Children’s Social Media Accounts

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

I agree that social media companies rightly face regulation; I will talk a little more about that later.

There is, rightly, debate and campaigning in the media and elsewhere—we saw some of that over the weekend—about the level of regulation of online content that children may access online, whether that is illegal content or legal but harmful content. Although the regulation of content itself is not the focus of today’s debate, as a concerned parent myself, I am impatient for online services to take proper responsibility for what our children see. Social media companies must not shy away from their responsibilities to protect children, either because of misguided free speech concerns or out of concern about their levels of profit.

It is important to note, as context for today’s debate, that the law does not allow online services to collect or store the personal information of children under the age of 13. As a result, most popular services require users to be at least 13 years of age, but enforcement of that requirement has historically been lax. The age-assurance requirements in the Online Safety Act must be implemented without delay.

I know that hon. Members will want to touch on various elements of the approaches to social media regulation, but in parallel to the wider debate about content regulation, the petitioners are clear that there are specific issues about parental access that warrant a response in their own right, from both social media companies and the Government, so I want to focus my remarks, and I hope this debate, on those specific questions.

First, the petitioners call for parental access to social media when children are alive. I understand the instinct behind this call—the instinct to directly monitor what a child is doing online in order to protect them from the harms to which I have referred. However, in the course of preparing for the debate, I heard clearly from multiple perspectives, including children’s charities such as the NSPCC, that broad, overarching parental rights to children’s social media would not be appropriate. Of course, given that the minimum age of use should be 13, we are talking about teenagers. Children—teenagers—do have long-established rights to privacy, as set out by the UN convention on the rights of the child, and established UK law and practice in a range of areas reflects and recognises that.

Such rights are important not just as abstract concepts but because, as I have heard, older children sometimes need private online spaces to help them to explore the world—for example, a teenager understanding their own sexuality before they wish to share it with their parents. We also know that, sadly, in some horrible cases, parents are themselves perpetrators of abuse against their children. Establishing a blanket right to access children’s online activity would remove an important safe route for children to seek support and alert others in such cases.

The petitioners themselves have reflected on such matters, and although they remain determined to support parents to keep their kids safe online, there is a recognition that establishing an overarching parental right to access the data of living teenagers is unlikely to be the appropriate way forward. Instead, it appears to me that parental oversight of a child’s social media use should rather be achieved through strengthening and significantly increasing the uptake of parental controls and other specifically designed arrangements that children and their parents agree to together, as part of the sign-up processes for online services. It is clearly the responsibility of online services to implement and expand such measures, and I hope for rapid progress in that area as a key part of online services’ work to improve children’s safety online in partnership with parents.

I now turn to the issue of bereaved parents’ access to social media data, which is the specific issue for which Ellen has been campaigning, because she is still not able to access data about Jools’ use of online services before his death. I cannot begin to imagine the anguish of losing a child and, even more so, not being given information that might help a parent to understand the circumstances of their child’s death. We rightly talk about laws, protections and rights, but we do not talk enough as a society about the right—indeed, the need—to grieve a loss, especially one as painful as the loss of child.

In preparing for this debate, I spoke with SLOW, or Surviving the Loss of Your World—a charity that offers bereavement support for parents following the loss of a child. The charity emphasised to me the absolute necessity, as part of the grieving process, of establishing an understanding of what led to death. By being denied data about Jools’ online activity before his death, Ellen has been denied the ability to grieve as she wishes. The petition recognises that it cannot be right that a grieving mother is forced to go through years of campaigning and investigation to try to get answers about her son’s death. I urge everyone—especially those working in social media companies—to reflect on the evident injustice of the situation, and to commit to finding a way to do the right thing: to give Ellen the information and answers she needs.

The Online Safety Act 2023 made important provisions for Ofcom and coroners to access social media in relevant cases following a child’s death, in turn helping bereaved families. It is welcome that the current Government’s Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is making its way through Parliament, strengthens those powers and the requirements for data retention so that the risks of data loss in such cases are reduced. However, the provisions do not have retrospective mechanisms, and are therefore not sufficient for historical cases, such as Jools’, where the coronial process has already concluded. As a result, Ellen is in the situation where she has to try and crowdfund a significant sum of money for legal action to get Jools’ inquest re-run, so that the coroner can use the powers now available in law to access Jools’ social media data. It cannot be right that this is necessary.

Some online services say that without a change in the law, they cannot legally release data to bereaved parents like Ellen, but what has struck me in preparation for the debate is that there is not a consensus on the current legal situation. The online safety and data protection expert, John Carr, told me that he did not believe that the general data protection regulations necessarily limited the release of children’s usage data to bereaved parents. Snap, the provider of Snapchat, told me that it already, on a case-by-case basis, discloses usage data to a parent who is the successor to a deceased child.

Other online services—including some of the most prominent social media services used by young people, such as TikTok—seem to take a different interpretation of the law. They state that data protection legislation prohibits them from releasing any data they hold that would give parents like Ellen the answers they deserve. I find this inconsistency of interpretation from online services at best troubling and at worst suspicious, given the historical behaviours of some social media companies that were involved in minimising—and indeed covering up—evidence of the impact of online harm. I believe it is incumbent on all online services to use their considerable resources to push the existing law as far as they can, and to find a way to release data to bereaved families.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

We owe it to our constituents that we work together, and leave no stone unturned to understand the trends and drivers that lead our children to take their own lives. Social media companies headquartered overseas have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be relied on to take reasonable action out of good will, so I invite the hon. Member to agree that it is up to Parliament to legislate accordingly.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I agree that legislative action has been necessary, as the Online Safety Act shows, and indeed, there are provisions on this in the current data Bill. The issue is that there is a lack of clarity; under the existing law, some social media companies seem to be finding a way of doing the right thing while others are not. I will come to the hon. Member’s point when I ask a couple of questions of the Government.

I can assure the social media companies—in the event that they carefully do the right thing, on a case-by-case basis, and then face data protection questions from regulators in response—that they will find allies across Parliament in defending their actions.

I ask the Minister and the Government: what scope is there for stating clearly in law that, so long as due care is taken on a case-by-case basis, the release of data to bereaved parents is permitted? Could the data Bill be amended to include a clarification to remove, once and for all, the claim of some companies that they are prohibited from giving parents like Ellen the data and answers they deserve? Are there any other steps the Minister believes could be taken to right this injustice? I look forward to hearing the perspectives of colleagues and the Government’s response to this important debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He made some powerful points in his speech, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them. I also associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who spoke so eloquently, and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson).

It is only right to start by paying tribute to Ellen and Bereaved Families for Online Safety, who are in the Public Gallery. They have raised this petition following the heartbreaking loss of Ellen’s son, Jools. It is unbelievably courageous to turn away from the abyss of pain and grief, and to turn that into a campaign for good. It is, frankly, inspirational to many Members in this House and I thank the 1,711 Gloucester constituents who signed the petition.

As a relatively new parent, I now know what it is like to really worry about a child. People say that no one really knows what it is like to be a parent before their child is born. I laughed that off and thought, “Of course you can know,” but, truly, no one does. The moment a parent meets their child for the first time, their world changes. I realised that I would literally walk through walls for my child. Thankfully, my child is only one. He does not yet have any social media channels that I am aware of. If that could continue for as long as possible, I would be grateful.

I know that parents are increasingly worried about their children’s use of social media across the country and in my constituency of Gloucester. According to the Children’s Commissioner, two thirds of parents are concerned about the content that their children can access online, and the impact that it is having on their children’s mental health. Those concerns are felt by not only parents but children themselves. Research shows that nearly three quarters of teenagers have encountered potential harms online and three in five secondary-school age children have been contacted online in ways that have made them feel uncomfortable. As social media becomes increasingly embedded in our children’s lives, it is clear that urgent action is needed. While the Online Safety Act 2023 was a long-awaited start to protecting children online, we must go further and I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology say that he is “open-minded” about introducing new legislation. I encourage him to consider introducing Jools’ law.

My remarks will not particularly focus on online content, although my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) outlined some of the dangerous and horrific online content to which children and young people are exposed. Members of this House do not need to be reminded of the horrific content available online. Not long after being elected, I found that pictures of myself and my baby had been posted with a threatening message, anonymously, as part of an online “spotted” page. Members of this House develop a relatively thick skin in this job but imagine the impact of that on a teenager. I think back to my teenage days, and whether I was mentally equipped to be able to deal with cases of bullying. I am just about young enough to remember when Facebook came in—I was a teenager when Facebook started—and back then it was a very different place. Nowadays, we see, frankly, a cesspit of online content and I do not think that I would have had the mental capacity, during my teenage years, to deal with that level of abuse.

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, makes an interesting point. My school years are long behind me and we sometimes look back at our youth with rose-tinted glasses, but being at school can feel like being in a warzone—there is so much pressure. If someone is being consistently bullied, I can barely imagine what it must be like for them to try to escape that at home and then have a device in front of them with such material coming in, even at night. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Alex McIntyre]

The hon. Member is entirely correct that, in the days before social media, bullying was confined behind the school gates and in most cases, though sadly not all, the home was a place of safety and a haven in which a teenager could recover and steel themselves for the next day. That safety has been removed by social media and people are able to get someone, wherever they are.

As a teenager, I grew up with social media as it was first coming out—with Bebo, which I do not think exists anymore, and MSN Messenger. My parents had no oversight over what I was accessing or who I was talking to. Frankly, it was dangerous. That is not to question my parents’ parenting skills; they are of an age where they are still learning how to use Facebook in 2025. However, we need to do more to protect teenagers at such a vulnerable age when they are learning about themselves and about how to build the mental resilience to deal with some of the stuff that some Members of this House experience on a regular basis.

Although we could have another debate on online content, we all know why we are speaking about the petition today. It concerns me that grieving parents cannot access information that may relate to the death of their children. We know that there has been a worrying rise in dangerous pranks and trends that go around on social media and in people using social media to groom and target young people, and that dangerous information is going viral—information that may have played a role in tragic and heartbreaking deaths up and down the country. Giving grieving parents the right to find answers for themselves must be within our power as a Government. I encourage the Minister to do what we can to support parents and families in this absolutely heartbreaking position.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I start by paying tribute to Ellen Roome both for launching this petition and for all the campaigning she has done in this area. Let us take a moment to remember her son, Jools. As a parent, I know that we do everything to keep our children safe. We teach them how to cross a road and why it matters not to talk to strangers—we do all we can, but it can still be terrifying to think about what our children are exposed to, even in the safety of our own homes. I can only imagine how it would feel for a parent not to know how or why their child lost their life. I know that parents across the country feel the same way.

As we have heard, Ellen’s petition received over 120,000 signatures between 10 May and the dissolution of Parliament on 30 May. That shows the strength of feeling on this issue, and I am grateful to the brave parents, including Ellen, Ian and others who campaigned on this issue during the passage of the Online Safety Act, who continue to shine a light on it. The Secretary of State has met them a number of times, and their views are absolutely crucial to the work we are doing in this area. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing a debate on this e-petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee, along with other hon. and right hon. Members for their powerful contributions.

I know how long it has taken to get the Online Safety Act across the line. It is not a perfect piece of legislation, and the delay in delivering it has come at a heartbreaking human cost. As the Secretary of State has set out numerous times, we are working to implement the Act as quickly as we possibly can so that the protections it puts in place can begin to change the online world that our children experience.

The Act has two provisions relevant to this debate. First, section 101 seeks to address problems faced when there is uncertainty over the circumstances leading to the death of a child. The provision supports coroners and procurators fiscal in their investigations by giving Ofcom the power to require information about a child’s online activity following a request from the investigating coroner. It is already in force, and the coroners have begun to make use of the powers available to them.

Secondly, section 75 imposes additional duties on categorised services to be transparent with parents regarding a company’s data disclosure processes following the death of a child. We have been clear that we plan to build on the Online Safety Act where it does not go far enough, and the Secretary of State only yesterday set out how the Online Safety Act is uneven and, in some cases, unsatisfactory. He also set out the need for Parliament to learn to legislate much faster—we cannot wait another 10 years to make changes to the legislation.

At the end of last year, the Secretary of State decided to use his powers to issue a statement of strategic priorities to Ofcom, asking them to ensure that safety is embedded in our online world from the very start. That is why the Government will also seek to establish a data preservation process through clause 122 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The proposed clause will require Ofcom to issue a data preservation notice to specified companies at the request of the coroner or, in Scotland, the procurator fiscal. That will require these companies to preserve information relating to the use of their services by the child who has died. This proposal fulfils a manifesto commitment to further strengthen powers, and will help coroners understand the tragic circumstances surrounding a child’s death.

Let me turn to the matter of coroners sharing information with families. Interested persons, including bereaved families, have the right to receive evidence from coroners, subject to their judicial discretion. The chief coroner has provided detailed guidance on this. Coroners have a statutory duty to issue a prevention of future deaths report if their investigation reveals that future deaths could be prevented by one or more measures. Evidence accessed via Ofcom powers will help to inform a decision on whether a report should be issued.

I know from parents and children just how complex this issue is. The Secretary of State recently visited the NSPCC, where he met a group of young people to understand more about their lives online. The NSPCC was concerned that giving parents complete access to their children’s social media accounts could raise complex issues around children’s rights to privacy and, in extreme cases—as we have heard today—safeguarding. For example, as raised earlier, if a child is exploring their sexuality online, they may not want their parents to know and they would be right to expect that privacy.

All Members raised the retrospective application of section 101 of the Act. Ofcom’s powers to require information from companies on behalf of coroners can still be used where a second coroner’s inquest is ordered. Ofcom can use these powers on the instruction of a coroner. Ofcom will also be able to use data preservation notices in the event that a second coroner’s inquest is ordered. Any personal data that is captured by the data preservation notice, and held by the online service at the time of issue, will still be in scope and must be retained upon receipt of notice. However, I have heard very powerfully from all Members today about the lengths parents have to go to request a second inquest and about the associated costs. As I have said, the legislation is not perfect and there is room for improvement, and I would like to meet Members and parents to explore this matter further. We need to continue to review the legislation.

When it comes to age limits, a smartphone and social media ban for under-16s has been raised. We are aware of the ongoing debate as to what age children should have smartphones or access to social media. As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has previously said, there are no current plans to implement a smartphone or social media ban for children. We will continue to do what is necessary to keep our children safe online.

[Cameron Thomas]

On that note, we have heard from several Members today about their concerns for children’s mental health, when their expectations are often measured against heavily doctored images they see online. Will the Minister commit to use and/or amend legislation that commits hosts—as is common with regulated news outlets —to clearly identify doctored imagery, and the accounts and pages that spread them?

[Feryal Clark]

I will come to that point.

On the issue of a ban on smartphones and social media for under-16s, we are focused on building the evidence base to inform any future action. We have launched a research project looking at the links between social media and children’s wellbeing. I heard from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) that that needs to come forward and I will pass that on to my colleagues in the Department.



My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned the private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). We are aware of his Bill and share his commitment to keeping children safe online. We are aware of the ongoing discussion around children’s social media and smartphone use, and it is important that we allocate sufficient time to properly debate the issue. We are focused on implementing the Online Safety Act and building the evidence base to inform any future action. Of course, we look forward to seeing the detail of my hon. Friend’s proposal and the Government will set out their position on that in line with the parliamentary process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) raised the issue of Ofcom’s ambitions. Ofcom has said that its codes will be iterative, and the Secretary of State’s statement will outline clear objectives for it to require services to improve safety for their users.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) mentioned engagement with children, and we know how important that is. Ofcom engaged with thousands of children when developing its codes, and the Children’s Commissioner is a statutory consultee on those codes, but of course we must do more.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) raised the matter of mental health services and our commitment in that regard. He is right that the Government’s manifesto commits to rolling out Young Futures hubs. That national network is expected to bring local services together to deliver support for not only teenagers at risk of being drawn into crime, but those facing mental health challenges, and, where appropriate, to deliver universal youth provision. As he rightly said, that is within the health portfolio, but I am happy to write to him with more detail on where the programme is.

We want to empower parents to keep their children safe online. We must also protect children’s right to express themselves freely, and safeguard their dignity and autonomy online.