talking about. If others did so too, which is where regulation could step in, any regulation of social media companies needs to take into account the decisions that they are making and why they are being made, so we can force them to do things better.
And on the subject of YouTube, I would just briefly like to to sort of highlight that YouTube is explicitly included in the ban. And I think that is particularly difficult. There are, of course, problems with it as a platform. I've criticised it too, but it is a platform with a lot of educational content, for example. And so I would argue there is an equality angle there actually, because while that's valuable for anyone, removing it could be a real blow for students who are trying to improve their school grades but don't have the funds to pay for private tutors, for example.
It's a real possibility that this type of ban could create some significant inequalities around access to resources. I will give way.
16:59
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. I'm listening to his point. I agree with an awful lot of you saying, but it's one of the problems in this that we must recognise that young people are not a single homogenous group, and what's good for one is not good for another. And that is what the government is wrestling with. And I have a huge amount of sympathy for what they're trying to do. So whilst we're hearing young people's voices as well, one thing that is closer to a homogenous group is parents who want the best for their kids. And what we have to try and do is grapple with this and find a way through this that works.
And does he agree with me that that is what we are trying to do , and hopefully we will get there together?
And does he agree with me that that is what we are trying to do , and hopefully we will get there together?
16:59
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Absolutely. I really welcome my hon. Friend's contribution, and I know that so many parents are really grappling with this issue and having a lot of trouble with it, and we need to be providing that support. We need to be hearing their voices and what will work for them and support them, as well as the users that we're currently talking about. I think the enforceability of a ban is also damaged by the fact that, particularly with YouTube, a lot of viewing is done on TVs, and I wonder if the government has any thoughts on how parents might have to grapple with that in a home situation, and whether they have views on the acceptability of it in that circumstance.
Ultimately, my concerns are that a blanket ban lets the big companies off the hook, as well as likely proving ineffective at keeping children safe because children will still get onto platforms online. But if if they're on platforms that aren't well regulated, or if social media companies can argue that there aren't children on when frankly, there still are, they will stop focusing on safety for children at all. And on that point, I also want to briefly touch on online gaming, which I think is under-discussed in these conversations with many people, not necessarily recognising the social features associated with those spaces.
To Roblox, for example, is a massive online game aimed at children. It is such a hotbed for predators that vigilantes have taken to conducting paedophile sting operations in game, as the company's response to online abuse has been so atrocious, one such vigilante going online by schlep , managed to get six child predators arrested, and Roblox responded by banning him and threatening legal action. So no action to stop predators but strong enforcement against people who are trying to stop them. We can't encourage vigilantism, but the priorities there are clearly so wrong. And this isn't the only example of abuse in online gaming.
I've previously met with the Breck Foundation, formed in 2014 after the tragic death of Breck Bednar, a 14 year old boy groomed and murdered by someone he met while playing battlefield three. The groomer lied and manipulated to gain Breck's trust and lure him to his flat. The foundation now goes into schools to improve the digital resilience of children across the country. They provide invaluable resources to help keep children safe, but crucially, they are not in favor of a blanket ban. In Breck's case, removing his access to technology only drove the abuse underground, with a secret device provided by the abuser.
So I agree with the foundation that a ban risks narrowing a complex conversation. Indeed, online gaming is a fun hobby for many children and adults and can be very pro-social as well as supporting development of creative skills. The current proposals in front of us don't ban online gaming for children, which is right. Any attempt to do so would be devastating for people who enjoy it, and they will inevitably again end up in less regulated spaces if mainstream platforms and games are clumsily cut off to them. But the proposals also don't really tackle the issues in the online gaming space, and I would like to see more recognition of what we do need to do in that area.
The Breck Foundation, like other safeguarding organisations, has called for greater accountability from big tech companies. That is where we need to be. A blanket ban won't work. It would allow predators to ruin it for everyone else and let them win, essentially. We need to protect the benefits that social media and online gaming can offer to young people, whilst ensuring the companies behind them take safety and security far, far more seriously. As the youngest MP, I know more than most how interwoven the online world is with growing up. We need to regulate these spaces, not hope they will magically go away.
They won't.
Ultimately, my concerns are that a blanket ban lets the big companies off the hook, as well as likely proving ineffective at keeping children safe because children will still get onto platforms online. But if if they're on platforms that aren't well regulated, or if social media companies can argue that there aren't children on when frankly, there still are, they will stop focusing on safety for children at all. And on that point, I also want to briefly touch on online gaming, which I think is under-discussed in these conversations with many people, not necessarily recognising the social features associated with those spaces.
To Roblox, for example, is a massive online game aimed at children. It is such a hotbed for predators that vigilantes have taken to conducting paedophile sting operations in game, as the company's response to online abuse has been so atrocious, one such vigilante going online by schlep , managed to get six child predators arrested, and Roblox responded by banning him and threatening legal action. So no action to stop predators but strong enforcement against people who are trying to stop them. We can't encourage vigilantism, but the priorities there are clearly so wrong. And this isn't the only example of abuse in online gaming.
I've previously met with the Breck Foundation, formed in 2014 after the tragic death of Breck Bednar, a 14 year old boy groomed and murdered by someone he met while playing battlefield three. The groomer lied and manipulated to gain Breck's trust and lure him to his flat. The foundation now goes into schools to improve the digital resilience of children across the country. They provide invaluable resources to help keep children safe, but crucially, they are not in favor of a blanket ban. In Breck's case, removing his access to technology only drove the abuse underground, with a secret device provided by the abuser.
So I agree with the foundation that a ban risks narrowing a complex conversation. Indeed, online gaming is a fun hobby for many children and adults and can be very pro-social as well as supporting development of creative skills. The current proposals in front of us don't ban online gaming for children, which is right. Any attempt to do so would be devastating for people who enjoy it, and they will inevitably again end up in less regulated spaces if mainstream platforms and games are clumsily cut off to them. But the proposals also don't really tackle the issues in the online gaming space, and I would like to see more recognition of what we do need to do in that area.
The Breck Foundation, like other safeguarding organisations, has called for greater accountability from big tech companies. That is where we need to be. A blanket ban won't work. It would allow predators to ruin it for everyone else and let them win, essentially. We need to protect the benefits that social media and online gaming can offer to young people, whilst ensuring the companies behind them take safety and security far, far more seriously. As the youngest MP, I know more than most how interwoven the online world is with growing up. We need to regulate these spaces, not hope they will magically go away.
They won't.
17:03
17:03
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And before I begin, I'd like to declare an interest, which is that a family member is employed by smartphone free childhood. I also speak today, not just as a politician, but as a parent. My children aren't yet old enough to be on social media, but my wake up call came when my then seven year old daughter put a smartphone at the top of her Christmas list, and I'm fearful about what's to come for my kids. And I know that I want the government to be fully on my side as my family navigates the teenage years.
So I do support the government's decision to ban social media for under 16 seconds, and I do urge us now to move quickly to clarify the details and to implement the ban, starting by bringing forward these regulations, because the reality is that for years, we've been allowing social media companies to access and influence our children unchecked. If we were talking about anything else but the social media companies, whether that's toy manufacturers or pharmaceuticals, we would have put these precautions and protections in place already. We haven't. And while the causality can be hard to prove, it cannot be pure coincidence that this period of growing screen and social media use has coincided with the rapid decline in young people's mental health and wellbeing, poor sleeping patterns, poor school attendance, increasing rates of self-harm and eating disorders.
As other honourable friends have mentioned, we've been putting children into an online environment that overwhelms their still developing brain functions, as Jonathan Haidt has set out very powerfully, and the harms are clear. I fully respect the views of those petitioners who say that there are benefits to to young people being able to access social media, including the 430 people in my constituency who have signed this petition. But I think the view of these petitioners does not contradict a ban of the kind that the government is taking forward. It's a ban on platforms built to encourage addiction, like through infinite scrolling or streaks.
It's a ban on strangers being able to access our children and cause harm. It's not the end of children being able to communicate with family and friends, seek out community, seek out help if they need it. It's the start of them being able to do that safely. And so why is this the right way forward? I'll just share three thoughts briefly. First, because I think it sets a new norm and that's so important. Parents currently feel trapped in this no win situation, where they either allow social media and risk harming their child, or they refuse it and risk their child feeling socially excluded.
And many young people themselves reach early adulthood and wish that they had never had that access or that pressure of social media that they did. But by then it's too late and young people themselves will say this to me. They'll say, please don't stop us communicating with our friends, but please do help me manage this addiction that I'm having to live with. I think that age limit of 16 removes those pressures and creates this new shared norm that childhood does not need to be lived on and through social media. Second, I think a ban is both inclusive and equalising, because the reality is that not all parents have the knowledge or the time or the capacity to manage all the parental controls at the moment.
And I do notice this pattern where it's often the parents with a bit more time or income or freedom, who are making the active decisions to keep their children off social media. But that's really tough for parents. And a ban for under 16 removes that burden from individual families and from the parents, from the young people themselves, and ensures that all children, regardless of their background or their family situation, have those same protections. Thirdly, I think this ban is so important because it gives us that clarity to start thinking about alternatives. We've been stuck in this debate for for a long time.
But actually, you know, if children are simply not allowed social media and that's decided, then what might their childhoods look like? Because the science shows that executive brain function develops through practice in the real world, through play and through face to face interaction, through sustained attention, through unstructured time. So what policy interventions will encourage children to spend more time outside? How do we create those environments where they can play without structure and without the performance that social media requires? What do the best practice online learning tools look like? If some of those addictive design features are removed?
There are so many vital policy questions that we're freed up to address once the rules on social media access for our children are clear. I just want to make one final point on one aspect of the ban that's particularly important to me. Last year I had a really serious and harrowing case in my constituency, where a 12 year old boy was groomed by an AI chatbot, which encouraged him to leave school to turn against his parents, to run away from home, to engage in a highly sexualized dialogue, and even suggested that the boy and the chatbot might meet in the afterlife.
This should never, ever have happened, and no other 12 year old should be exposed to harm in this way. I've pushed hard at this on the time, and I was very grateful to the then Secretary of State for taking note and for including AI romantic companion bots in the ban. But I do continue to urge ambition and clarity as this aspect of the ban is taken forward. And we may find that just regulating the romantic companion bots isn't enough. As as others, including the honourable member for Folkestone and Hythe, have said, chair, the social media ban is not about some sort of rose tinted return to childhoods of the past.
It's about giving children the right protections in our digital age, allowing them to benefit from the very best of the online world, educating them about the online world for adulthood, but doing so in that age appropriate way, and setting them up to be safe and happy and successful, both online and offline. Thank you.
So I do support the government's decision to ban social media for under 16 seconds, and I do urge us now to move quickly to clarify the details and to implement the ban, starting by bringing forward these regulations, because the reality is that for years, we've been allowing social media companies to access and influence our children unchecked. If we were talking about anything else but the social media companies, whether that's toy manufacturers or pharmaceuticals, we would have put these precautions and protections in place already. We haven't. And while the causality can be hard to prove, it cannot be pure coincidence that this period of growing screen and social media use has coincided with the rapid decline in young people's mental health and wellbeing, poor sleeping patterns, poor school attendance, increasing rates of self-harm and eating disorders.
As other honourable friends have mentioned, we've been putting children into an online environment that overwhelms their still developing brain functions, as Jonathan Haidt has set out very powerfully, and the harms are clear. I fully respect the views of those petitioners who say that there are benefits to to young people being able to access social media, including the 430 people in my constituency who have signed this petition. But I think the view of these petitioners does not contradict a ban of the kind that the government is taking forward. It's a ban on platforms built to encourage addiction, like through infinite scrolling or streaks.
It's a ban on strangers being able to access our children and cause harm. It's not the end of children being able to communicate with family and friends, seek out community, seek out help if they need it. It's the start of them being able to do that safely. And so why is this the right way forward? I'll just share three thoughts briefly. First, because I think it sets a new norm and that's so important. Parents currently feel trapped in this no win situation, where they either allow social media and risk harming their child, or they refuse it and risk their child feeling socially excluded.
And many young people themselves reach early adulthood and wish that they had never had that access or that pressure of social media that they did. But by then it's too late and young people themselves will say this to me. They'll say, please don't stop us communicating with our friends, but please do help me manage this addiction that I'm having to live with. I think that age limit of 16 removes those pressures and creates this new shared norm that childhood does not need to be lived on and through social media. Second, I think a ban is both inclusive and equalising, because the reality is that not all parents have the knowledge or the time or the capacity to manage all the parental controls at the moment.
And I do notice this pattern where it's often the parents with a bit more time or income or freedom, who are making the active decisions to keep their children off social media. But that's really tough for parents. And a ban for under 16 removes that burden from individual families and from the parents, from the young people themselves, and ensures that all children, regardless of their background or their family situation, have those same protections. Thirdly, I think this ban is so important because it gives us that clarity to start thinking about alternatives. We've been stuck in this debate for for a long time.
But actually, you know, if children are simply not allowed social media and that's decided, then what might their childhoods look like? Because the science shows that executive brain function develops through practice in the real world, through play and through face to face interaction, through sustained attention, through unstructured time. So what policy interventions will encourage children to spend more time outside? How do we create those environments where they can play without structure and without the performance that social media requires? What do the best practice online learning tools look like? If some of those addictive design features are removed?
There are so many vital policy questions that we're freed up to address once the rules on social media access for our children are clear. I just want to make one final point on one aspect of the ban that's particularly important to me. Last year I had a really serious and harrowing case in my constituency, where a 12 year old boy was groomed by an AI chatbot, which encouraged him to leave school to turn against his parents, to run away from home, to engage in a highly sexualized dialogue, and even suggested that the boy and the chatbot might meet in the afterlife.
This should never, ever have happened, and no other 12 year old should be exposed to harm in this way. I've pushed hard at this on the time, and I was very grateful to the then Secretary of State for taking note and for including AI romantic companion bots in the ban. But I do continue to urge ambition and clarity as this aspect of the ban is taken forward. And we may find that just regulating the romantic companion bots isn't enough. As as others, including the honourable member for Folkestone and Hythe, have said, chair, the social media ban is not about some sort of rose tinted return to childhoods of the past.
It's about giving children the right protections in our digital age, allowing them to benefit from the very best of the online world, educating them about the online world for adulthood, but doing so in that age appropriate way, and setting them up to be safe and happy and successful, both online and offline. Thank you.
17:09
17:09
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you very much, Roger. And it's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon. And I thank the honourable member for his opening speech and to the petitioners for bringing this important issue forward. There's a range of views on this debate, and it is so important that we listen to those young people who do want us to look in detail at what the impact might be on them. And it's absolutely right that we look at the concerns raised by all those young people adults, teachers, parents and families on the impact of social media, on children's wellbeing, mental health and development.
And it's important we recognise that they are genuine concerns shared by many. Now, I was rather looking forward to saying that I was the youngest colleague in the room, which has been stolen by my hon. Friend the member for North West, East Cambridgeshire, but I am one of those few MPs that grew up with social media. Like many of my friends, I did access social media before the age of 13. I've seen firsthand how rapidly evolving platforms have given rise to harmful content, misinformation, addiction affecting adults as well as young people. Now, the vast majority of colleagues in this place can remember a time before social media.
Today's generation of young people have not had that benefit. They've grown up with it, with their lives intertwined with the digital world. And so chair, parents, teachers, young people as well have every right to be angry when children are exposed to harmful content . Online bullying, unrealistic expectations, addictive platform design and material that damages their mental health. It's no wonder that people feel we haven't acted quickly enough in this place, and I remember being at school, being a young person desperate for the government to do more. And they didn't. Parents are right to demand action. Parliament has a responsibility to respond.
So the question before us is not about whether we should act. Of course we should. The question is about what will be most effective, and it is so important that we get it right. Earlier this year, I held a series of roundtables with secondary school pupils across Hertford and Stortford to hear directly from them about their experiences online. Many described social media as a source of anxiety. Others spoke about exposure to graphic content, misinformation, online pressures that previous generations simply did not have to navigate. But the conversations I had with young people also highlighted that social media is not simply a straightforward source of risk.
It can be a vital source of information, connection and support. Indeed, I first became politically engaged through the online world because after the referendum in 2016, I was encouraged to join a protest to lower the voting age to 16, and I stood out there with other young people calling for the voting age to be lowered. I wouldn't have been there and I would not be here had I not come across it through the online world. Many of the young people that I spoke to shared similar experiences and stressed that too often, this debate overlooks the positive role that social media can play when safe.
When well regulated, it can help to combat isolation and foster meaningful connections, particularly for those in semi-rural communities like mine. It can provide a lifeline for young people who are LGBTQ plus neurodiverse, or living with a mental health condition, helping them to understand their identity and access peer support networks. And for many of those young people, they will be on long waiting lists for traditional services. Those online communities provide an essential source of support in the interim, and I do worry that a blanket ban could risk pulling the rug out from under those young people and removing the safety net altogether.
But one of the strongest messages I heard from young people was that they actually want us to do something to tackle these online harms. These young people were not white knuckled, clinging on to their phones. They were telling us about their experience and that they want us to act. And that should mean looking seriously at stronger age assurance, tougher regulation of harmful content, greater transparency around algorithms, meaningful parental controls and restrictions on deliberately addictive features. What it should mean is that we take the fight to the social media companies, because I am, as of recently, 27 years old.
I've been waiting for it for a long time. Young people today should not have to wait as long as I did, so I am cautious about the idea of a blanket ban, and it's important that whatever we do, we get right. We must ask ourselves what happens next if mainstream platforms become unavailable? How confident are we that young people will simply stop using online services altogether? Do we risk pushing them towards smaller, less regulated platforms where safeguards are weaker and oversight is more difficult? And we should recognise the role that those platforms now play in civic and democratic engagement.
For many young people, social media is a gateway to current affairs, public debate and political participation. It's not just about learning about politics from the online world, it's about engaging with it from the online world and holding politicians like us to account. So while protecting children from harm, which I absolutely agree must be the priority, we need to be careful not to close off legitimate opportunities for engagement. I will.
And it's important we recognise that they are genuine concerns shared by many. Now, I was rather looking forward to saying that I was the youngest colleague in the room, which has been stolen by my hon. Friend the member for North West, East Cambridgeshire, but I am one of those few MPs that grew up with social media. Like many of my friends, I did access social media before the age of 13. I've seen firsthand how rapidly evolving platforms have given rise to harmful content, misinformation, addiction affecting adults as well as young people. Now, the vast majority of colleagues in this place can remember a time before social media.
Today's generation of young people have not had that benefit. They've grown up with it, with their lives intertwined with the digital world. And so chair, parents, teachers, young people as well have every right to be angry when children are exposed to harmful content . Online bullying, unrealistic expectations, addictive platform design and material that damages their mental health. It's no wonder that people feel we haven't acted quickly enough in this place, and I remember being at school, being a young person desperate for the government to do more. And they didn't. Parents are right to demand action. Parliament has a responsibility to respond.
So the question before us is not about whether we should act. Of course we should. The question is about what will be most effective, and it is so important that we get it right. Earlier this year, I held a series of roundtables with secondary school pupils across Hertford and Stortford to hear directly from them about their experiences online. Many described social media as a source of anxiety. Others spoke about exposure to graphic content, misinformation, online pressures that previous generations simply did not have to navigate. But the conversations I had with young people also highlighted that social media is not simply a straightforward source of risk.
It can be a vital source of information, connection and support. Indeed, I first became politically engaged through the online world because after the referendum in 2016, I was encouraged to join a protest to lower the voting age to 16, and I stood out there with other young people calling for the voting age to be lowered. I wouldn't have been there and I would not be here had I not come across it through the online world. Many of the young people that I spoke to shared similar experiences and stressed that too often, this debate overlooks the positive role that social media can play when safe.
When well regulated, it can help to combat isolation and foster meaningful connections, particularly for those in semi-rural communities like mine. It can provide a lifeline for young people who are LGBTQ plus neurodiverse, or living with a mental health condition, helping them to understand their identity and access peer support networks. And for many of those young people, they will be on long waiting lists for traditional services. Those online communities provide an essential source of support in the interim, and I do worry that a blanket ban could risk pulling the rug out from under those young people and removing the safety net altogether.
But one of the strongest messages I heard from young people was that they actually want us to do something to tackle these online harms. These young people were not white knuckled, clinging on to their phones. They were telling us about their experience and that they want us to act. And that should mean looking seriously at stronger age assurance, tougher regulation of harmful content, greater transparency around algorithms, meaningful parental controls and restrictions on deliberately addictive features. What it should mean is that we take the fight to the social media companies, because I am, as of recently, 27 years old.
I've been waiting for it for a long time. Young people today should not have to wait as long as I did, so I am cautious about the idea of a blanket ban, and it's important that whatever we do, we get right. We must ask ourselves what happens next if mainstream platforms become unavailable? How confident are we that young people will simply stop using online services altogether? Do we risk pushing them towards smaller, less regulated platforms where safeguards are weaker and oversight is more difficult? And we should recognise the role that those platforms now play in civic and democratic engagement.
For many young people, social media is a gateway to current affairs, public debate and political participation. It's not just about learning about politics from the online world, it's about engaging with it from the online world and holding politicians like us to account. So while protecting children from harm, which I absolutely agree must be the priority, we need to be careful not to close off legitimate opportunities for engagement. I will.
17:14
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I'm very grateful to my friend. Would he agree with me that actually, on that point, the current proposals to have quite a hard cliff edge at 16 creates quite a problem in terms of people suddenly being exposed to all of that world, having not really had the opportunity to develop some of the skills to be able to deal with it.
17:14
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I quite agree, and another colleague touched on the cliff edge. The idea that the day you turn 16, you might be getting access to social media for the first time and then heading off to the polling station to go and vote. And it's right that we have more education around media literacy in schools, but hands on, practical experience in a safe and regulated online space is important as well. And so we have to consider how restricting young people's access to this source of information might affect their long term democratic participation.
And if we are serious about encouraging the next generation to take part in our democracy, we have to bring young people with us on this journey, not exclude them from it. And I do commend the government on the engagement that they undertook with young people, with parents, with teachers and families across the country. And young people that I spoke to were very pleased that their MP was coming to speak to them and hear their views. But I must say the feedback from young people since the announcement has been less positive and it is so important that we bring them with us as we do this.
Now, during the pandemic, we pushed more of young people's lives online. They had no say. Education, social interaction, public services and democratic engagement increasingly moved into digital spaces. Many young people develop those habits of accessing news, discussing current affairs, and engaging with campaigns through the very platforms we are now debating. We cannot rip them back out without giving them a proper say again. So of course, protecting children from harm must be our priority. But I worry that the answer I worry if the answer is simply to ban access. We do risk alienating the generation we seek to protect.
They won't forgive us if we get this wrong. Nor will their parents. It's so important that if we look at how we shut them out from conversations. So it's important that if we are shutting them out from conversations, information, and opportunities for participation that increasingly shape modern civic life, we should not be surprised if they choose not to engage. Going forward, the challenge before us is not simply to restrict access to a list of platforms, but to create an online environment in which young people can participate safely, responsibly and confidently as future citizens. So yes, we should act.
Parents are right to expect action. Young people themselves are asking for action. But let's focus on the features, the business models, and the failures of regulation that are causing harm. Rather than assuming that a blanket ban is the only solution available, and putting the pressure of failures from companies on the shoulders of young people. In closing, chair, I'd be grateful if the minister could update the House on how the department is assessing evidence from countries such as Australia , that have pursued a social media ban for young people, and I'd be grateful if he could confirm that restrictions will be regularly reviewed and remain adaptable, given the current pace of technological change.
And if we are serious about encouraging the next generation to take part in our democracy, we have to bring young people with us on this journey, not exclude them from it. And I do commend the government on the engagement that they undertook with young people, with parents, with teachers and families across the country. And young people that I spoke to were very pleased that their MP was coming to speak to them and hear their views. But I must say the feedback from young people since the announcement has been less positive and it is so important that we bring them with us as we do this.
Now, during the pandemic, we pushed more of young people's lives online. They had no say. Education, social interaction, public services and democratic engagement increasingly moved into digital spaces. Many young people develop those habits of accessing news, discussing current affairs, and engaging with campaigns through the very platforms we are now debating. We cannot rip them back out without giving them a proper say again. So of course, protecting children from harm must be our priority. But I worry that the answer I worry if the answer is simply to ban access. We do risk alienating the generation we seek to protect.
They won't forgive us if we get this wrong. Nor will their parents. It's so important that if we look at how we shut them out from conversations. So it's important that if we are shutting them out from conversations, information, and opportunities for participation that increasingly shape modern civic life, we should not be surprised if they choose not to engage. Going forward, the challenge before us is not simply to restrict access to a list of platforms, but to create an online environment in which young people can participate safely, responsibly and confidently as future citizens. So yes, we should act.
Parents are right to expect action. Young people themselves are asking for action. But let's focus on the features, the business models, and the failures of regulation that are causing harm. Rather than assuming that a blanket ban is the only solution available, and putting the pressure of failures from companies on the shoulders of young people. In closing, chair, I'd be grateful if the minister could update the House on how the department is assessing evidence from countries such as Australia , that have pursued a social media ban for young people, and I'd be grateful if he could confirm that restrictions will be regularly reviewed and remain adaptable, given the current pace of technological change.
17:17
17:17
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you. Sir Roger Gale, I appreciate you helping me not to be in trouble with my own whips. So I just want to start by saying that everyone in this room, everyone in this place, wants to protect children. And we have different ways of getting there. And some of us support the ban and some of us don't. But never being in any doubt that we don't recognize there are problems and we're debating what the best solution is. So do bans work? Well, let's follow the evidence. As a member of the science, Innovation and Tech Committee.
You'll not be surprised that I will be looking at the evidence throughout of what's already worked and what we know is happening at the cutting edge of science right the way through. They don't work everywhere that they have been tried. And in fact, what we've seen is that the bad activity just moves. But also the bans are designed by people. And I'm not trying to be rude here, but the majority of people other than my two younger honourable friends who are Gen X and baby boomers, and our experience of social media and our understanding of what social media is, is very different than our children's.
They don't see Facebook as being social media because they don't care about Facebook. We could ban it all we want and they'd be like, I've never been on it in my life and nor do I ever intend to. They understand there is no such difference as social media and other platforms because everything is now social media, every gaming platform, every chatroom, every everything that we now see. So let's look at what actually matters and what is actually happening, because I don't think it's part of the conversation. We hear a lot about TikTok and Instagram and Facebook, but that's because we know about those platforms, not because that is necessarily where children are getting harmed the most.
The survey I did of over 500 young people in Milton Keynes, and given that the petition signatories from from Milton Keynes Central is 503, I think they all signed the petition, plus found three more. They were very clear about where they're spending space and where they are having problems, where they are seeing material that isn't all right and where they're getting approaches by strangers. And to be honest, it is the platforms. We don't talk about where that's happening. YouTube, which has, yes, amazing educational content, but also is the places of most harm. Roadblocks. Yes. A lot of fun for gaming platform advertised to children is actually one of the worst.
If anybody knows about the Com and 764 I don't know if anybody knows these groups. They are groups that recruit on Roblox and Discord, primarily of vulnerable people, and then get them to actually video while they are self-harming and they have watch parties as they self-harm each other. If we don't include Roblox and Discord and 7.64, we are not protecting children. Child sexual abuse images in in the UK are overwhelmingly being shared and distributed via WhatsApp. The radicalisation is. And coordination for things like the riots that we see sometimes on our street is overwhelmingly happening on Telegram and Signal.
These are not places that we're talking about. And in fact, as my honourable friend said, whack a mole is an approach. If you write a list and then have to add platform names onto it in Australia, they'd have to add LinkedIn onto it because that's where people under 16 are now going and actually participating in the same kind of activity. We have taken really important action. We have banned the taking of pictures and videos at device level of child sexual abuse. Really important. So let's look at what else could work. Let's look at what the evidence tells us.
My honourable friend used the example of toys. The thing is you're right. But we we don't want toys that harm. We don't want products that harm, but we don't ban the toy. We ban the thing that's wrong with it. So a train set that uses lead paint, it's not that we've banned all train sets. We've banned those train sets with lead paint on them. So we need to make it safe. And that's why exemptions are so important, because we need a route back because it will create behaviour change. We need safe places for children to learn and to play and to explore.
As my hon. Said said, now I have a quite famously a nine point plan that I have published and, and shared quite extensively and spoken to industry about. But I think while it's not the be all and end all, it does show us how we can create a path back if they're willing to meet these. First of all, no stranger contact. You should not be able to contact. Be contacted by stranger and taken on to another platform. Now, that's not to say that there isn't important areas where you can have mediated places that are safe for young people to explore sexuality in others, but strangers who are deliberately targeting young people on platforms should not happen.
No algorithm feed for under 12 seconds. They should be choosing and using their executive function to choose what they want to watch next, not what the algorithm thinks they should see next. A limited algorithm feed between 12 and 18. Now that's already happening on some platforms. And in fact, some young people have said to me is, can I go back? I've just turned 18. I want to go back to my limited algorithm feed. I don't like this feed. I'm now on time limits by age. Now, this is the inquiry that we've done into digital childhoods in the Science and Innovation Tech Committee.
This is the most important thing that we can do. Time limits and age related curfews. The biggest impact on mental health from social media is the fact that children are have in their bedrooms and are not sleeping the hours that they're should be sleeping. Curfews at device level could stop them from fear of missing out FOMO, as they like to call it, and also get that sleep. The second biggest thing that affects their mental health is age appropriate material. And we heard the horrific stuff shared by my honourable friend around eating disorders. We have to be much clearer that this has real consequence.
And we have yet to see Ofcom use all of its powers in this area. But I would like to see parents and young people empowered by having BBFC ratings so parents are clear whether it's appropriate for their child. In addition, we haven't even talked about the advertising guidelines online. The adverts that are popping up in the YouTube kids videos. Are they appropriate for children? Nobody is looking at that. The adverts that pop up in your little apps of games, of MMO or whatever, you're playing with your little cat cafe game. The adverts that pop up again are not being properly regulated, though.
We have rules that tell us what is age appropriate advertising and we should have device level age checks. Age checks are always difficult, but doing them at device level and being clear that when a parent passes their their device down, they're clearing it and sending it with the proper age is more secure than any of the things that we've talked about in terms of using fake IDs to get on to a site. I mean, I don't want to talk about other people's childhoods, but I mean, I may have used a fake ID in the past to buy a beer.
It's the same thing happening online, I know. Shocking. And finally, a really important thing brought up by my honourable friend, which is AI companion chatbots. This is not all right if you don't have to pay for these homework chat bots, companion chat bots, romantic chat bots that if you're not paying for the product, that means you are the product. We have very strict rules from the ICO in relation to in relation to data protection for children, and I have yet to see the ICO take proper action on this to make sure that our children's data that's being fed in the grooming and sexual behaviour is not an end in and of itself.
It is to keep the children online to mine their data. This should be stopped right away. So I just want to thank everybody for coming. And the 503 people that signed it in Milton Keynes. I think by working together and working with young people and parents, that we can actually get to a solution where there is the benefits of an online childhood without all the problems that we see today. Thank you.
You'll not be surprised that I will be looking at the evidence throughout of what's already worked and what we know is happening at the cutting edge of science right the way through. They don't work everywhere that they have been tried. And in fact, what we've seen is that the bad activity just moves. But also the bans are designed by people. And I'm not trying to be rude here, but the majority of people other than my two younger honourable friends who are Gen X and baby boomers, and our experience of social media and our understanding of what social media is, is very different than our children's.
They don't see Facebook as being social media because they don't care about Facebook. We could ban it all we want and they'd be like, I've never been on it in my life and nor do I ever intend to. They understand there is no such difference as social media and other platforms because everything is now social media, every gaming platform, every chatroom, every everything that we now see. So let's look at what actually matters and what is actually happening, because I don't think it's part of the conversation. We hear a lot about TikTok and Instagram and Facebook, but that's because we know about those platforms, not because that is necessarily where children are getting harmed the most.
The survey I did of over 500 young people in Milton Keynes, and given that the petition signatories from from Milton Keynes Central is 503, I think they all signed the petition, plus found three more. They were very clear about where they're spending space and where they are having problems, where they are seeing material that isn't all right and where they're getting approaches by strangers. And to be honest, it is the platforms. We don't talk about where that's happening. YouTube, which has, yes, amazing educational content, but also is the places of most harm. Roadblocks. Yes. A lot of fun for gaming platform advertised to children is actually one of the worst.
If anybody knows about the Com and 764 I don't know if anybody knows these groups. They are groups that recruit on Roblox and Discord, primarily of vulnerable people, and then get them to actually video while they are self-harming and they have watch parties as they self-harm each other. If we don't include Roblox and Discord and 7.64, we are not protecting children. Child sexual abuse images in in the UK are overwhelmingly being shared and distributed via WhatsApp. The radicalisation is. And coordination for things like the riots that we see sometimes on our street is overwhelmingly happening on Telegram and Signal.
These are not places that we're talking about. And in fact, as my honourable friend said, whack a mole is an approach. If you write a list and then have to add platform names onto it in Australia, they'd have to add LinkedIn onto it because that's where people under 16 are now going and actually participating in the same kind of activity. We have taken really important action. We have banned the taking of pictures and videos at device level of child sexual abuse. Really important. So let's look at what else could work. Let's look at what the evidence tells us.
My honourable friend used the example of toys. The thing is you're right. But we we don't want toys that harm. We don't want products that harm, but we don't ban the toy. We ban the thing that's wrong with it. So a train set that uses lead paint, it's not that we've banned all train sets. We've banned those train sets with lead paint on them. So we need to make it safe. And that's why exemptions are so important, because we need a route back because it will create behaviour change. We need safe places for children to learn and to play and to explore.
As my hon. Said said, now I have a quite famously a nine point plan that I have published and, and shared quite extensively and spoken to industry about. But I think while it's not the be all and end all, it does show us how we can create a path back if they're willing to meet these. First of all, no stranger contact. You should not be able to contact. Be contacted by stranger and taken on to another platform. Now, that's not to say that there isn't important areas where you can have mediated places that are safe for young people to explore sexuality in others, but strangers who are deliberately targeting young people on platforms should not happen.
No algorithm feed for under 12 seconds. They should be choosing and using their executive function to choose what they want to watch next, not what the algorithm thinks they should see next. A limited algorithm feed between 12 and 18. Now that's already happening on some platforms. And in fact, some young people have said to me is, can I go back? I've just turned 18. I want to go back to my limited algorithm feed. I don't like this feed. I'm now on time limits by age. Now, this is the inquiry that we've done into digital childhoods in the Science and Innovation Tech Committee.
This is the most important thing that we can do. Time limits and age related curfews. The biggest impact on mental health from social media is the fact that children are have in their bedrooms and are not sleeping the hours that they're should be sleeping. Curfews at device level could stop them from fear of missing out FOMO, as they like to call it, and also get that sleep. The second biggest thing that affects their mental health is age appropriate material. And we heard the horrific stuff shared by my honourable friend around eating disorders. We have to be much clearer that this has real consequence.
And we have yet to see Ofcom use all of its powers in this area. But I would like to see parents and young people empowered by having BBFC ratings so parents are clear whether it's appropriate for their child. In addition, we haven't even talked about the advertising guidelines online. The adverts that are popping up in the YouTube kids videos. Are they appropriate for children? Nobody is looking at that. The adverts that pop up in your little apps of games, of MMO or whatever, you're playing with your little cat cafe game. The adverts that pop up again are not being properly regulated, though.
We have rules that tell us what is age appropriate advertising and we should have device level age checks. Age checks are always difficult, but doing them at device level and being clear that when a parent passes their their device down, they're clearing it and sending it with the proper age is more secure than any of the things that we've talked about in terms of using fake IDs to get on to a site. I mean, I don't want to talk about other people's childhoods, but I mean, I may have used a fake ID in the past to buy a beer.
It's the same thing happening online, I know. Shocking. And finally, a really important thing brought up by my honourable friend, which is AI companion chatbots. This is not all right if you don't have to pay for these homework chat bots, companion chat bots, romantic chat bots that if you're not paying for the product, that means you are the product. We have very strict rules from the ICO in relation to in relation to data protection for children, and I have yet to see the ICO take proper action on this to make sure that our children's data that's being fed in the grooming and sexual behaviour is not an end in and of itself.
It is to keep the children online to mine their data. This should be stopped right away. So I just want to thank everybody for coming. And the 503 people that signed it in Milton Keynes. I think by working together and working with young people and parents, that we can actually get to a solution where there is the benefits of an online childhood without all the problems that we see today. Thank you.
17:26
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, sir Roger. And you won't be surprised to hear that. It's a pleasure to serve under you today. And I do also want to thank the member for Folkestone and Hythe for the way he introduced this debate. I want to start with a couple of anecdotes. Over the weekend, a mum messaged me to say her daughter was getting bullied at school. She lives in Curry in my constituency and I do not know the details yet. I asked her to email me details, but I can almost guarantee that social media is going to be involved in some shape or form, because so far, every bullying case that we've dealt with in my office, there has been a link to social media in some way.
And a couple of Sundays ago , I was at Saint Mungo's Church in Balerno , and my mum was talking to me about her kids and their use of phones, and it really did. It was a time to reflect, actually, because we've come a long way since the 24 election. Kids starting high school next year in Edinburgh or any school in Edinburgh. Actually, any state school will not have access to their mobile phone in school and hopefully by that time they won't have social media on their phone anyway. But we do have to accept that there's been a bumpy ride getting this far.
There's been a few steps forward and occasionally a step backwards. Nonetheless, all progress is progress. So in the time since , I've spoke to many, many people in my constituency, the vast majority parents, but those parents include GPS teachers and also in one case, a paediatrician. And they all agreed that they were concerned about the harm both smartphones were having in school, but also the use of social media. We have had around 600 emails from people, the vast, vast majority of people supporting some sort of ban. And I've also spoken to young people in schools and also at scout meetings, etc., about about a ban.
So all that led me to support a ban in full and the fullest possible ban, actually. But then I met the NSPCC and I met the Lucy Faithful Foundation and I met the Molly Rose Foundation, and they were very clear about some of the cliff edge aspects that we have heard other honourable members speaking about. I have to say, on the day the announcement was made that we were proceeding with a ban, I did feel really uncertain because of the conversations I had had with the NSPCC, etc., about what a ban would mean, and it was only because I had seen that they were supporting it, at least tentatively that day, that I felt I was able to support it.
And I do have to say I welcome that. The Brianna Gay Legacy Project is supporting a ban two. And I do want to thank Brianna's fantastic mum, Esther for all the work she is doing. Actually, the. But I do acknowledge the many good points the member for North West Cambridgeshire made about some of the impacts a ban could have, and there is also more trivial impacts, like in Scotland, that the Scottish Government understands what young people are thinking as they collect data online
And a couple of Sundays ago , I was at Saint Mungo's Church in Balerno , and my mum was talking to me about her kids and their use of phones, and it really did. It was a time to reflect, actually, because we've come a long way since the 24 election. Kids starting high school next year in Edinburgh or any school in Edinburgh. Actually, any state school will not have access to their mobile phone in school and hopefully by that time they won't have social media on their phone anyway. But we do have to accept that there's been a bumpy ride getting this far.
There's been a few steps forward and occasionally a step backwards. Nonetheless, all progress is progress. So in the time since , I've spoke to many, many people in my constituency, the vast majority parents, but those parents include GPS teachers and also in one case, a paediatrician. And they all agreed that they were concerned about the harm both smartphones were having in school, but also the use of social media. We have had around 600 emails from people, the vast, vast majority of people supporting some sort of ban. And I've also spoken to young people in schools and also at scout meetings, etc., about about a ban.
So all that led me to support a ban in full and the fullest possible ban, actually. But then I met the NSPCC and I met the Lucy Faithful Foundation and I met the Molly Rose Foundation, and they were very clear about some of the cliff edge aspects that we have heard other honourable members speaking about. I have to say, on the day the announcement was made that we were proceeding with a ban, I did feel really uncertain because of the conversations I had had with the NSPCC, etc., about what a ban would mean, and it was only because I had seen that they were supporting it, at least tentatively that day, that I felt I was able to support it.
And I do have to say I welcome that. The Brianna Gay Legacy Project is supporting a ban two. And I do want to thank Brianna's fantastic mum, Esther for all the work she is doing. Actually, the. But I do acknowledge the many good points the member for North West Cambridgeshire made about some of the impacts a ban could have, and there is also more trivial impacts, like in Scotland, that the Scottish Government understands what young people are thinking as they collect data online
17:30
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Also more trivial impacts. Like in Scotland, the Scottish Government understands what young people are thinking as they collect data online via an organisation called young Scot. Anybody in Scotland knows what this organisation is, but now it's going to be much harder to do that without being able to access people on social media for a perfectly legitimate reason. But today I want to recognise that any ban can only be part of a much broader effort to ensure young people are safe as possible online. We know that bans are already in place overseas, that they are not perfect.
No matter what restrictions the government puts in place, some children will continue to use restricted platforms. While some services will inevitably fall outside the scope of any ban. Of course, exactly the same arguments were made when the government put an age limit on accessing pornography and other harmful content online content online. But we all agreed that putting friction between young people and pornographic websites was an entirely legitimate thing to do. So whilst I think whilst I do have reservations about this ban and it being complete, I do, I do accept that any friction between young people and harmful social media content is a good thing.
I'm very happy to.
No matter what restrictions the government puts in place, some children will continue to use restricted platforms. While some services will inevitably fall outside the scope of any ban. Of course, exactly the same arguments were made when the government put an age limit on accessing pornography and other harmful content online content online. But we all agreed that putting friction between young people and pornographic websites was an entirely legitimate thing to do. So whilst I think whilst I do have reservations about this ban and it being complete, I do, I do accept that any friction between young people and harmful social media content is a good thing.
I'm very happy to.
17:31
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Raises a legitimate point there about the issues that were raised around the the restrictions on pornography. Does he, however, accept that the difference there is that you are trying to age verify someone who is over 18 to access pornography and there is ID available. I grappled with the challenges of age verification some 20 years ago in the mobile sector, and so can. Does he agree that we need to have confidence? But I don't think we're quite there yet.
When it comes to age verifying 16 year olds who do not have ID.
When it comes to age verifying 16 year olds who do not have ID.
17:31
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. And I do thank my honourable friend for that intervention. But like so many problems in the world, the solution to this problem can be found in Scotland because young people in Scotland can use our young Scot card to verify that they're 16. I understand that. Okay. And so it's critical that alongside robust age assurance measures, online platforms are required to be safe as possible for all users, both young people and adults. A ban cannot be used as an excuse by companies to not comply with their responsibilities. And important questions remain about the scope of the ban and the regulation of high risk features.
In July, I welcomed the government's further commitment to require infinite scrolling features to be switched off by default. However, there is more work to be done on location sharing features for under 16 S, as well as further regulations of further regulation of AI chat bots. Can I just talk briefly about. I accept the points that are making. And I fully understand that for some people who are struggling with mental health problems or health problems or perhaps their sexuality, going to social media may be a source of really good information for them. But I am also concerned that young people going to social media for advice about these really sensitive issues might end up interacting with people whose motivations are not good.
And I think we do have to be very mindful of that.
In July, I welcomed the government's further commitment to require infinite scrolling features to be switched off by default. However, there is more work to be done on location sharing features for under 16 S, as well as further regulations of further regulation of AI chat bots. Can I just talk briefly about. I accept the points that are making. And I fully understand that for some people who are struggling with mental health problems or health problems or perhaps their sexuality, going to social media may be a source of really good information for them. But I am also concerned that young people going to social media for advice about these really sensitive issues might end up interacting with people whose motivations are not good.
And I think we do have to be very mindful of that.
17:33
17:33
17:33
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I thank my friend for giving way. And does he agree that if we thought about the online world in the same way we think about the real life world, the idea that we'd be sending children deliberately to go and interact with strangers who are probably adults in an unsupervised and unregulated environment where we would have no idea what kind of conversation is happening would be ludicrous. And no parent or politician would ever endorse it.
17:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I absolutely agree. And of course, the vast, vast majority of people who do go online to seek help in that way do find that help. But it's a small minority, often very vulnerable young people that we should all be concerned about. And I think we have a duty to protect both the Mental Health Foundation and the NSPCC. I identify AI chat bots as a clear and growing risk to child safety. I am a member of the eating disorders A PGAG, and I pay tribute to their important work carried out by that group.
I was therefore deeply concerned by the recent report from the centre for Countering Digital Hate, which found ChatGPT will provide restrictive diet plans or advice on how to hide eating, eating disorders from families, from families to vulnerable people within 20 minutes of a conversation starting. Tests found that simple prompts like this is for a presentation or it is. Help for a friend allowed users to circumvent the very weak barriers in place inside ChatGPT. Clearly, I think the government has an issue to act in this area. Even more concerning was the finding that little progress has been made in addressing eating disorder related content on AI interfaces.
Since a similar study was conducted in 2023 two, almost three years ago, alongside numerous other examples. This demonstrates that online services cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, and I think we have to ensure that all of us can trust Ofcom to do that. I think we are not quite there yet. This cannot be acceptable advice on sustaining eating disorders, as well as advice on suicide, self-harm or other substance abuse should not be readily available to young people to create a safer environment. The government needs to continue to take action to push online in AI services into effective regulation.
Self-Regulation will not work. Time and time again, platforms have demonstrated that they will not place the children's our children's safety before their profit. So while I welcome the proposed ban, I hope that rather than being an end point, it will be a starting point for a conversation about how the best , how best to ensure that the online world is safe as it is possible for everyone who wishes to use it. But I want to go back to the cliff edge point that was made earlier. I am really concerned about when this ban goes live, about people all of a sudden losing access to services that they have relied on.
So it would be good to hear about how the government is going to manage that transition. So it is not a cliff edge, but it is a soft entry and hopefully into hopefully what will be a safer world. Thank you, sir Roger.
I was therefore deeply concerned by the recent report from the centre for Countering Digital Hate, which found ChatGPT will provide restrictive diet plans or advice on how to hide eating, eating disorders from families, from families to vulnerable people within 20 minutes of a conversation starting. Tests found that simple prompts like this is for a presentation or it is. Help for a friend allowed users to circumvent the very weak barriers in place inside ChatGPT. Clearly, I think the government has an issue to act in this area. Even more concerning was the finding that little progress has been made in addressing eating disorder related content on AI interfaces.
Since a similar study was conducted in 2023 two, almost three years ago, alongside numerous other examples. This demonstrates that online services cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, and I think we have to ensure that all of us can trust Ofcom to do that. I think we are not quite there yet. This cannot be acceptable advice on sustaining eating disorders, as well as advice on suicide, self-harm or other substance abuse should not be readily available to young people to create a safer environment. The government needs to continue to take action to push online in AI services into effective regulation.
Self-Regulation will not work. Time and time again, platforms have demonstrated that they will not place the children's our children's safety before their profit. So while I welcome the proposed ban, I hope that rather than being an end point, it will be a starting point for a conversation about how the best , how best to ensure that the online world is safe as it is possible for everyone who wishes to use it. But I want to go back to the cliff edge point that was made earlier. I am really concerned about when this ban goes live, about people all of a sudden losing access to services that they have relied on.
So it would be good to hear about how the government is going to manage that transition. So it is not a cliff edge, but it is a soft entry and hopefully into hopefully what will be a safer world. Thank you, sir Roger.
17:36
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, sir Roger. And it is indeed an honour to serve under your chair. Let's just be honest. For far too long, tech companies have profited obscenely from addicted algorithms and harmful content aimed at children. Here in Britain, they are not British companies. They have become absurdly powerful, probably more powerful than any government. Generations of young people are paying the price and we have a mental health crisis. We can all see that. And it's not random. It's happening for a reason. Social media has become almost unavoidable for people growing up. It is not a choice that they're making.
As one of my colleagues alluded to earlier, there is no choice at the moment. You have to be on it. Young people in the UK spend an average of over four hours a day on social media. That is most of their free time. Most of their free time staring at a screen. And there's a mental health crisis. I think they're linked. This is fundamentally changing what life looks like, how young people see themselves, build friendships, form opinions and worldviews. The consequences are apparent all around us. The incredible rise in anxiety, diagnosed and undiagnosed, is just startling.
I had no experience of it until becoming an MP and visiting schools, and being absolutely blown away by conversations with teachers and parents. The scale is completely off the charts. It's much more common amongst girls and amongst people with a disability. Young people also regularly describe feeling like they have no control over what they see online. Again, there is no choice here. They're being sent these things for hours and hours every day, deep into the night. In the government's consultation this summer, 9 in 10 parents back to social media banned for under 16 seconds. 9 in 10.
Two thirds of young people agreed that under 16 should not be allowed to use at least some of the social media platforms. That is not surprising at all. From what I've seen in schools over the last couple of years. Every time I visit schools in Plymouth, teachers tell me about the impact it's having describing levels of mental health distress unlike anything ever seen before. Students themselves tell me they want help getting off these platforms. I always do a little show of hands. Who wants. If no one else was on this platform, would you miss it?
No, they're only on it because everyone else is on it. They don't want to be on it. Most people I. I acknowledge that there are some who would disagree with that, including some around 400 of my constituents who signed this petition. But they are in the minority. And we know from whistleblowers inside these companies that these social media companies knew these harms were coming. They've known for years and years and years, and it's not like they've done nothing about it. They have done something about it. They've hidden it on purpose, deliberately, over and over again.
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen told US Congress, our colleagues, that the company's leadership knew how to make its platforms safer, but refused to act because, and I quote, they put their astronomical profits before people. End quote. There is no reason to think that any of these companies would do anything different ever again. Their companies, they're trying to make money, so we can't leave the wellbeing of our nation at the mercy of profit making organizations, especially ones who reward addiction and exploitation. So I'm delighted the government announced this year decisive action to protect children from social media.
I'm extremely grateful to the work of my right hon. Friend the member for Leicester West and the right hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, who is now the AI Minister for getting this over the line. I'm also extremely grateful for colleagues on on the Labour side of the House, who signed a letter I organised to the then Prime Minister urging him to take action. A week after that he did indeed launch the consultation , which has now led to this decision from government. So thank you to everyone who signed that letter. But government has now got to implement and that is the question how to do it?
There is, of course, a duty to protect children, and I'm so pleased that we are going to finally do that. There's also a duty to allow children access to the benefits of the internet and the online world. And many of my colleagues have spoke very eloquently about that this afternoon. So how do you do that? If you're a 15 year old and you want to be able to go on YouTube and learn French or learn the guitar. You should be able to do that, in my opinion. So there's a challenge to government here of how they do it.
AM I suggesting they should just trust the tech companies? No. AM I suggesting that there might be some way that they can get a written assurance that's legally binding from these, any particular platform that they are able to provide a service that is not included in the ban? Surely there's a world in which we're nuanced enough to be able to do that, or agile enough to be able to react and say, you said you were going to do this. You haven't done what you said you're going to do. You are now included in the ban without having to do primary legislation.
I say that because I'm super conscious that I grew up benefiting from YouTube. I learned the guitar on YouTube. I don't know how I would have learned it otherwise. You'd have had to pay for many, many lessons. I don't think it's fair to ask that the next generation coming through don't have those opportunities. So there is a challenge for government. It's not as simple as just enact this ban. It's work out. How do we carry on giving access to those platforms? And those are tough conversations with with big companies. Just on age verification, there are countless ways to verify someone's age without handing over personal sensitive information.
And I know that there is a campaign from some parts of the political agenda to argue that any action online creates from the government, any regulations online create a kind of privacy problem. But the burden should not be on government to do that. The burden should be on the tech companies themselves to find and implement solutions. I mean, they know all of our information anyway. They know our ages, these tech companies 100%. They have some of the brightest engineers in the world. We should set the rules in Parliament and in government, and they should comply with them.
Of course.
As one of my colleagues alluded to earlier, there is no choice at the moment. You have to be on it. Young people in the UK spend an average of over four hours a day on social media. That is most of their free time. Most of their free time staring at a screen. And there's a mental health crisis. I think they're linked. This is fundamentally changing what life looks like, how young people see themselves, build friendships, form opinions and worldviews. The consequences are apparent all around us. The incredible rise in anxiety, diagnosed and undiagnosed, is just startling.
I had no experience of it until becoming an MP and visiting schools, and being absolutely blown away by conversations with teachers and parents. The scale is completely off the charts. It's much more common amongst girls and amongst people with a disability. Young people also regularly describe feeling like they have no control over what they see online. Again, there is no choice here. They're being sent these things for hours and hours every day, deep into the night. In the government's consultation this summer, 9 in 10 parents back to social media banned for under 16 seconds. 9 in 10.
Two thirds of young people agreed that under 16 should not be allowed to use at least some of the social media platforms. That is not surprising at all. From what I've seen in schools over the last couple of years. Every time I visit schools in Plymouth, teachers tell me about the impact it's having describing levels of mental health distress unlike anything ever seen before. Students themselves tell me they want help getting off these platforms. I always do a little show of hands. Who wants. If no one else was on this platform, would you miss it?
No, they're only on it because everyone else is on it. They don't want to be on it. Most people I. I acknowledge that there are some who would disagree with that, including some around 400 of my constituents who signed this petition. But they are in the minority. And we know from whistleblowers inside these companies that these social media companies knew these harms were coming. They've known for years and years and years, and it's not like they've done nothing about it. They have done something about it. They've hidden it on purpose, deliberately, over and over again.
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen told US Congress, our colleagues, that the company's leadership knew how to make its platforms safer, but refused to act because, and I quote, they put their astronomical profits before people. End quote. There is no reason to think that any of these companies would do anything different ever again. Their companies, they're trying to make money, so we can't leave the wellbeing of our nation at the mercy of profit making organizations, especially ones who reward addiction and exploitation. So I'm delighted the government announced this year decisive action to protect children from social media.
I'm extremely grateful to the work of my right hon. Friend the member for Leicester West and the right hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, who is now the AI Minister for getting this over the line. I'm also extremely grateful for colleagues on on the Labour side of the House, who signed a letter I organised to the then Prime Minister urging him to take action. A week after that he did indeed launch the consultation , which has now led to this decision from government. So thank you to everyone who signed that letter. But government has now got to implement and that is the question how to do it?
There is, of course, a duty to protect children, and I'm so pleased that we are going to finally do that. There's also a duty to allow children access to the benefits of the internet and the online world. And many of my colleagues have spoke very eloquently about that this afternoon. So how do you do that? If you're a 15 year old and you want to be able to go on YouTube and learn French or learn the guitar. You should be able to do that, in my opinion. So there's a challenge to government here of how they do it.
AM I suggesting they should just trust the tech companies? No. AM I suggesting that there might be some way that they can get a written assurance that's legally binding from these, any particular platform that they are able to provide a service that is not included in the ban? Surely there's a world in which we're nuanced enough to be able to do that, or agile enough to be able to react and say, you said you were going to do this. You haven't done what you said you're going to do. You are now included in the ban without having to do primary legislation.
I say that because I'm super conscious that I grew up benefiting from YouTube. I learned the guitar on YouTube. I don't know how I would have learned it otherwise. You'd have had to pay for many, many lessons. I don't think it's fair to ask that the next generation coming through don't have those opportunities. So there is a challenge for government. It's not as simple as just enact this ban. It's work out. How do we carry on giving access to those platforms? And those are tough conversations with with big companies. Just on age verification, there are countless ways to verify someone's age without handing over personal sensitive information.
And I know that there is a campaign from some parts of the political agenda to argue that any action online creates from the government, any regulations online create a kind of privacy problem. But the burden should not be on government to do that. The burden should be on the tech companies themselves to find and implement solutions. I mean, they know all of our information anyway. They know our ages, these tech companies 100%. They have some of the brightest engineers in the world. We should set the rules in Parliament and in government, and they should comply with them.
Of course.
17:42
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Why would he give us have any examples of how you could prove the age of a child if that child had ever been online, on social media? How a tech company, which theoretically wouldn't know their information, would be able to verify their age without using some form of effectively digital ID by the back door.
17:43
17:43
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I take the point she makes. I would say the scale of what these companies know about us, whether we want to acknowledge that or not, does not correspond to really whether we've put our age into an online form or not. We can live in a world where we pretend they don't know that about us and about our children, or we can live in the real world where they do know it, and we should just acknowledge that. And it's not an invasion of privacy to acknowledge that, because it's already happened. And to get away from that would be a much bigger debate.
Not about restricting some aspects of social media for under 16 year olds, but, you know, a hugely bigger conversation around the internet. And frankly, that ship has sailed. I'm not saying I endorse it. I also touch on Australia, and I know people have concerns about the experience in Australia. Many young people are still using social media clearly. I accept no system is going to be perfect. Young people will find a way around restrictions. This happens with, for example, alcohol. You know my my colleague not in her place just now, but alluded to the fact that young people still drink alcohol illegally.
Young people probably still smoke cigarettes or do other activities, or sometimes don't wear a seatbelt and break the law in some in some way, or get around restrictions in some way. That does not mean that we should just throw bans out the window. Certainly.
Not about restricting some aspects of social media for under 16 year olds, but, you know, a hugely bigger conversation around the internet. And frankly, that ship has sailed. I'm not saying I endorse it. I also touch on Australia, and I know people have concerns about the experience in Australia. Many young people are still using social media clearly. I accept no system is going to be perfect. Young people will find a way around restrictions. This happens with, for example, alcohol. You know my my colleague not in her place just now, but alluded to the fact that young people still drink alcohol illegally.
Young people probably still smoke cigarettes or do other activities, or sometimes don't wear a seatbelt and break the law in some in some way, or get around restrictions in some way. That does not mean that we should just throw bans out the window. Certainly.
17:44
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, and he and I clearly have a different solution in mind for this issue. But I think what really unites the room, as I said earlier, is our very clear demand on these companies to sort out what they are doing. Does he agree with me that really that is the root cause of this? It is this atrocious behaviour from some of these tech companies. Until that changes and until government brings in methods to make it change, we're not going to get any further, Thomas.
17:45
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I certainly agree with him. I guess we're just debating what those methods are. But no, I fully agree with him that the cause of these issues are the technologies that have now been basically monopolized into 4 or 5 massive companies. And this debate is about what do we do about it? 100%. I will address the cliff edge. Argument, where some folks suggest that if we stop young people having access to certain social media until 16, and then suddenly they have access, there will be super vulnerable or in some way unprepared for the social media world that they suddenly enter.
I just don't think that makes sense, because it implies that exposure is the same thing as preparation. It isn't. The the brain under 16 is developing. It needs protecting. It's in a better place to deal with the harms once it's 16 than when it's 14. So I personally don't find any credibility in that argument myself.
I just don't think that makes sense, because it implies that exposure is the same thing as preparation. It isn't. The the brain under 16 is developing. It needs protecting. It's in a better place to deal with the harms once it's 16 than when it's 14. So I personally don't find any credibility in that argument myself.
17:46
17:46
17:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you for giving way to be generous with his time and again, I think we agree on the cause. It's the methods that we have different views on. But but my question is, I recognise the point that he makes about the development of the brain. But should the onus not be on social media companies to clean up their act across the piece so that when 16 year olds do access social media and indeed all of us who are over 16 as well are free from the harms that are currently on social media. Should the aim not be to make sure the harms are gone?
Not that the under 16 are gone?
Not that the under 16 are gone?
17:46
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Yes. That should be the same. And that actually brings me on to the final point I was hoping to make, which is that for me, this whole agenda is not actually purely about people who are under 16 years old. This is about recognising that social media is really bad for us, and it's bad for me as a 34 year old, and it's bad for a 14 year old. It's also bad for a 64 year old. I see my parents doom scrolling and I think that's probably not good for you. But how do we recognise the society that something's bad for you?
Okay, let's go back to the early example of of alcohol or cigarettes. We know they're bad for you. We also we let adults do it, but we do not let children do it. If you are under 18. We say whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You really shouldn't be doing that once you're 18. If you want to decide to do something that you know is bad for you, you can do it. For me, it's the same with social media or particularly with the kind of the elements of it which we're looking to get after through heavily restricting the use of under 16 seconds.
And I think that will lead to a really important moment, a seatbelt moment, some people would call it, i.e. a cultural shift where in the future something may happen. I remember growing up and my parents grew up in a generation where smoking was pretty accepted. At school, I had an experience where we were taught over and over again smoking is bad for you. Smoking's bad for you. Smoking is bad for you. You shouldn't smoke. I go home, I see my parents smoking and I say, mum, dad, you shouldn't be doing that. That's bad for you.
Probably quite annoying to have your 12 year old tell you that. But the culture then changes, and I hope that happens with social media , so that my colleagues have spoken about having children themselves. And I hope that in a few years time they might find that in the kitchen. Their 12 year old says, you shouldn't be scrolling. It's bad for you. I'm not allowed to do it because it's bad for you, so you shouldn't be doing it. And we get into a situation where the culture shifts, and that's how I think we get after the profits of these companies, and they learn they might have to change a little bit.
And look who knows what comes next in terms of technology. We don't know. But for me, this is very important to get after, and I'm grateful to those who signed this petition to bring this debate. It gives the government another chance to set out how they're going to help protect our children and cause a culture shift. Thank you.
Okay, let's go back to the early example of of alcohol or cigarettes. We know they're bad for you. We also we let adults do it, but we do not let children do it. If you are under 18. We say whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You really shouldn't be doing that once you're 18. If you want to decide to do something that you know is bad for you, you can do it. For me, it's the same with social media or particularly with the kind of the elements of it which we're looking to get after through heavily restricting the use of under 16 seconds.
And I think that will lead to a really important moment, a seatbelt moment, some people would call it, i.e. a cultural shift where in the future something may happen. I remember growing up and my parents grew up in a generation where smoking was pretty accepted. At school, I had an experience where we were taught over and over again smoking is bad for you. Smoking's bad for you. Smoking is bad for you. You shouldn't smoke. I go home, I see my parents smoking and I say, mum, dad, you shouldn't be doing that. That's bad for you.
Probably quite annoying to have your 12 year old tell you that. But the culture then changes, and I hope that happens with social media , so that my colleagues have spoken about having children themselves. And I hope that in a few years time they might find that in the kitchen. Their 12 year old says, you shouldn't be scrolling. It's bad for you. I'm not allowed to do it because it's bad for you, so you shouldn't be doing it. And we get into a situation where the culture shifts, and that's how I think we get after the profits of these companies, and they learn they might have to change a little bit.
And look who knows what comes next in terms of technology. We don't know. But for me, this is very important to get after, and I'm grateful to those who signed this petition to bring this debate. It gives the government another chance to set out how they're going to help protect our children and cause a culture shift. Thank you.
17:49
17:49
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, sir Roger. Thank you for being so lenient in allowing me to speak this evening. And it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have supported calls for a ban on under 16 s accessing social media. The volume of harmful content online makes unrestricted access a real serious concern. But I have become increasingly unconvinced that a full ban is the right answer. Because when I speak to young people in my constituency, they do not tell me that they want to be excluded from online spaces. They want those spaces to be safer for them.
They want harmful content removed. They want the bullying tackled and stronger protections against exploitation and manipulation. In short, they want those platforms to be responsible. Calls for a ban are a response to the failure of social media companies to act, and had these companies consistently, consistently prioritise safety and wellbeing over engagement. We would not be here having this debate today. But the burden should not fall solely on children and parents. It should fall on those companies that build and profit from these platforms. Ofcom is working hard to tackle online harms, but it does face an uphill struggle, and I do wonder if they have the tools at hand to manage it.
So while reassurance measures do have a role to play, they are not foolproof and young people can often circumvent the restrictions through VPNs and other workarounds. And I think the experience we've seen in Australia illustrates that perfectly that despite restrictions on access, many teenagers have continued to use social media, and that suggests that a ban alone is not a complete solution. And we must focus on the platforms being safer by design and holding those companies behind them more accountable. But there is also an inconsistency in our wider approach. Social media and digital platforms are increasingly used in educational settings to communicate with students, share learning resources , and develop digital skills.
So if we recognise that these technologies have benefits in education and civic life, we should be cautious about treating them as inherently harmful in every context. And for that same reason, I am not convinced that blanket age verification requirements are the answer. Measures that apply to every user can create privacy concerns and barriers to access without addressing the underlying cause of harm. We also know that platforms frequently fail to respond when problems are identified. As other honourable members have mentioned today. Earlier this year, a constituent contacted me after repeatedly receiving content in his Facebook feed linking to pornographic websites, and my office contacted meta on their behalf several times and we received no response.
I'm sure others have similar experiences and that just simply isn't good enough. The UK has taken important steps through the Online Safety Act, but this debate also highlights the limits of any one country acting alone. These issues are not specific to the UK. Social media platforms operate across borders and harmful content does not respect jurisdictions, and that is why international cooperation is essential. The 2024 UK US Agreement on Children's Online Safety was a welcome step, but it remains too focused on changing children's behaviour rather than changing the platforms themselves. And by contrast, the proposed EU Kids Act places greater emphasis on platform accountability and requiring those companies to remove the addictive features, strengthen privacy protections and demonstrate that their services are safe for young people.
So that raises my two questions for the minister today. First, has the government considered whether elements of the EU Kids Act safety by design approach could inform future UK policy? And secondly, what discussions has the government had with international partners about establishing common standards on platform design, algorithmic transparency and child safety? As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I was struck by the recent comments of the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, who argued that efforts to restrict children's access should not distract from the need to ensure platforms meet clear legal duties and are properly held to account.
I believe that is the right approach. Rather than placing the responsibility on children and their families to avoid harm, we should require tech companies to create products that are safe by default. We can continue to debate and under 16 social media ban. But children will not truly be safe until platforms themselves are held responsible for the harms they create. And the answer, I believe, lies in international cooperation.
Platform accountability and safety by design. Not simply by asking young people to stay away.
They want harmful content removed. They want the bullying tackled and stronger protections against exploitation and manipulation. In short, they want those platforms to be responsible. Calls for a ban are a response to the failure of social media companies to act, and had these companies consistently, consistently prioritise safety and wellbeing over engagement. We would not be here having this debate today. But the burden should not fall solely on children and parents. It should fall on those companies that build and profit from these platforms. Ofcom is working hard to tackle online harms, but it does face an uphill struggle, and I do wonder if they have the tools at hand to manage it.
So while reassurance measures do have a role to play, they are not foolproof and young people can often circumvent the restrictions through VPNs and other workarounds. And I think the experience we've seen in Australia illustrates that perfectly that despite restrictions on access, many teenagers have continued to use social media, and that suggests that a ban alone is not a complete solution. And we must focus on the platforms being safer by design and holding those companies behind them more accountable. But there is also an inconsistency in our wider approach. Social media and digital platforms are increasingly used in educational settings to communicate with students, share learning resources , and develop digital skills.
So if we recognise that these technologies have benefits in education and civic life, we should be cautious about treating them as inherently harmful in every context. And for that same reason, I am not convinced that blanket age verification requirements are the answer. Measures that apply to every user can create privacy concerns and barriers to access without addressing the underlying cause of harm. We also know that platforms frequently fail to respond when problems are identified. As other honourable members have mentioned today. Earlier this year, a constituent contacted me after repeatedly receiving content in his Facebook feed linking to pornographic websites, and my office contacted meta on their behalf several times and we received no response.
I'm sure others have similar experiences and that just simply isn't good enough. The UK has taken important steps through the Online Safety Act, but this debate also highlights the limits of any one country acting alone. These issues are not specific to the UK. Social media platforms operate across borders and harmful content does not respect jurisdictions, and that is why international cooperation is essential. The 2024 UK US Agreement on Children's Online Safety was a welcome step, but it remains too focused on changing children's behaviour rather than changing the platforms themselves. And by contrast, the proposed EU Kids Act places greater emphasis on platform accountability and requiring those companies to remove the addictive features, strengthen privacy protections and demonstrate that their services are safe for young people.
So that raises my two questions for the minister today. First, has the government considered whether elements of the EU Kids Act safety by design approach could inform future UK policy? And secondly, what discussions has the government had with international partners about establishing common standards on platform design, algorithmic transparency and child safety? As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I was struck by the recent comments of the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, who argued that efforts to restrict children's access should not distract from the need to ensure platforms meet clear legal duties and are properly held to account.
I believe that is the right approach. Rather than placing the responsibility on children and their families to avoid harm, we should require tech companies to create products that are safe by default. We can continue to debate and under 16 social media ban. But children will not truly be safe until platforms themselves are held responsible for the harms they create. And the answer, I believe, lies in international cooperation.
Platform accountability and safety by design. Not simply by asking young people to stay away.
17:54
17:54
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you, sir Roger. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And thank you very much to everyone in this room. I found myself nodding along extensively during other people's contributions, and I absolutely support banning children from accessing harmful social media. And the Liberal Democrats have long called for decisive action in this space. The government joined us in these calls earlier this year announcing proposals for a social media ban. But it's been many months since the initial announcement, and we're still not entirely sure what to expect. This uncertainty over what a possible ban will look like is possibly what's driving many of the concerns of those who sign this petition.
What we know so far is that the government has plans for an Australian style ban. But not only is this vague. The Liberal Democrats have concerns that an Australian ban will fail, ultimately in its role to reduce the harms faced by children online. As we've heard from others after a few months of the Australian ban, early data suggest it has a limited impact on prohibiting young people from accessing social media. On top of this, the Molly Rose Foundation found that amongst children aged 12 to 15 who had social media accounts before the ban came in, over half said the ban had made no difference to their online safety.
And I would add here that as someone whose children are too old to be affected by the ban, but who was often a very busy and tired single mother while they were being raised and using social media. I totally understand the points that are being made about the possible unfairness issues and social justice issues around this, this blanket ban. This is important because, as we know, the message of this petition isn't that children should keep access to harmful content. It's that a ban could cut young people off from safe spaces. And for vulnerable children, online communities can often be a lifeline.
A blanket ban risks cutting children off from that support. If the Australian evidence is anything to go by, the government's proposals could take away these positives without making the online world any safer. A few weeks ago I met with a local primary school from Peasedown St John here in Parliament, who shared similar concerns in the Q and A session with a classroom of six and seven year olds. The first question to me was, are you going to ban social media? When I asked what they thought, they told me in six and seven year old terms that they wanted inappropriate content restricted, but they still wanted to use educational platforms.
Even at this age, they recognise that different platforms carry different levels of harm. And I have to admit I agree with them. And this is exactly the nuanced approach the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Unlike an Australia style ban, the Liberal Democrats would assess and regulate platforms based on the harms they call they cause with film style age ratings given based on that harm, platforms that cause the most harm would be closed to children. But if a tech company does the work to redesign the platform, removing addictive algorithms and removing harmful content, then that form of social media could possibly be accessible, unlike a fixed ban.
This gives tech companies a reason to change. It preserves safe spaces for young people to talk online, and it makes safety part of the design of these platforms rather than an afterthought. And while we are considering safe spaces, I very much appreciated the MP for Folkestone and Hythe Point about the fact that there has been a deterioration in alternative spaces, practical, real life spaces for young people to go to over the last 10 or 20 years. And I noticed that the excellent campaign group Make Space for girls has been making the point specifically that particularly for young women and girls, and particularly as the nights draw in, it's unclear where they will be going to spend their time.
And the MP for North West Cambridgeshire also made the point that rural communities have this challenge, particularly. And I know as someone that represents a semi-rural community, many people in my constituency, the young people, simply don't have anywhere to go. If if they're not going to be on their phones. I'm not saying that makes it right to be on their phones, but it poses a challenge when that phone use is suddenly cut off. As well as this, the Liberal Democrats are clear that protecting children online should not come at the expense of privacy. Several constituents have asked me to attend this debate, and again, they're not in favour of children accessing harmful content.
Their concern is that a ban may effectively require a form of digital ID to be enforceable. The Liberal Democrats have always criticised plans for mandatory digital ID, and we will properly scrutinise any regulation of social media to make sure it is both effective and safeguards personal privacy. I'm wholeheartedly in support of a ban against harmful social media, but I think this debate has allowed us to raise important questions about what a ban should look like. So I therefore would like to finish with a few questions for the minister. Do the government believe the best way forward is still a harms based approach to banning social media?
And if so, can we still expect to see a ban by spring 2027? If so, could the minister lay out exactly what we will expect to see and confirm that any regulation will always prioritize privacy, and that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise any proposals? Finally, on the 8th of September, the government I will , yes.
What we know so far is that the government has plans for an Australian style ban. But not only is this vague. The Liberal Democrats have concerns that an Australian ban will fail, ultimately in its role to reduce the harms faced by children online. As we've heard from others after a few months of the Australian ban, early data suggest it has a limited impact on prohibiting young people from accessing social media. On top of this, the Molly Rose Foundation found that amongst children aged 12 to 15 who had social media accounts before the ban came in, over half said the ban had made no difference to their online safety.
And I would add here that as someone whose children are too old to be affected by the ban, but who was often a very busy and tired single mother while they were being raised and using social media. I totally understand the points that are being made about the possible unfairness issues and social justice issues around this, this blanket ban. This is important because, as we know, the message of this petition isn't that children should keep access to harmful content. It's that a ban could cut young people off from safe spaces. And for vulnerable children, online communities can often be a lifeline.
A blanket ban risks cutting children off from that support. If the Australian evidence is anything to go by, the government's proposals could take away these positives without making the online world any safer. A few weeks ago I met with a local primary school from Peasedown St John here in Parliament, who shared similar concerns in the Q and A session with a classroom of six and seven year olds. The first question to me was, are you going to ban social media? When I asked what they thought, they told me in six and seven year old terms that they wanted inappropriate content restricted, but they still wanted to use educational platforms.
Even at this age, they recognise that different platforms carry different levels of harm. And I have to admit I agree with them. And this is exactly the nuanced approach the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Unlike an Australia style ban, the Liberal Democrats would assess and regulate platforms based on the harms they call they cause with film style age ratings given based on that harm, platforms that cause the most harm would be closed to children. But if a tech company does the work to redesign the platform, removing addictive algorithms and removing harmful content, then that form of social media could possibly be accessible, unlike a fixed ban.
This gives tech companies a reason to change. It preserves safe spaces for young people to talk online, and it makes safety part of the design of these platforms rather than an afterthought. And while we are considering safe spaces, I very much appreciated the MP for Folkestone and Hythe Point about the fact that there has been a deterioration in alternative spaces, practical, real life spaces for young people to go to over the last 10 or 20 years. And I noticed that the excellent campaign group Make Space for girls has been making the point specifically that particularly for young women and girls, and particularly as the nights draw in, it's unclear where they will be going to spend their time.
And the MP for North West Cambridgeshire also made the point that rural communities have this challenge, particularly. And I know as someone that represents a semi-rural community, many people in my constituency, the young people, simply don't have anywhere to go. If if they're not going to be on their phones. I'm not saying that makes it right to be on their phones, but it poses a challenge when that phone use is suddenly cut off. As well as this, the Liberal Democrats are clear that protecting children online should not come at the expense of privacy. Several constituents have asked me to attend this debate, and again, they're not in favour of children accessing harmful content.
Their concern is that a ban may effectively require a form of digital ID to be enforceable. The Liberal Democrats have always criticised plans for mandatory digital ID, and we will properly scrutinise any regulation of social media to make sure it is both effective and safeguards personal privacy. I'm wholeheartedly in support of a ban against harmful social media, but I think this debate has allowed us to raise important questions about what a ban should look like. So I therefore would like to finish with a few questions for the minister. Do the government believe the best way forward is still a harms based approach to banning social media?
And if so, can we still expect to see a ban by spring 2027? If so, could the minister lay out exactly what we will expect to see and confirm that any regulation will always prioritize privacy, and that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise any proposals? Finally, on the 8th of September, the government I will , yes.
17:59
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Absolutely right. That's poorly worded. Alongside the safety of children. We should be prioritising privacy. Yes. Thank you for the clarification. And finally, on the 8th of September, the government also announced legislation to enforce device and app level restrictions to stop children taking and sharing nude photos of themselves. Could the minister tell us when we will see this coming into force? The Liberal Democrats want to protect young people from online harm. We believe the only way to do this successfully is through harm based ban on social media, and I hope that the government today will agree.
17:59
17:59
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you very much, Miss Hobhouse, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and congratulate the honourable member for Folkestone and Hythe for the way that he introduced it and spoke up for those who signed the petition, I have some sympathy for the position that Leo and the other signatories have set out opposing restrictions on social media for under 16. When the debate on this issue began, I was initially sceptical that increasing the age limit was the appropriate response. There are many good uses of tech for young people that they should be free to explore, but the wider debate on this issue has been running for some considerable time.
It's nearly 20 years since I was working for T-Mobile on the then Byron Review, which was looking for online child safety, and the focus then was on platforms taking responsibility to protect young people. And sadly, they have not. They have failed to do that yet, and that hasn't proven to be successful. And on balance, I agree that the evidence and the experience demonstrates increasing the age limit is necessary to protect children from harm. We know social media platforms and the algorithms driving them are designed to be addictive. They can expose children to pornography, violence, bullying, sexual abuse and other extreme content with damaging and very sadly tragic consequences.
And conservatives believe in the ultimate responsibility of parents over their children. But we also acknowledge the challenge that parents face in keeping their children safe online. The honourable member for Aylesbury. Set out this point very clearly. An activity that would not be tolerated in the real world has been normalised, monetized and amplified online. That's why the Shadow Education Secretary, my noble Lord, Lord Nash in the Lords, as well as many hon. Members from across the House, campaigned to secure restrictions on platforms working with parents, including bereaved families, and I welcome the announcement the government made in June to bring forward restrictions on platforms which will protect children and will help parents.
However, a theme throughout the debate has been that the success of the policy will depend on its implementation, and in that context, I was concerned by Ofcom's very recent report on the Online Safety Act that found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful online content during the first nine months after the new child safety duties took effect. That's clearly disappointing and concerning, and laws need to be implemented effectively. The government has said it intends to publish the first set of regulations for the age limit before the end of this year, with them taking effect in the spring.
Can the minister confirm that that timetable remains the same, and if so, when will the regulations be published? Given we are now in November and we should, as others have said, learn from Australia's restrictions and where they have been bypassed. And last week, Ofcom published its review of age verification tools and recommended four methods photo ID, digital ID, face age estimation, technology and banking based checks. And supporting child protection does not mean endorsing any age checking system or the unnecessary collection of personal data. So that review raises a number of questions that I want to ask the minister first.
Does he agree that, as far as possible, existing information held by platforms should be used in the first instance for adults? How will they keep to a minimum? The requirement to provide photo ID and use face scanning technology as much as possible. Clearly, there are privacy issues at hand here, and what protections should be in place for users data. And for the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out now mandatory digital ID as a requirement for accessing social media? Ofcom estimates in that report that around 150,016 and 17 year olds across the UK hold neither a passport or a provisional driving licence.
What is the government's approach to inform those young people of options, such as a citizen card, which they can get for free? And is the minister looking at age verification at App Store level as a means not only of more reliable protection of children, but to reduce friction for adults accessing social media? Of course, we have to accept that no system is foolproof, but that doesn't mean we should take no action. But having effective controls and having penalties, which the chief executive of Ofcom was talking about in media interviews last week, will reduce the likelihood of under 16 being exposed to damaging content, which is our objective.
Finally, in September, the Secretary of State made a statement regarding nude images and said that due to the lack of progress on voluntary measures, legislation would be introduced to strengthen device protections to prevent children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images on phones and tablets. Could the Minister update us on what progress there has been in the last two months to prepare that legislation, or indeed, secure commitments from major tech companies, to develop and implement such protections to stop children being abused and groomed? Our role here as legislators is to ensure the laws we pass are necessary, effective and proportionate.
Protecting children from harm is a duty that all members take incredibly seriously wherever they fall on this specific issue. There is support shown through the public consultation. From the conversations that I've had for action to introduce effective, age based access to social media to help achieve that as part of wider measures. Now the focus must be on getting the implementation right. Thank you.
It's nearly 20 years since I was working for T-Mobile on the then Byron Review, which was looking for online child safety, and the focus then was on platforms taking responsibility to protect young people. And sadly, they have not. They have failed to do that yet, and that hasn't proven to be successful. And on balance, I agree that the evidence and the experience demonstrates increasing the age limit is necessary to protect children from harm. We know social media platforms and the algorithms driving them are designed to be addictive. They can expose children to pornography, violence, bullying, sexual abuse and other extreme content with damaging and very sadly tragic consequences.
And conservatives believe in the ultimate responsibility of parents over their children. But we also acknowledge the challenge that parents face in keeping their children safe online. The honourable member for Aylesbury. Set out this point very clearly. An activity that would not be tolerated in the real world has been normalised, monetized and amplified online. That's why the Shadow Education Secretary, my noble Lord, Lord Nash in the Lords, as well as many hon. Members from across the House, campaigned to secure restrictions on platforms working with parents, including bereaved families, and I welcome the announcement the government made in June to bring forward restrictions on platforms which will protect children and will help parents.
However, a theme throughout the debate has been that the success of the policy will depend on its implementation, and in that context, I was concerned by Ofcom's very recent report on the Online Safety Act that found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful online content during the first nine months after the new child safety duties took effect. That's clearly disappointing and concerning, and laws need to be implemented effectively. The government has said it intends to publish the first set of regulations for the age limit before the end of this year, with them taking effect in the spring.
Can the minister confirm that that timetable remains the same, and if so, when will the regulations be published? Given we are now in November and we should, as others have said, learn from Australia's restrictions and where they have been bypassed. And last week, Ofcom published its review of age verification tools and recommended four methods photo ID, digital ID, face age estimation, technology and banking based checks. And supporting child protection does not mean endorsing any age checking system or the unnecessary collection of personal data. So that review raises a number of questions that I want to ask the minister first.
Does he agree that, as far as possible, existing information held by platforms should be used in the first instance for adults? How will they keep to a minimum? The requirement to provide photo ID and use face scanning technology as much as possible. Clearly, there are privacy issues at hand here, and what protections should be in place for users data. And for the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out now mandatory digital ID as a requirement for accessing social media? Ofcom estimates in that report that around 150,016 and 17 year olds across the UK hold neither a passport or a provisional driving licence.
What is the government's approach to inform those young people of options, such as a citizen card, which they can get for free? And is the minister looking at age verification at App Store level as a means not only of more reliable protection of children, but to reduce friction for adults accessing social media? Of course, we have to accept that no system is foolproof, but that doesn't mean we should take no action. But having effective controls and having penalties, which the chief executive of Ofcom was talking about in media interviews last week, will reduce the likelihood of under 16 being exposed to damaging content, which is our objective.
Finally, in September, the Secretary of State made a statement regarding nude images and said that due to the lack of progress on voluntary measures, legislation would be introduced to strengthen device protections to prevent children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images on phones and tablets. Could the Minister update us on what progress there has been in the last two months to prepare that legislation, or indeed, secure commitments from major tech companies, to develop and implement such protections to stop children being abused and groomed? Our role here as legislators is to ensure the laws we pass are necessary, effective and proportionate.
Protecting children from harm is a duty that all members take incredibly seriously wherever they fall on this specific issue. There is support shown through the public consultation. From the conversations that I've had for action to introduce effective, age based access to social media to help achieve that as part of wider measures. Now the focus must be on getting the implementation right. Thank you.
18:05
18:05
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank you very much indeed. It's a great pleasure to be in this debate with you in the chair. I think it's been a superb debate. Can I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Folkestone and Hythe for bringing this from the Petitions Committee to Westminster Hall for this debate today. I think it's been a very thoughtful debate, and rightly so, because questions about children, social media and online safety go right to the heart of family life in this country. And I have two young girls, six and one. And although they're not quite yet at the stage of social media and telephones, there is a daily fight with the UN in terms of being able to use your diplomatic skills to get them off screen time at that age, because the screens are everywhere and we are probably, as parents, the worst examples, our whole lives are on our phones now, whether we're at work or trying to do things in terms of family admin.
We all live in that digital age where we are more connected than ever before, and being online can bring huge benefits from making new connections and learning new skills. And I think that is why great tribute to Leo and his colleagues for setting up this petition, to bring this debate, to have that brought into the public domain in terms of the the kind of trade offs that we have to do as a government to keep children safe. But I do want to be absolutely clear, Miss Hobhouse, at the start of this debate, that children are facing real risks of harm online.
They have they have had real risks of harm online for some time now, and I think successive governments have failed in this area to put in place the regulations to keep children safe online. And as the Secretary of State has made clear, our ambition is not simply to make the online world safer, but to create one that enables and empowers children and young people to use it safely. That requires an active government prepared to step in where children are being harmed, but also an active government to step in to give children alternative uses for the online world, but also the offline world as well.
We are not starting this from scratch. We've mentioned the Online Safety Act introduces one of the most robust systems globally for protecting children from harm online. I think it's really important to state at this stage, though, that the Online Safety Act is not perfect, but everything that we do beyond this is building on the Online Safety Act, but it is one of the most robust pieces of legislation globally to try and protect children from harm. And I do take the criticism or indeed the viewpoint from the opposition member and many other members who have mentioned this today about the Ofcom analysis that showed over the first nine months that they have not seen any major reduction in the online harms for children.
But actually, we can also prove the counterfactual that there hasn't been any massive increase and therefore maybe the Online Safety Act is working to an extent of not increasing the harms, but we want to take harms to its lowest possible level. And of course, it is also worth stating as well that we have to be honest about this. We'll never deal with this in terms of 100% of harms. What we're trying to do with Online Safety Act and with all the regulations. On top of that, the under 16 social media ban features and functionalities, bans and AI chat bots restrictions and those kinds of issues is layering on as much as we possibly can to increase the percentage of the number of the amount of harms we can take out of the system.
We'll never get to 100% of the harms. I think we have to be honest about that. The child safety duties came into effect from the Online Safety Act in July 2025, requiring platforms to prevent children from encountering pornography, self-harm material, suicide content and eating. Disordered content. Providers must also protect children from other types of harmful content, such as violent content and bullying and abusive content. But we always knew we had to do much more, and that is why earlier this year, we launched the Growing Up in the Online World consultation to hear directly from parents, experts, stakeholders, and more importantly, to hear from young people themselves.
The wider public as well had to be involved in this, about how we can make the online world safer and more enriching for our young people. The consultation received more than 116,000 responses. 9 in 10 from parents who responded told us they support a ban on social media for their children. And actually, the analysis shows they were just screaming out for help to go to my hon. Friend from Aylesbury Point that she made in her contribution. While what we heard from young people themselves was more nuanced. Two thirds of children who responded to the consultation told us they would support age restrictions for under 16 seconds on at least some social media.
Ofcom's latest research found that almost three quarters of children 11 to 17, had seen or heard potentially harmful content online in a four week period, and this includes 6 in 10 who encountered bullying and 5 in 10 who encountered hate content directly. We believe that social media services create unique risks for children, and while many have made welcome changes, they have not gone far or fast enough to keep our children safe. We therefore consider the responsible thing to do is to ban social media companies from offering services to children under 16, but it does not stop there.
This is not about stopping children. One second. Let me just make this point. This is not about stopping children from going online altogether. It's about making sure services they are that they use are safe and suitable. And to make those changes work, companies will be required to use highly effective age assurance backed by Ofcom's robust enforcement powers. I am happy to give way to my friend.
We all live in that digital age where we are more connected than ever before, and being online can bring huge benefits from making new connections and learning new skills. And I think that is why great tribute to Leo and his colleagues for setting up this petition, to bring this debate, to have that brought into the public domain in terms of the the kind of trade offs that we have to do as a government to keep children safe. But I do want to be absolutely clear, Miss Hobhouse, at the start of this debate, that children are facing real risks of harm online.
They have they have had real risks of harm online for some time now, and I think successive governments have failed in this area to put in place the regulations to keep children safe online. And as the Secretary of State has made clear, our ambition is not simply to make the online world safer, but to create one that enables and empowers children and young people to use it safely. That requires an active government prepared to step in where children are being harmed, but also an active government to step in to give children alternative uses for the online world, but also the offline world as well.
We are not starting this from scratch. We've mentioned the Online Safety Act introduces one of the most robust systems globally for protecting children from harm online. I think it's really important to state at this stage, though, that the Online Safety Act is not perfect, but everything that we do beyond this is building on the Online Safety Act, but it is one of the most robust pieces of legislation globally to try and protect children from harm. And I do take the criticism or indeed the viewpoint from the opposition member and many other members who have mentioned this today about the Ofcom analysis that showed over the first nine months that they have not seen any major reduction in the online harms for children.
But actually, we can also prove the counterfactual that there hasn't been any massive increase and therefore maybe the Online Safety Act is working to an extent of not increasing the harms, but we want to take harms to its lowest possible level. And of course, it is also worth stating as well that we have to be honest about this. We'll never deal with this in terms of 100% of harms. What we're trying to do with Online Safety Act and with all the regulations. On top of that, the under 16 social media ban features and functionalities, bans and AI chat bots restrictions and those kinds of issues is layering on as much as we possibly can to increase the percentage of the number of the amount of harms we can take out of the system.
We'll never get to 100% of the harms. I think we have to be honest about that. The child safety duties came into effect from the Online Safety Act in July 2025, requiring platforms to prevent children from encountering pornography, self-harm material, suicide content and eating. Disordered content. Providers must also protect children from other types of harmful content, such as violent content and bullying and abusive content. But we always knew we had to do much more, and that is why earlier this year, we launched the Growing Up in the Online World consultation to hear directly from parents, experts, stakeholders, and more importantly, to hear from young people themselves.
The wider public as well had to be involved in this, about how we can make the online world safer and more enriching for our young people. The consultation received more than 116,000 responses. 9 in 10 from parents who responded told us they support a ban on social media for their children. And actually, the analysis shows they were just screaming out for help to go to my hon. Friend from Aylesbury Point that she made in her contribution. While what we heard from young people themselves was more nuanced. Two thirds of children who responded to the consultation told us they would support age restrictions for under 16 seconds on at least some social media.
Ofcom's latest research found that almost three quarters of children 11 to 17, had seen or heard potentially harmful content online in a four week period, and this includes 6 in 10 who encountered bullying and 5 in 10 who encountered hate content directly. We believe that social media services create unique risks for children, and while many have made welcome changes, they have not gone far or fast enough to keep our children safe. We therefore consider the responsible thing to do is to ban social media companies from offering services to children under 16, but it does not stop there.
This is not about stopping children. One second. Let me just make this point. This is not about stopping children from going online altogether. It's about making sure services they are that they use are safe and suitable. And to make those changes work, companies will be required to use highly effective age assurance backed by Ofcom's robust enforcement powers. I am happy to give way to my friend.
18:10
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I appreciate the tone he's taking and the sort of different considerations he's bringing in here. I just wonder if you'll agree with me that actually it's very difficult to define social media. We have it in the traditional sense, but there are social platforms now that kind of are primarily based on kind of anonymous, anonymous basis rather than having identities behind them. There's online gaming platforms. So how does the government propose to deal with the fact that actually social media is a very loose term now?
18:10
18:10
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Yes, and I think that goes to the heart of the problem, because social media is a very loose term and a platform that would potentially have been out of scope, or maybe bringing themselves into scope by having new functionalities in their services that we would have thought would have been different to the social media platforms that we were seeking to regulate here. So, for example, Spotify have introduced a stranger conversation type functionality into their into their platform. Does that mean then it comes within scope? Well, it depends how you define social media. So they are morphing into something different.
And of course, if you take what Facebook was when it was first introduced, it was a service for bringing together university students to be able to communicate with each other. It's now this worldwide content platform where anyone in the world, billions of people , can sign up for accounts, interact with each other, upload their own content, and that content can be served through algorithms. Of course, every single bit of it is monetized. So you're right, the technology is moving very quickly. The definition of social media is moving very quickly, and that's why the regulations also have to be flexible enough to be able to deal with some of those harms.
So I'll come back to the scope in a second, if I may. The first regulations to answer the the opposition spokesperson will be laid before Parliament, before the end of this year, before the end of the start of the Christmas recess. That would take us to the end of the year, with restrictions coming into effect in the spring next year. And while social media services pose a unique risk, there are also other services that children can access that have many of the same harmful functions to go to. My hon. Friend's question. This is why we are also preventing under 16 from accessing some of the riskier features.
Under 16 will not be able to live stream themselves or communicate with strangers, and a wide range of services such as gaming. So we are bringing gaming in, which is why we call it the Australia Plus model, because gaming is not in the restrictions in in Australia, and 16 to 17 year olds will have those protections applied by default. So there isn't that cliff edge. When you hit 16, there will be restrictions applied by default when you enter an account, when you become 16 until you're 18. So you're not going straight into that cliff edge of, of, of an adult social media experience.
We will introduce those default protections for 16 and 17 year olds on persuasive features on social media, such as autoplay personalised feeds, to support young people to manage their time online. We will also apply default overnight curfews, including muting push notifications. Now, a lot of members have mentioned the other features and functions within social media that are addictive, but maybe not as harmful as the child sexual exploitation or some of the other stories that we hear in terms of those really extreme harms. But there is a spectrum of harms here, all the way from that addictive nature.
Lack of sleep using social media, which is causing neurological difficulties of an adolescent brain, which is why the social media companies are designing them that way. In fact, there's a decent select committee hearing tomorrow morning on the neuroscience of childhood and how social media is affecting them. So it really is worth looking into some of these big issues. And that's why applying overnight curfews and trying not to impact sleep in those kind of attention issues is all part of the defaults that will go on as well, including, of course, muting push notifications. Those protections will sit alongside a wider package of measures, including stronger safeguards around AI chat bots and measures to promote more positive and educational experience, both online and offline.
We want children to enjoy the benefits of the online world while giving parents confidence that they can do it safely, and we know that regulation alone is not enough. We must also help children and young people build media literacy and critical thinking skills to navigate the online world safely and prepare them for an increasingly digital future. But can I just say at this point as well, that I spent a lot of time in schools talking to 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 year olds on the social media ban in my own constituency. And I think honourable members who have raised this are absolutely right to suggest that we do not give young people enough credit for the way in which they understand the dangers online.
They understand when there is things online that they see, they know they shouldn't be seeing. They are very much aware of of bullying. They're very much aware of those addictive features. And I think we don't give them enough credit for them being able to navigate this themselves. And this is why we're strengthening digital resilience and media literacy through channels in the curriculum and practical support for parents and carers who are helping children and families access high quality online content. This is about building on the protections we already have and going further where children need us to do so.
The government cannot and will not look the other way. We must move more quickly and decisively to keep people safe online and nowhere that responsibly, more than protecting children from harm. And I have spent since I took on this online safety role back at the reshuffle. A lot of time with grieving families, and I encourage all members in this House ministers, cabinet members, backbenchers, people who are just interested in this issue to spend some time with the grieving families and hear from them directly where social media has impacted on their family lives, from some incredibly difficult stories that are harrowing to hear.
But I think all members should hear it. And the test for the Secretary of State and I, the honourable member for Wigan, is that if we get to the end of this process of all these regulations, and they would not have saved their children from the harms that they experienced that led to their deaths, then we will have failed the their children and the children going forward from protecting them from harms. Now, that is a very high bar, but it is a bar that we have to meet because the social media companies have not met it themselves, have consistently over years, if not decades, turned the other way and are now starting to take action because they realise there's legislation coming to restrict the accounts for under 16 seconds.
So our job as a government is to build an online world that is safer and more responsible, one where platforms take their own responsibility. And if we ask more of the online world, we should also offer more in the real world, stronger communities, better youth provision, and more trusted adults around young people. Because safety is not just about what we block, it's also about what we build. And we are determined to do that. Miss Hobhouse, if I could just run through some of the honourable member's contributions because he raised a number of really interesting questions that I think is really important.
And I, the honourable member for Folkestone and Hythe, who introduced the debate with a tremendous speech, talked about the age gating and the Australian example. What Australia has not done and what we've been learning from Australia is have that really highly effective age verification, and that is really the gateway to making sure the ban works. Now, there's many honourable members challenged rightly me as the minister responsible for what that will look like, what we were looking at that at this moment in time, should it be at the App Store level, as the opposition minister has said?
Should it be at the device level? Should it be at each individual social media platform level? These are all issues that we're currently working through to see what is the most effective. But the principle for us is what is the most effective system to make it highly effective? Age verification to ensure that under 16 S are protected from the social media platforms. With regards to the ban, he talked quite rightly about the risky parts of gaming. That's why we're bringing gaming in through features and functions. So we will do the under 16 social media ban this side of the year, which will come into effect in spring next year.
We'll then bring forward a host of regulations on features and functions, including stranger communications, which is the biggest problem with roadblocks and some of the other issues that have been raised by honourable members, and that will allow gamers to continue to have the functionalities of stranger pairing, but won't have that functionality of being able to talk to strangers who are in the gaming context. And that should resolve some of these issues, because we know that a lot of the harms are where vulnerable people are in gaming, they are then taking from the gaming environment into other platforms in order for that grooming and exploitation to continue.
So that's a commitment through the features and functions. Part of this that overlays the social media ban. Can I also just talk a little bit about isolating young people, because this is something that's always on my mind. And I know the Secretary of State thinks about this a lot as well. And the honourable member who's the baby of the house, I was hoping to be the baby of this debate, but I've been beaten by probably everybody else in this room in terms of particularly vulnerable communities. And I pay tribute to him for telling his own personal story, which is a very brave thing to do, and that is a concern.
But what we're also seeing with all the data and information that we have, that young people who are the most vulnerable are then the most susceptible to being involved in these harms. So it is a balance to decide whether or not you are able to have those spaces for young, vulnerable people to go and seek that advice or seek the communities that they wish to be part of and have that enrichment, or whether or not we protect them from that. And that is a balance. And on balance, I think the protection of people from that is probably the best place to be, whilst enriching the offer that we can give to young people.
For them to be able to confidently, they can go to safe spaces with safe people that they can then talk to about their experiences. And this is not an easy thing to resolve. And I think if anybody said it was easy to resolve, they would not be telling the truth. Let's also talk a little bit about the way back, because it all comes down to essentially the scope of the social media ban. So what we want to do with the ban is, and what we announced in June is to capture user by user platforms, whose purpose is to enable online interaction, which allow users to post material alongside having an algorithm.
And the Syrian regime includes platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook. We will not be naming platforms directly in the regulations that Ofcom will subsequently apply the regulations to the social media companies, and then determine whether or not they will produce a list of the companies that are in scope and what Ofcom will do in the regulations, and what the thought processes are is that social media companies who think they are in scope, who are over a certain number of users, will have to self notify to Ofcom that they are in scope of the Bill and then and then come forward with those regulations.
So we are working through the detail of how we translate the Australian scope into the UK context, and that is why it is really important to get this right. Within that, a number of honourable members talked about the regulations that meet the criteria and what the off ramp is. Essentially the off ramp or the way back, is for platforms to prove through their design that they meet the regulations. So it's just reverting the regulations. If you're if stranger communication is banned and your online platform is subsequently not available to under 16 seconds, and you have that functionality, then it's quite clear that you don't comply with the regulations.
So the way, way back is to comply with the regulations and fall out of scope. And, you know, that's an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to deliver, but actually that's the principle of which we'll go forward on this. And if there are services like Lego play, YouTube's been mentioned, or YouTube kids, is there ways in which you can stop the harms being created by the algorithms , or the recommender systems, or the commenting systems, or the conversations that you can have with strangers? If you created a service that complied with all those regulations, is it then available to under 16 seconds?
I would say the government's position is currently, yes, there has to be an off ramp and the the Canada model is something that we are looking at quite closely in terms of their regulations. I'm happy to give way.
And of course, if you take what Facebook was when it was first introduced, it was a service for bringing together university students to be able to communicate with each other. It's now this worldwide content platform where anyone in the world, billions of people , can sign up for accounts, interact with each other, upload their own content, and that content can be served through algorithms. Of course, every single bit of it is monetized. So you're right, the technology is moving very quickly. The definition of social media is moving very quickly, and that's why the regulations also have to be flexible enough to be able to deal with some of those harms.
So I'll come back to the scope in a second, if I may. The first regulations to answer the the opposition spokesperson will be laid before Parliament, before the end of this year, before the end of the start of the Christmas recess. That would take us to the end of the year, with restrictions coming into effect in the spring next year. And while social media services pose a unique risk, there are also other services that children can access that have many of the same harmful functions to go to. My hon. Friend's question. This is why we are also preventing under 16 from accessing some of the riskier features.
Under 16 will not be able to live stream themselves or communicate with strangers, and a wide range of services such as gaming. So we are bringing gaming in, which is why we call it the Australia Plus model, because gaming is not in the restrictions in in Australia, and 16 to 17 year olds will have those protections applied by default. So there isn't that cliff edge. When you hit 16, there will be restrictions applied by default when you enter an account, when you become 16 until you're 18. So you're not going straight into that cliff edge of, of, of an adult social media experience.
We will introduce those default protections for 16 and 17 year olds on persuasive features on social media, such as autoplay personalised feeds, to support young people to manage their time online. We will also apply default overnight curfews, including muting push notifications. Now, a lot of members have mentioned the other features and functions within social media that are addictive, but maybe not as harmful as the child sexual exploitation or some of the other stories that we hear in terms of those really extreme harms. But there is a spectrum of harms here, all the way from that addictive nature.
Lack of sleep using social media, which is causing neurological difficulties of an adolescent brain, which is why the social media companies are designing them that way. In fact, there's a decent select committee hearing tomorrow morning on the neuroscience of childhood and how social media is affecting them. So it really is worth looking into some of these big issues. And that's why applying overnight curfews and trying not to impact sleep in those kind of attention issues is all part of the defaults that will go on as well, including, of course, muting push notifications. Those protections will sit alongside a wider package of measures, including stronger safeguards around AI chat bots and measures to promote more positive and educational experience, both online and offline.
We want children to enjoy the benefits of the online world while giving parents confidence that they can do it safely, and we know that regulation alone is not enough. We must also help children and young people build media literacy and critical thinking skills to navigate the online world safely and prepare them for an increasingly digital future. But can I just say at this point as well, that I spent a lot of time in schools talking to 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 year olds on the social media ban in my own constituency. And I think honourable members who have raised this are absolutely right to suggest that we do not give young people enough credit for the way in which they understand the dangers online.
They understand when there is things online that they see, they know they shouldn't be seeing. They are very much aware of of bullying. They're very much aware of those addictive features. And I think we don't give them enough credit for them being able to navigate this themselves. And this is why we're strengthening digital resilience and media literacy through channels in the curriculum and practical support for parents and carers who are helping children and families access high quality online content. This is about building on the protections we already have and going further where children need us to do so.
The government cannot and will not look the other way. We must move more quickly and decisively to keep people safe online and nowhere that responsibly, more than protecting children from harm. And I have spent since I took on this online safety role back at the reshuffle. A lot of time with grieving families, and I encourage all members in this House ministers, cabinet members, backbenchers, people who are just interested in this issue to spend some time with the grieving families and hear from them directly where social media has impacted on their family lives, from some incredibly difficult stories that are harrowing to hear.
But I think all members should hear it. And the test for the Secretary of State and I, the honourable member for Wigan, is that if we get to the end of this process of all these regulations, and they would not have saved their children from the harms that they experienced that led to their deaths, then we will have failed the their children and the children going forward from protecting them from harms. Now, that is a very high bar, but it is a bar that we have to meet because the social media companies have not met it themselves, have consistently over years, if not decades, turned the other way and are now starting to take action because they realise there's legislation coming to restrict the accounts for under 16 seconds.
So our job as a government is to build an online world that is safer and more responsible, one where platforms take their own responsibility. And if we ask more of the online world, we should also offer more in the real world, stronger communities, better youth provision, and more trusted adults around young people. Because safety is not just about what we block, it's also about what we build. And we are determined to do that. Miss Hobhouse, if I could just run through some of the honourable member's contributions because he raised a number of really interesting questions that I think is really important.
And I, the honourable member for Folkestone and Hythe, who introduced the debate with a tremendous speech, talked about the age gating and the Australian example. What Australia has not done and what we've been learning from Australia is have that really highly effective age verification, and that is really the gateway to making sure the ban works. Now, there's many honourable members challenged rightly me as the minister responsible for what that will look like, what we were looking at that at this moment in time, should it be at the App Store level, as the opposition minister has said?
Should it be at the device level? Should it be at each individual social media platform level? These are all issues that we're currently working through to see what is the most effective. But the principle for us is what is the most effective system to make it highly effective? Age verification to ensure that under 16 S are protected from the social media platforms. With regards to the ban, he talked quite rightly about the risky parts of gaming. That's why we're bringing gaming in through features and functions. So we will do the under 16 social media ban this side of the year, which will come into effect in spring next year.
We'll then bring forward a host of regulations on features and functions, including stranger communications, which is the biggest problem with roadblocks and some of the other issues that have been raised by honourable members, and that will allow gamers to continue to have the functionalities of stranger pairing, but won't have that functionality of being able to talk to strangers who are in the gaming context. And that should resolve some of these issues, because we know that a lot of the harms are where vulnerable people are in gaming, they are then taking from the gaming environment into other platforms in order for that grooming and exploitation to continue.
So that's a commitment through the features and functions. Part of this that overlays the social media ban. Can I also just talk a little bit about isolating young people, because this is something that's always on my mind. And I know the Secretary of State thinks about this a lot as well. And the honourable member who's the baby of the house, I was hoping to be the baby of this debate, but I've been beaten by probably everybody else in this room in terms of particularly vulnerable communities. And I pay tribute to him for telling his own personal story, which is a very brave thing to do, and that is a concern.
But what we're also seeing with all the data and information that we have, that young people who are the most vulnerable are then the most susceptible to being involved in these harms. So it is a balance to decide whether or not you are able to have those spaces for young, vulnerable people to go and seek that advice or seek the communities that they wish to be part of and have that enrichment, or whether or not we protect them from that. And that is a balance. And on balance, I think the protection of people from that is probably the best place to be, whilst enriching the offer that we can give to young people.
For them to be able to confidently, they can go to safe spaces with safe people that they can then talk to about their experiences. And this is not an easy thing to resolve. And I think if anybody said it was easy to resolve, they would not be telling the truth. Let's also talk a little bit about the way back, because it all comes down to essentially the scope of the social media ban. So what we want to do with the ban is, and what we announced in June is to capture user by user platforms, whose purpose is to enable online interaction, which allow users to post material alongside having an algorithm.
And the Syrian regime includes platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook. We will not be naming platforms directly in the regulations that Ofcom will subsequently apply the regulations to the social media companies, and then determine whether or not they will produce a list of the companies that are in scope and what Ofcom will do in the regulations, and what the thought processes are is that social media companies who think they are in scope, who are over a certain number of users, will have to self notify to Ofcom that they are in scope of the Bill and then and then come forward with those regulations.
So we are working through the detail of how we translate the Australian scope into the UK context, and that is why it is really important to get this right. Within that, a number of honourable members talked about the regulations that meet the criteria and what the off ramp is. Essentially the off ramp or the way back, is for platforms to prove through their design that they meet the regulations. So it's just reverting the regulations. If you're if stranger communication is banned and your online platform is subsequently not available to under 16 seconds, and you have that functionality, then it's quite clear that you don't comply with the regulations.
So the way, way back is to comply with the regulations and fall out of scope. And, you know, that's an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to deliver, but actually that's the principle of which we'll go forward on this. And if there are services like Lego play, YouTube's been mentioned, or YouTube kids, is there ways in which you can stop the harms being created by the algorithms , or the recommender systems, or the commenting systems, or the conversations that you can have with strangers? If you created a service that complied with all those regulations, is it then available to under 16 seconds?
I would say the government's position is currently, yes, there has to be an off ramp and the the Canada model is something that we are looking at quite closely in terms of their regulations. I'm happy to give way.
18:21
18:22
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Order, just before the minister replies. Can I encourage everybody to speak through the chair? I don't want to be too pompous about it, but the the convention is that the debate goes this way, not that way. And before you're starting a conversation amongst yourselves, please remember that. Thank you.
18:22
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Apologies. Such an engaging conversation we're trying to have with each other, so I do apologise. I suppose the simple answer to your question is we don't quite know yet, but probably not. Because if you think about the way in which and this is the answer to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in terms of time, when we announced we were going to go forward with the ban, we had to have a legislative vehicle to put this through. The difficulty with that, of course, is that we took the powers within the Children and Wellbeing Bill to put the regulations through, which means we can do it quickly, and that is why we can make the commitment to do it this side of the end of the year.
That then means that we've got to do a whole sort of body of potential legislation in statutory instruments in one go in December, which is not an easy feat to do if we want to try and get this right. So I think the discussions about what the way back looks like will have to be a future discussion, probably alongside the features and functions part of this debate later on after the spring, next year when this is being implemented. So I think that's not entirely settled yet. But I think in terms of what we have to try and achieve by December, it's probably, Madam Chair, the only way to be able to to be able to put those in place, I'll have to give way.
That then means that we've got to do a whole sort of body of potential legislation in statutory instruments in one go in December, which is not an easy feat to do if we want to try and get this right. So I think the discussions about what the way back looks like will have to be a future discussion, probably alongside the features and functions part of this debate later on after the spring, next year when this is being implemented. So I think that's not entirely settled yet. But I think in terms of what we have to try and achieve by December, it's probably, Madam Chair, the only way to be able to to be able to put those in place, I'll have to give way.
18:23
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I just think and forgive me, I'm just trying to get the sequencing for this right in my head. So the government is going to put regulations before Parliament, before the end of the year. We're all welcome. That. Is that going to include what Ofcom's thinking is around individual platforms? Or we'll have to wait for that. And if we have to wait for that, when will we hear from Ofcom on that point, Minister?
18:24
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Yes, let me go through the timelines. I think it's really important. So the Children Wellbeing Bill gives us the the power to make the regulations. We'll make the regulations in December of this year. Those will come into effect in late spring. And of course, by the time they come into effect, Ofcom will have to have done the work in terms of implementing the regulations and a bringing the platforms that are in scope into scope, and then obviously starting to enforce what needs to be done. But there will have to be an implementation period. Madam chair, after Ofcom have a developed the guidance and developed what they have to do in terms of enforcement, they'll have to be an implementation period.
But by that, the day in which the under sixteens will no longer be able to access social media will be late spring and between December and late spring, Ofcom will develop the guidance that will be required in order to implement the the regulations. Throughout that process, we'll be working on the features and functions part of this, which is the stranger. Communications, etc. etc. that I have laid out already in my contribution. Can I just touch on a few things? My hon. Friend from Aylesbury talks about her own daughter and the phone being on the Christmas list.
I think. I think the answers to the consultation in terms of those 116,000 responses, with parents just crying out for the tools and at Labour Party conference we've had many panels on online safety, and there was always the example used of the of alcohol licensing that many of us will have a bottle of alcohol in the house, but we know that under 18 aren't allowed to drink it. But that doesn't stop some under 18 from drinking it. So they can't be foolproof. But it gives parents the ability to say that is harmful to your health.
It's harmful to children, and there's laws in place that you can only access that when you're over the age of 18. That gives parents the ability to say, here's the line in the sand. And that's, I think, what a lot of parents are just crying, crying out for the tools to help them to make those decisions. And we do need offline activities. And the Department of digital, culture, Media and Sport have put a lot of thought into this happening at the same time. So, Madam Chair, we cannot have a situation whereby the online world is restricted for under 16, but there is nothing in the offline world.
So we have put over half £1 billion into the Youth Matters Fund programme to refurbish our bill 250 youth facilities. There is a £22 million investment over three years to support up to 400 schools to provide youth tailored enrichment schemes, a major investment in Youth Matters National Youth Strategy, a ten year plan to ensure every young person across somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. And I think that someone who cares is part of the ability to be able to open up to someone who is not your parents, in order to have some of those difficult conversations that you may have wanted to try and seek on online.
There's been a number of other mentions. The nine point plan from my honourable friend from Milton Keynes Central, who is no longer in our place, but she's been right at the forefront of trying to see what is a way back looks like, and what that needs to look like to be effective. And I would encourage members to look at that nine point plan, including the neuroscience event tomorrow, that she will be a member of as part of that part of the select committee. My hon. Friend the member for Edinburgh South West, my neighbouring MP, Madam Chair.
His own inbox. His demonstration of his inbox is probably the demonstration of all of our inboxes when this debate started, right around the country in terms of the consultation. But what he did highlight there was a number of civil society organisations who have very strong views on this on one way or other, in terms of either having supporting the ban or not supporting the ban , or reluctantly supporting a ban, because something needs to be done. And I think the challenge for government in developing those regulations, not just in terms of the debate that we've had this afternoon, but in terms of all the civil society organisations out there who are pay tribute to them all, including many that have been set up on the back of tragedy in horrendous circumstances like the Molly Rose Foundation, is that there is no one solution that they are proposing, and therefore it's government's responsibility to try and find the best way forward that fits the that keeps children safe online and does the maximum of benefit to that.
Let me just finish off with a few other mentions of my honourable friends who raised some really good questions. International comparisons for my honourable friend from Stourbridge and the EU Kids Act. Yes, we we are basing all of our evidence on international comparisons. We have got the Australia model, of course, that we talk about a lot. There's the Canada model that is currently being developed and there's the EU Kids Act. I was in Brussels talking about the EU Kids Act just last month, and those international comparisons will certainly affect what we are thinking about. And the Council of Europe are right on this.
I sat in the Council of Europe as well many, many years ago, and they will do a lot of great work on developing what the right of the child is and what the human right is in terms of being able to access in terms of be also be protected from harms and children being protected from those harms. Can I pay tribute to my friend for Plymouth Moor View? He is a fantastic resource on this and thank him for the way in which he has been able to help us to develop some of those regulations. Madam chair, there are huge benefits to young people using online.
He should maybe have given us a little song this afternoon to see whether or not his YouTube tutorials actually worked, but we often get this what will people do if they want to try and learn to play guitar again? I can only emphasise that we're not banning people from being
But by that, the day in which the under sixteens will no longer be able to access social media will be late spring and between December and late spring, Ofcom will develop the guidance that will be required in order to implement the the regulations. Throughout that process, we'll be working on the features and functions part of this, which is the stranger. Communications, etc. etc. that I have laid out already in my contribution. Can I just touch on a few things? My hon. Friend from Aylesbury talks about her own daughter and the phone being on the Christmas list.
I think. I think the answers to the consultation in terms of those 116,000 responses, with parents just crying out for the tools and at Labour Party conference we've had many panels on online safety, and there was always the example used of the of alcohol licensing that many of us will have a bottle of alcohol in the house, but we know that under 18 aren't allowed to drink it. But that doesn't stop some under 18 from drinking it. So they can't be foolproof. But it gives parents the ability to say that is harmful to your health.
It's harmful to children, and there's laws in place that you can only access that when you're over the age of 18. That gives parents the ability to say, here's the line in the sand. And that's, I think, what a lot of parents are just crying, crying out for the tools to help them to make those decisions. And we do need offline activities. And the Department of digital, culture, Media and Sport have put a lot of thought into this happening at the same time. So, Madam Chair, we cannot have a situation whereby the online world is restricted for under 16, but there is nothing in the offline world.
So we have put over half £1 billion into the Youth Matters Fund programme to refurbish our bill 250 youth facilities. There is a £22 million investment over three years to support up to 400 schools to provide youth tailored enrichment schemes, a major investment in Youth Matters National Youth Strategy, a ten year plan to ensure every young person across somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. And I think that someone who cares is part of the ability to be able to open up to someone who is not your parents, in order to have some of those difficult conversations that you may have wanted to try and seek on online.
There's been a number of other mentions. The nine point plan from my honourable friend from Milton Keynes Central, who is no longer in our place, but she's been right at the forefront of trying to see what is a way back looks like, and what that needs to look like to be effective. And I would encourage members to look at that nine point plan, including the neuroscience event tomorrow, that she will be a member of as part of that part of the select committee. My hon. Friend the member for Edinburgh South West, my neighbouring MP, Madam Chair.
His own inbox. His demonstration of his inbox is probably the demonstration of all of our inboxes when this debate started, right around the country in terms of the consultation. But what he did highlight there was a number of civil society organisations who have very strong views on this on one way or other, in terms of either having supporting the ban or not supporting the ban , or reluctantly supporting a ban, because something needs to be done. And I think the challenge for government in developing those regulations, not just in terms of the debate that we've had this afternoon, but in terms of all the civil society organisations out there who are pay tribute to them all, including many that have been set up on the back of tragedy in horrendous circumstances like the Molly Rose Foundation, is that there is no one solution that they are proposing, and therefore it's government's responsibility to try and find the best way forward that fits the that keeps children safe online and does the maximum of benefit to that.
Let me just finish off with a few other mentions of my honourable friends who raised some really good questions. International comparisons for my honourable friend from Stourbridge and the EU Kids Act. Yes, we we are basing all of our evidence on international comparisons. We have got the Australia model, of course, that we talk about a lot. There's the Canada model that is currently being developed and there's the EU Kids Act. I was in Brussels talking about the EU Kids Act just last month, and those international comparisons will certainly affect what we are thinking about. And the Council of Europe are right on this.
I sat in the Council of Europe as well many, many years ago, and they will do a lot of great work on developing what the right of the child is and what the human right is in terms of being able to access in terms of be also be protected from harms and children being protected from those harms. Can I pay tribute to my friend for Plymouth Moor View? He is a fantastic resource on this and thank him for the way in which he has been able to help us to develop some of those regulations. Madam chair, there are huge benefits to young people using online.
He should maybe have given us a little song this afternoon to see whether or not his YouTube tutorials actually worked, but we often get this what will people do if they want to try and learn to play guitar again? I can only emphasise that we're not banning people from being
18:29
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Out features that can be used. But if online platforms like YouTube want to come forward with a new platform or a redesigned platform that complies with the regulations and they wish to test whether or not they can be removed from scope, then it is up for them to do so. In fact, we've been crying out for the platforms to be doing this for over many years, which is why we've ended up in this position, because they have not been able to comply, or they have not had any real intent to be able to comply with the social media plan.
So if they do comply, they have to comply with the regulations that are put in in place. Can I just finish with why we're doing this? I talked about the grieving families, and I have a whole folder here of their stories that they tell. And the harm is there for all to see. And if you if you look at the extreme cases of the child sexual exploitation or indeed children that have had to be taken into safeguarding because of their online experiences or the children who have died. And some of the stories are are unpalatable.
If we think about our own our own children. Government has a responsibility to act. The social media companies, as the Secretary of State said in the House when she introduced the under 16 ban, have not have not done enough to keep children safe online. They are still not doing enough to keep children safe online if they. Ofcom analysis is to be believed and it certainly is a. Is to be believed and therefore government has to then step in. We don't want to ban people from doing things we don't want to ban under 16 from being on social media, but that is the only way in which we can protect children from the harms that social media are causing.
So we're determined to ensure that children have a really enriched experience online, that media literacy and the kind of issues through the education system allow them to have that really enriched experience online, but they also have really enriched experience offline. I think the secretary of State describes it as giving children their childhood back, and I think that's a really good way of doing it. So let the message today to Leo and all the petitioners be a really positive one. We hear their concerns. We back parents, we believe in young people and we are determined to make the online world work better for them.
That is the task that we have got to do between now and December. That's the responsibility of not just government, but for everyone in this room. And it's exactly what we intend to do. And I'll just finish with Re-emphasising, what the Secretary of State has set as the benchmark here. We have to be able to look those grieving families in the eye, Madam Chair, and say that we have done all we possibly can to make the online world a safer place, so that other people's children do not end up the same way as their children did.
And if we can achieve that, we'll have achieved something not just for this generation, but for future generations as well.
So if they do comply, they have to comply with the regulations that are put in in place. Can I just finish with why we're doing this? I talked about the grieving families, and I have a whole folder here of their stories that they tell. And the harm is there for all to see. And if you if you look at the extreme cases of the child sexual exploitation or indeed children that have had to be taken into safeguarding because of their online experiences or the children who have died. And some of the stories are are unpalatable.
If we think about our own our own children. Government has a responsibility to act. The social media companies, as the Secretary of State said in the House when she introduced the under 16 ban, have not have not done enough to keep children safe online. They are still not doing enough to keep children safe online if they. Ofcom analysis is to be believed and it certainly is a. Is to be believed and therefore government has to then step in. We don't want to ban people from doing things we don't want to ban under 16 from being on social media, but that is the only way in which we can protect children from the harms that social media are causing.
So we're determined to ensure that children have a really enriched experience online, that media literacy and the kind of issues through the education system allow them to have that really enriched experience online, but they also have really enriched experience offline. I think the secretary of State describes it as giving children their childhood back, and I think that's a really good way of doing it. So let the message today to Leo and all the petitioners be a really positive one. We hear their concerns. We back parents, we believe in young people and we are determined to make the online world work better for them.
That is the task that we have got to do between now and December. That's the responsibility of not just government, but for everyone in this room. And it's exactly what we intend to do. And I'll just finish with Re-emphasising, what the Secretary of State has set as the benchmark here. We have to be able to look those grieving families in the eye, Madam Chair, and say that we have done all we possibly can to make the online world a safer place, so that other people's children do not end up the same way as their children did.
And if we can achieve that, we'll have achieved something not just for this generation, but for future generations as well.
18:32
18:32
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you chair. I thank again, Leo and all the 200,000 217,682 signatories to this petition, as well as all the honourable members who spoke today. It's clear that each speaker has agreed that the government needs to be tougher on the social media companies, and to crack down on these harmful and addictive features, which we all agree children should not be subject to. We heard from many honourable members on this honourable member for Camborne and Redruth about speaking powerfully about the impacts of eating disorder content. The honourable member for Milton Keynes is not in her place.
Her nine features, her examples of algorithmic feeds and other things which should be cut out. And of course, honourable member for Plymouth Moor View, who was quoting numerous statistics about social media companies crowding out young people's time and having awful impacts on our young people. So we all agree that the status quo isn't acceptable. The reality is that today children across the country, children under 16 are being subject to these platforms. That's what's happening. And the Ofcom report, which many of us referred to, acknowledges that children's access to these platforms is not materially reducing. And so I do support a ban.
I do support a ban with an off ramp. If we can get there for social media companies to show that if they can show their products are safe, then we should be potentially allowing children to access these things, because I do accept the premise of the petition. Leo's petition, which is that it is important that young people have access to social media if it is safe and if it if it can safely provide a place of connection, community and support. And it's really, really important that we as parliamentarians acknowledge that and that the young people don't feel that we're just paternalistically telling them what they should be able to do.
But the reality is, in these platforms current form, we cannot wait. We cannot allow our children to continue to be subject to these harms while we work out how to force social media companies to clean up their act. And in fact, my opinion is that it is a ban which will drive the innovation. It is a ban which will drive these companies to find products which are safe and are suitable for children if they want ultimately to allow children access to them. And the honourable member for North West Cambridgeshire and other speakers made the important point about regulating harms that rather than regulating platforms.
Now, I understood the minister ultimately to, I think, agree with that analysis in.
Her nine features, her examples of algorithmic feeds and other things which should be cut out. And of course, honourable member for Plymouth Moor View, who was quoting numerous statistics about social media companies crowding out young people's time and having awful impacts on our young people. So we all agree that the status quo isn't acceptable. The reality is that today children across the country, children under 16 are being subject to these platforms. That's what's happening. And the Ofcom report, which many of us referred to, acknowledges that children's access to these platforms is not materially reducing. And so I do support a ban.
I do support a ban with an off ramp. If we can get there for social media companies to show that if they can show their products are safe, then we should be potentially allowing children to access these things, because I do accept the premise of the petition. Leo's petition, which is that it is important that young people have access to social media if it is safe and if it if it can safely provide a place of connection, community and support. And it's really, really important that we as parliamentarians acknowledge that and that the young people don't feel that we're just paternalistically telling them what they should be able to do.
But the reality is, in these platforms current form, we cannot wait. We cannot allow our children to continue to be subject to these harms while we work out how to force social media companies to clean up their act. And in fact, my opinion is that it is a ban which will drive the innovation. It is a ban which will drive these companies to find products which are safe and are suitable for children if they want ultimately to allow children access to them. And the honourable member for North West Cambridgeshire and other speakers made the important point about regulating harms that rather than regulating platforms.
Now, I understood the minister ultimately to, I think, agree with that analysis in.
18:34
18:35