Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I want to hear the views and the voices of the good people of Kent on this, whether that means having a separate meeting with my hon. Friend, or his sending me that information, which I am more than happy to look at.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I recently visited the Fulham boys school, which, 18 months ago, introduced a complete ban on smartphones in school. That school and Kingsbridge community college in my constituency both talk about the transformative effect that a ban has had. The most compelling evidence for me is this: where a secondary school completely bans smartphones, children at the feeder primary schools are under less peer pressure to buy phones, so the age at which those children get a phone is rising to 12, 13 or 14. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that she has not dismissed the idea of supporting headteachers by banning, through legislation, smartphones in secondary schools in England and Wales?

[Liz Kendall]

I have set out the Government’s position on this. I know that the hon. Lady wants us to go further, and I hear what she says. This is a really important point. Several friends have told me that their children feel totally left out at school if they do not have a phone, and the peer pressure to have one seeps down to younger siblings and other children, so the hon. Lady is right to talk about the route through. We want to make things as simple as possible for schools, teachers, parents and young people, and to make it clear that there is no place for phones in school.

Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

One hundred per cent.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarity about these disgusting and illegal images on X. I have chosen my side—I deleted X from my phone on Saturday. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that Ofcom will have the powers, the teeth and the funding it needs to keep up with the tech bros as they invent new and innovative ways to degrade women?

[Liz Kendall]

I believe Ofcom does have the powers and funding to do that, but this technology is developing rapidly, which is why I have said to the House that I will keep monitoring it. Where we see gaps, we will plug them; doing so is so important for the country.

Hospitality Sector

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I congratulate the thousands of hospitality workers across South Devon for coming to the end of another summer season, catering to visitors from far and wide—from Brixham to Bigbury and from Start Point up to Dartmoor. With 2,618 establishments in my constituency, Members will be pleased to hear that I am not going to start naming them all—[Interruption.] I would miss someone out for sure.

Time and again, this sector is overlooked. Although it is the third largest employer in the country, it was barely mentioned in the Government’s industrial strategy, which was a huge oversight. The combination of decisions taken by the Government since July 2024 is now pushing many businesses to the brink.

This summer I visited 52 villages across South Devon on my surgery tour—though I did not have a drink in every one of them. Over and over again, I heard the same message: the local pub is absolutely vital. They are not just places to eat or drink but a third space where communities can come together. They also offer a vital first step into the working world for young people, and those jobs are not just any jobs. They teach skills such as communication, teamwork, problem solving and managing money. Those are real-world skills that stay with kids for life. I sold ice creams in the Edinburgh Lyceum theatre, and both my daughters earned their stripes in the local pubs around Totnes, so I know how valuable these jobs are. With almost a million young people aged 16 to 24 not currently in education, employment or training, we should be doing everything we can to make sure that sectors such as hospitality are open, thriving and hiring.

A couple of weeks ago I met Mitch Tonks, the successful owner behind Rockfish, which has 11 restaurants in Devon and Dorset. He looked me in the eye and told me directly that the choices made by this Government in recent months are killing the industry. The latest rise in national insurance alone has left his business facing extra costs equivalent to opening an entirely new restaurant in one year. The lower national insurance threshold particularly hits seasonal employers. At a time when the country needs jobs and local communities need to be revived, the Government should be encouraging hospitality to grow and create jobs, rather than shrinking and restricting hospitality with taxes.

Hospitality is not a luxury sector but a lifeline, especially in constituencies such as South Devon, where every single village pub, seaside café, family-run restaurant or hotel is a pillar of the local economy. I would briefly like to commend the team at the Bull Inn in Totnes, who this week launched the first ever level 3 award in regenerative and sustainable hospitality. The course will lead to bars and restaurants across the UK learning how to minimise their environmental impact, promote social responsibility, support regenerative farming practices and build long-term business resilience through regenerative practices. It is a truly inspirational new course for the hospitality sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Feryal Clark]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. The implementation is happening as set out and against the timeframe that was set out. As I said, we are not only busy implementing the Act, but looking at all the gaps that exist in it because Ministers in his Government watered down the Bill as it went through the House. We will review those gaps in the legislation and come forward with extra measures where they are needed.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

3. What steps he is taking to improve rural mobile coverage.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

Rural mobile coverage just is not good enough, which is why we have committed all the money needed to complete the shared rural network, with new masts coming online every month. I can also announce that Ofcom’s new coverage checker will come online tomorrow, and I urge every single Member to check their constituency then.

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I was going to say that having looked at the villages in my constituency on the mobile map, which was supposed to be updated this month, it is not up to date; it is good to hear that it will be. Many of my constituents have to rely on the 3G network, which is being shut off. We may be years away from getting high-speed broadband across the South Hams, so having access to a reliable 4G network is crucial. Can the Minister tell me exactly how he is working with mobile phone providers to ensure that everyone has access to mobile voice and data coverage?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The new checker comes online tomorrow—I know that many hon. Members will have looked at the checker in the past and thought, “That simply doesn’t bear any relationship to my lived experience.” From tomorrow, it will. The new checker is much better; Members will be able to see different numbers for all the mobile operators, which I think will encourage the operators to put up more masts and improve their coverage.

I know that the hon. Lady has talked about the village of Staverton in her constituency, which has a population of 717 people—the Sea Trout, I think, is the pub. It even has a telephone booth in it, although I am not sure whether it is still working. I have this horrible fear: I do not want to leave the hon. Lady, like Blondie, hanging on the telephone.

Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this debate.

Too many people in South Devon are still being cut off by poor digital infrastructure. Airband promised to deliver, but was allowed to fail spectacularly across my constituency.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend mentions Airband. Building Digital UK wrote to me last month to say that villages and premises had been de-scoped because Airband had withdrawn from the contract. Does she share my view that BDUK ought to find alternative providers that can fill the gap left by companies such as Airband when they give up in places like Branscombe, Churchill and east Devon?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I totally agree. It is outrageous that a company like Airband is allowed to pick off the easy bits and then walk away when it comes to the more expensive bits of the contract.

In Staverton, most residents have no mobile signal at all. Although mobile providers claim high coverage levels, the claims do not align with the reality on the ground. In Diptford, broadband coverage is at best patchy. I myself used to have to have a satellite connection on the roof of my house to connect to a station in Italy in order to get internet connection.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Member aware of the ways in which the structure of the mobile tower market in the UK is holding back investment in 5G? Some of the regulations introduced by the previous Government are leading to a concentrated market that is not investing quickly enough in more towers and the better signal that we need to reach properties that otherwise would need a satellite connection, particularly in rural constituencies like hers, or mine in Lichfield.

[Caroline Voaden]

I am not aware of the specifics of mobile towers, but I am sure the hon. Member is absolutely right.

Back to Diptford: years ago, residents were promised full-fibre broadband, but it has yet to materialise. Despite repeated assurances from providers and Governments, very little progress has been made. Residents in Holne, Loddiswell, Aveton Gifford, Rattery, Capton, Higher Brixham, Buckfastleigh West, Maypool, Galmpton, East Cornworthy, Thurlestone, Woodleigh, Norton in Dartmouth and more remain disconnected, creating a digital divide that affects access to vital services and businesses’ ability to connect.

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing the debate. The rural areas that I represent are blessed with incredible natural beauty, but too often that beauty can obscure deep issues in public services, transport, employment opportunities and connectivity. I have had to fight hard for local residents, such as those in Inkerman Court in Denby Dale in my constituency, to get the connectivity they deserve. With the new Government investing £500 million next year to deliver digital infrastructure upgrades through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network, does the hon. Member agree with me that high quality, stand-alone 5G is crucial to unlocking the economic and social potential of our rural communities?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I could not agree more.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about rural businesses. Ollie, a constituent of mine in Glastonbury and Somerton, works in video editing and depends on fast and symmetrical broadband to be able to transfer his files, but his rural community is reliant on outdated copper infrastructure that severely restricts the upload speeds. Despite the nature of his work, suitable services are simply not available. He has asked several suppliers, but the services are just not available. Does my hon. Friend agree that outdated infrastructure is undermining rural employment and that we must urgently address that to support digital livelihoods?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; I could not agree more. I declare an interest here. A family member who has been trying to set up a business park has been told that it is not doable because they are too far from the exchange. As has been said, we can go to space, but we cannot connect to the internet. It just seems ridiculous.

For older residents, reliable broadband is crucial, as has been mentioned, for online GP appointments, personal alarms and emergency calls. Without it, they are left isolated and vulnerable, while young people in my area are being denied equal educational opportunities. Local businesses are missing out on the digital economy. Families are struggling with unreliable services. The divide between rural and urban areas is widening, and it is simply unfair. If remote parts of the UK can access full-fibre broadband and mobile signal, there is no reason that South Devon should be left behind.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Caroline Voaden]

I am nearly finished—there is only one line left—but I will give way one last time.

[Alex Mayer]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree that it can be a particular problem when remote areas become new-build areas, yet are completely lacking in any mobile or broadband infrastructure? Some telecom companies say that they are not fully involved in the planning aspects, yet they can fully see the houses going up. Does she agree that this issue ought to be looked into?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree. In the society we live in today, it is fundamental to planning that connectivity should be considered at the earliest stages of any new development.

I am on my last line, if anybody wants to intervene.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

Go for it.

[David Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, especially on her last line. One of the key issues with rurality is that we often depend on mobile signal because of the sparsity of the areas we represent, such as my constituency of North Northumberland. We can be profoundly impacted by storms as a result, and we should be looking to build in contingencies such as generators for mobile masts. The Government should consider simple things like that.

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the hon. Member for his excellent contribution.

Digital connectivity is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity, and it is time to treat rural communities with the same priority as urban areas.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

Mr Stuart, what a delight to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing the debate. She probably should have secured an hour and a half, or three hours, or even a whole day, because this issue obviously matters to a lot of people.

The two key things to discuss are mobile and fixed connectivity. Both of those could occupy all of us here, because many of the issues apply equally, I would argue, to rural and urban constituencies, albeit in slightly different patterns. I will push back slightly on the idea that rural areas are getting a worse time than urban areas; actually, in some urban areas, the fibre is theoretically passing down the street, but it is not going into the building where the flats are because of wayleave issues. There is a problem in cities as well as in rural areas, and we need to address both—they probably need different answers, but we need to address both.

In the end, our ambition is to get to 5G stand-alone across as much of the country as we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, and to get full fibre to premises. Full fibre will not be for 100% of the country; that would be impossible, and financially it would not make logical sense. In some cases, getting to the cabinet is good enough, where it is a relatively short passage from the cabinet to the premises and there are only a few premises, so there will not be the same contention problems as there would be with a lot of premises on that same passage. We want to go as fast as we can and as far as we can, and the hon. Member made some very strong points, although I will come to another area later where I completely disagree with her.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will, although I granted the hon. Lady permission to speak earlier.

[Caroline Voaden]

On the issue of not being able to get to every premises, particularly in very rural areas—the highlands and islands would be an example—have the Government given thought to satellite internet provision, and perhaps to subsidising the cost of that for homeowners?

[Chris Bryant]

We have looked at satellite provision. The difficulty is that there is not much of it left. It is already pretty occupied and it is quite expensive. There are other options as well, such as fixed wireless, where the connection is delivered to an area locally and the rest is delivered wirelessly. It would not be gigabit capable, but it would run at significant speeds that would match most people’s modern needs. We are looking at all of those options.

My suspicion is that in the next few years, technology will advance at such a pace that that will become easier for us, rather than more difficult. There probably needs to be more than one operator providing satellite options to people’s homes, and that might arrive in the next couple of years as well, with Amazon and perhaps others. That will definitely be part of the mix. There will always be a tiny percentage of properties that are simply impossible for us to reach with fibre; it would be crazy for us to try to take a piece of fibre down a 25-mile road just to serve one property.

We have obviously aimed to deliver as much connectivity as we possibly can on a commercial basis first, because that just makes sense. However, that is quite difficult in itself, because commercial operators change their investment plans. Some of that is about the availability of money to them in the market. We have been working on some of those issues so that they might be in a stronger position, but sometimes they make very specific decisions in local areas that make it difficult for us to know when we should intervene to provide a subsidy and when it should be delivered simply on a commercial basis. That makes Building Digital UK’s job of managing those decisions phenomenally complicated.

United States Film Tariff

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Unlike many others in the House, I cannot say that my area—Totnes—has film studios, or that a major movie has been made in my constituency, but we do have a lot of creatives living in our community, from writers to musicians and producers. We also have a costume maker, who happens to be my daughter. I am very proud of her and she is entering this industry—an industry that we should all be proud of. If these tariffs materialise, they will deal another blow to the UK film industry following the strikes that we have already seen. Will the Minister assure us that he is ready to protect and insulate the UK film industry and all the jobs that it sustains, particularly freelance jobs, by pushing for either tax credits or business rate adjustments?

[Chris Bryant]

I find it difficult to believe that there has not ever been a film made in Devon, but if that is the case, one of my major aims must be to make sure that in the next few years a film is made in Devon. Perhaps we will be able to get the hon. Member a bit part. I will, if I may, just refer back to Cheltenham. One of the films made in Cheltenham many, many years ago was “If”, which is wonderful and was directed by Lindsay Anderson. The word “if” is a very important one at the moment, because we are talking about if these tariffs were to be imposed.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to broaden the debate, which I do not think you would encourage me to do at this late stage, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, he makes a very important point about self-regulation in this sector. The public, parents, and indeed children look to us to make sure we have their best interests at heart.

The Online Safety Act may only say that age minima should be enforced “consistently” rather than well, but I do not think the will of this Parliament was that it would be okay to enforce a minimum age limit consistently badly. What we meant was that if the law says right now that the age minimum is 13, or if it is 16 in the future—or whatever other age it might be—companies should take reasonable steps to enforce it. There is more checking than there used to be, but it is still very limited. The recent 5Rights report on Instagram’s teen accounts said that all its avatars were able to get into social media with only self-reported birth dates and no additional checks. That means that many thousands of children under the nominal age of 13 are on social media, and that there are many more thousands who are just over 13 but who the platform thinks are 15, 16 or 17, or perhaps 18 or 19. That, of course, affects the content that is served to them.

Either Ofcom or the ICO could tighten up the rules on the minimum age, but amendment 9 would require that to happen in order for companies to be compliant with the ICO regulation. The technology does exist, although it is harder to implement at the age 13 than at 18—of course, the recent Ofcom changes are all about those under the age of 18—but it is possible, and that technology will develop further. Ultimately, this is about backing parents who have a balance to strike: they want to make sure that their children are fully part of their friendship groups and can access all those opportunities, but also want to protect them from harm. Parents have a reasonable expectation that their children will be protected from wholly inappropriate content.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 11, and briefly to new clause 2. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government have missed a trick by not including in this Bill stronger provisions on children’s online safety. It is time for us to start treating the mental health issues arising from social media use and phone addiction as a public health crisis, and to act accordingly.

We know that children as young as nine and 10 are watching hardcore, violent pornography. By the time they are in their teens, it has become so normalised that they think violent sexual acts such as choking are normal—it certainly was not when we were teenagers. Girls are starving themselves to achieve an unrealistic body image because their reality is warped by airbrushed images, and kids who are struggling socially are sucked in by content promoting self-harm and even suicide. One constituent told me, “I set up a TikTok account as a 13-year-old to test the horrors, and half a day later had self-harm content dominating on the feed. I did not search for it; it found me. What kind of hell is this? It is time we gave our children back their childhood.”

New clause 1 would help to address the addictive nature of endless content that reels children in and keeps them hooked. It would raise the minimum age for social media data processing from 13 to 16 right now, meaning that social media companies would not be able to process children’s data for algorithmic purposes. They would still be able to access social media to connect with friends and access relevant services, which is important, but the new clause would retain exceptions for health and educational purposes, so that children who were seeking help could still find it.

We know that there is a correlation between greater social media use among young people since 2012 and worsening mental health outcomes. Teachers tell me regularly that children are struggling to concentrate and stay awake because of lack of sleep. Some are literally addicted to their phones, with 23% of 13-year-old girls in the UK displaying problematic social media use. The evidence is before us. It is time to act now—not in 18 months and not in a couple of years. The addictive nature of the algorithm is pernicious, and as legislators we can do something about it by agreeing to this new clause 1.

It is time to go further. This Bill does not do it, but it is time that we devised legislation to save the next generation of teenagers from the horrors of online harm. Ofcom’s new children’s code provides hope that someone ticking a box to say they are an adult will no longer be enough to allow access to adult sites. That is a good place to start; let us hope it works. If it does not, we need to take quick and robust action to move further with legislation.

Given the nature of the harms that exist online, I also support new clause 11 and strongly urge the Government to support it. No parent should have to go through the agony experienced by Ellen Roome. Losing a child is horrific enough, but being refused access to her son’s social media data to find out why he died was a second unacceptable agony. That must be changed, and all ISPs should be compelled to comply. New clause 11 would make that happen. I heard what the Minister said about coroners, but I strongly believe that legislation is needed, with a requirement to release data or provide access to their children’s account for any parent or guardian of someone under 18 who has died. There is, as far as I can see, no reason not to support this new clause.

Briefly, I echo calls from across the House to support new clause 2 in support of our creatives. Creativity is a uniquely human endeavour. Like others, I have been contacted by many creators who do not want their output stolen by AI companies without consent or permission. It is vital that AI companies comply with copyright legislation, which clearly has to be updated to meet the requirements of the brave new world of tech that we now live in.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I rise to confirm my agreement with new clauses 1 and 12, and I associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). I have had several emails on the protection of copyrighted information and revenue streams for artists, including from Yvonne, who contacted me recently. It is essential that the creative arts and intellectual property are protected and that artists are properly compensated if their output is used in AI.

On new clauses 1 and 12, the case for raising the age of consent for data processing from 13 to 16 has been well made across the House, so I will not repeat the points made, but I will say that it is essential that we give our children their childhoods back. They need to be protected from the toxic content to which they are being exposed by social media and online.

New clauses 3 to 6 and new clause 14 would place transparency requirements on AI companies to report on what information and data they have used, from where, and with what permission. That is essential to holding the AI companies to account and to ensuring that content holders and data owners are informed and have adequate channels of redress for misuse of their information.

I am sure that new clause 7 was spoken about while I was out of the Chamber, but let me say now that the right for our citizens to use non-digital verification is key. My mother—who is in her late 60s, bless her—would not have a clue what to do if she did not have family to help her with her benefits claims, doctors’ prescriptions, appointments and so on. We cannot exclude millions of our citizens who may choose not to have smartphones and not to be exposed to toxic content online, or who are simply not tech-literate. I urge the Government to ensure that we do not exclude millions of our citizens. I also strongly support new clause 11, but I will defer to earlier speakers in that regard.

As for new clause 18, many constituents have written to me or spoken to me, expressing concern about sharing their NHS and other private data with third parties such as Palantir. It is essential for this new Government to adopt a posture of supporting ethical, transparent business practices for all suppliers who provide services in our country. We have already heard about the background of Palantir. I do not know how true this is, but some of my constituents believed, or had read, that during the Prime Minister’s first visit to the US, after meeting Donald Trump he visited Palantir’s headquarters, or one of its offices. I urge the Government to protect—

Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I was going to come on to that later, but my hon. Friend is completely right.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I support very much what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the need for urgent action. What conversations were had before 4 July last year about tightening up legislation around smartphones, because this problem did not start on the day of the general election, but was there when his party was in government?

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said at the start of my speech, I lament the dithering and delay by the previous Government, too. There were attempts by Back Benchers—and I was one for the last two years of the Government—to change the Online Safety Bill to take exactly these sort of measures. That was rebuffed by Ministers at that stage, and I regret that completely. To me, this is a national, if not international, emergency, about which we are being far too passive and complacent. I am not necessarily making a political point about this; it is about the weight of Government and, frankly, the weight and influence of big tech against the health and welfare of our children. That applies to Governments of all stripes in all countries across the world.

It is not just we in this Chamber who should be furious. There are plenty of people out there in the country who should be furious, because two key things were promised in the original Bill. The first was an absolute school ban. All Members will know that when they go to visit schools, one of the features coming through strongly when we talk to headteachers is the increase in parental aggression towards schools. The source of conflict at the school gate is around all sorts of issues, not least the use of phones in schools. By advocating a complete blanket ban on phones in schools, we would be removing at one stroke a source of conflict between parent and teacher, as well as at the same time creating completely clear space for those kids to concentrate on their education. In school upon school across the country, they are bringing in their own policies, often in the teeth of opposition, whether parental or from children. Their life is made immeasurably more difficult by not having an absolute ban.

The second thing that was promised and the second reason why we should be furious was the raising of the digital age of consent. By not including that in the Bill, we are consenting to those tech companies—as they have admitted in meetings in the run-up to this Bill—using children’s data to addict them to their services. We know that happens, and we see it happening. Anybody who has a teenage child and has tried desperately to move them off from cradling this precious phone at the dinner table or even from watching TV at the same time will see how they cannot get away from their phone and will realise the addictive nature. The fact that neither of those two steps is now in the Bill is, I am afraid, deeply lamentable.

It feels to me as though the Government have capitulated to big tech. I had a look online to see—I am not casting aspersions—but it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us in his remarks what meetings he had with big tech companies in the run-up to this Bill, and whether he has consulted or spoken to them. [Interruption.] The Minister is indicating zero, and that is useful to know, but I cannot then understand why the Government have pressured the new Member for Whitehaven and Workington to produce what is, frankly, a cosmetic pup, betraying our children and capitulating to big tech. I am afraid that this Bill is a shell of what it could have been, and as a result is yet another missed opportunity to improve the lives of our young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) on bringing his private Member’s Bill to the House. I am proud to be one of its sponsors. It has clearly been a complicated journey to get to this point, and the Bill may not resemble quite what he originally had in mind, but the sheer fact of introducing the Bill has lit up a national conversation about the impact of smartphone use and social media on our children. The conversation was growing ever louder, but it has now spilled over passionately into the inboxes of nearly every Member of the House.

The Bill may not be as ambitious as some would like, and the wheels may turn slowly in this place—far slower than the lightning pace of modern tech—but I assure every one of my constituents in South Devon who wrote to me about the Bill and who campaign loudly on this topic that their voices have been heard. Within the bounds of our political system, we as MPs, parents and grandparents not only have heard them, but share their concerns. I hope that this is just the first step on a journey that will be far-reaching and fairly swift.

I know that I am not alone in being somewhat disappointed that the Bill is but a shadow of its former self and that the Government are so timid in what they are willing to do to try to save our children and young people from something that is clearly causing them considerable harm. That is why the Liberal Democrats have decided to pick up the baton and table an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, calling on the Government to bring UK data law into line with many other European countries by raising to 16 the minimum age that a user must be before an internet company can collect, process and store their data without parental consent.

I look forward to seeing the guidance from the UK chief medical officer on the impact of smartphones and social media on children. Six years is a long time in the tech world and we know that much has changed since the guidance was last written in 2019. I also welcome funding for more research into the impacts of social media and phone use. I expect the new research will not differ too much from what has already been written, following studies from various developed countries, including the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia: that over the past 10 years, a period in which smartphone usage has exploded, the number of mental health admissions to hospital in teenagers has risen by 65%; that admissions for eating disorders among girls aged 11 to 15 have gone up by a staggering 638%; that childhood myopia is up 50%; that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnoses are up 56%; and that more and more children are struggling with difficult speech and language challenges. No, we cannot say for sure that there is a direct causal link, but we can see the trendlines in the graphs. We know they started rising before the pandemic was ever heard of, and we know it is not just the UK that is experiencing such troubling developments.

We do a lot to protect our children in this country, and that is down to a mixture of practice, custom and legislation. We generally do not let our children smoke or drink, and we certainly do not let them drive cars. We put babies in ever more sophisticated car seats, and we know that it is not a good idea to put fizzy drinks in babies’ bottles. Yet a recent Ofcom report said: 100% of 17-years-olds have a mobile phone; 28% of five to seven-year-olds have one; and, most worrying still, 17% of three to four-year-olds have one. Yet medical professionals from all disciplines tell us of the harm children are experiencing from long hours spent glued to a screen.

As a proud co-sponsor of the Bill, I too have heard from health professionals who have given evidence to us on mental health, obesity, eyesight and more. We heard heart-rending stories from parents whose children had been subject to the most horrific online abuse and from some who have, unbearably, lost their precious children as a result of harms in the digital world. While their stories were extreme and deeply troubling, somehow, incredibly, it did not even seem that shocking that the online world had wrought such devastating harm to real lives.

What is happening online is clearly impacting the everyday lives of children and teenagers, and we, as responsible adults and legislators, have a duty to try and mitigate those harms. I am thinking particularly of the horrible, dangerous misogyny of the likes of Andrew Tate, which is being lapped up by boys who are under his influence—boys who then spread his misogynistic hate speech. I am thinking of the violent pornography which is being accessed and viewed by children as young as nine or 10; pornography that is not just naked pictures like you would find in an old-fashioned top-shelf magazine, I’m told—

[Chris Bryant]

You’re not old enough.

[Caroline Voaden]

Thank you.

We know that violent pornography that celebrates assault and rape is leading to an increase in harmful practices, such as strangulation, that it warps the way young people view sexual relationships, and that it is directly impacting on health and wellbeing, particularly of young women, across the country.

Yesterday, this Chamber heard some brilliant and impassioned speeches from many women hon. Members, timed to coincide with International Women’s Day tomorrow. And on a day that celebrates women, we think about girls too. I do not want our girls to think they have to share nude photos to be liked, or to worry themselves sick about the shape of their body to the point that they stop eating.

We have heard about the rise in the number of children who have speech and language challenges. It is known that sticking a baby in front of an iPad will not help it learn to communicate. Babies need interaction with human faces and voices to learn. We heard about how children’s eyesight is worsening because they spend so many hours looking at a closely held screen. We all know about the incessant rise in poor mental health, anxiety and depression among teenagers. Parents across my constituency of South Devon are desperate to protect their children, but overwhelmed by the digital world and the power it has over young people. They want us to support them with legislation, so that they can push back against the might of the tech giants. We must not let the tech giants lobby us in the way that tobacco companies did so successfully for decades.

Children are addicted to screens because of wicked algorithms that lure them in and keep them hooked; struggling with their body image because they do not look like the influencers they are watching; depressed at their lives because they do not resemble the doctored, airbrushed, Instagram image of perfection they see on their screens; and brainwashed by influencers who spew toxic messages through their pages. They know this, but they find it hard to counteract it, and we know that the brightest brains in the tech world have designed social media apps to do exactly that. One former Facebook employee said:

“You have a business model designed to engage you and get you to basically suck as much time out of your life as possible and then selling that attention to advertisers.”

We must unlock the potential of technology by designing it with children and young people in mind. Our amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill would not ban children under 16 from social media; instead, and more importantly, online services would need to change how they deal with children’s data and create a less addictive, more child-friendly online environment. Our amendment calls on the Government to prioritise robust standards for digital technology, so that rights and privacy are upheld by design and default.

In Devon, 2,591 parents have signed the pact saying that they will not buy their child a smartphone, yet we know that tech use is one of the biggest causes of friction in families, and parents need our support to back that choice. It is a public health matter. The Liberal Democrats are open to the idea of a legal ban on smartphone use in schools, enshrining existing guidance into law. We hope the Government will look seriously at that. This measure should not be about restricting freedoms; it should be about creating an environment conducive to learning and free from distractions. We also understand the need for discretion, and exceptions must be made for young carers or children who use smartphones to monitor health conditions, ensuring fairness and practicality.

Parents must be empowered to protect their children online, including through digital literacy education, and advice and support for parents on best practice is key. I also want to see a public health programme similar to those we have seen on seatbelts and smoking over the years, so that no parent can be left unaware of the potential harms of letting small children become addicted to a device that will cause so much harm as they grow.

Social Media Use: Minimum Age

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to Kim and the other petitioners for bringing the petition to the House. In the Government’s response to the petition, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology referred to

“a systematic review by the UK Chief Medical Officers in 2019”

that

“does not show a causal link between screen-based activities and mental health problems, though some studies have found associations with increased anxiety or depression. Therefore, the government is focused on building the evidence base to inform any future action.”

That review is six years old now, so how much evidence do the Government need? Things have changed radically in the past six years, and we live in a very different digital world from 2019.

The evidence I read in preparation for the debate included a 65% rise in mental health admissions to hospital among under-18s, a staggering 638% increase in admissions for eating disorders among girls aged 11 to 15, a 50% rise in childhood myopia, a 56% increase in ADHD diagnosis since the widespread adoption of smartphones, a 27% increase in just the last two years in the number of children with speech and language challenges, and a rise in obesity that means that about a quarter of children leaving primary school are now judged to be overweight or clinically obese. The evidence comes from the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia—it is all there and is growing.

As many other Members have said, we protect our children from smoking and alcohol. We do not allow them to buy those products because we know the damage they can do. Just because mental health damage is not as visible as a damaged lung or a damaged liver due to cirrhosis—just because we cannot see it, measure it and photograph it—that does not mean the evidence is not there. We can see it all around us.

This morning I spent time talking to the mental health leads in Devon about children’s mental health. They talked about the difficulty in employing enough psychologists and psychiatrists to cope with the mental health crisis among children in Devon, because of the vacancies they have and the ever-increasing need for children’s mental health support—it just grows and grows. Although it is right to give children the mental health care that they need, which they and the parents ask for, we surely have to look at this the other way round and say, “We have to stop this rising trend and to look at the cause. We have to turn it on its head; we owe it to our children.”

As the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) said, all the graphs show that the change started in 2012. For the sake of our teachers, who are trying to cope with the ever-increasing pressure of special educational needs, autism spectrum disorders and so on, the time has come for us to act and not look for more evidence.

It is time we used the precautionary principle for smartphones. That enables decision makers to adopt precautionary measures when the scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain but the stakes are high—and we know the stakes are high for our children. Some may see that as unscientific and an obstacle to progress, but to me it is an approach that can—and, in this situation, must—be used to protect the health of our youngest humans. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said the Online Safety Act

“puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, making them responsible for their users’ safety, with the strongest provisions in the Act for children.”

Platforms

“likely to be accessed by children will have a duty to take steps to prevent children from encountering the most harmful content”—

such as—

“pornography and content that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for self-harm, eating disorders, or suicide.”

We all know that we cannot trust the tech companies to do that. It is not in their interest. They have developed addictive apps to keep our children on them, using them hour after hour; it is not in their interest to do what is required to protect our children. Where, in the code, is a restriction of content that perpetuates the myth of the perfect body, that is not hardcore content like online pornography or suicide videos? The subtle stuff of social media—the addictiveness—is really dangerous. My concern is about the long hours that children spend on screens, and the time spent indoors instead of playing with friends and making real human connections.

Although we are talking about teenage use, what is even worse is the fact that 25% of three to four-year-olds in the UK now own a smartphone. Tiny children are looking at a screen rather than interacting with other humans. Children are not learning to speak and communicate, because babies do not learn from a machine. They are captivated by the videos, but they are not learning how to communicate with other humans. Older children are not experiencing boredom. We all remember standing at bus stops, right? We did not have a mobile phone; we got bored. We looked at the sky, around us and at other people. It is part of the development of the human brain. Has anyone ever seen a teenager standing at a bus stop now getting bored? It just does not happen.

I would like to leave the last word with John Gallacher, professor of cognitive health at the University of Oxford. He said that he found

“a linear relationship between higher rates of anxiety and depression and time spent networking on social media sites…In the most extreme cases, we had young people reporting they were spending up to eight hours a day using these sites.”

We must find a way to change that for our children. I do not believe in a ban on smartphones—that is not workable—but we must raise the minimum age for social media use. We must change the conversation and give parents the support they need, so that there is peer pressure not to have phones rather than to have them. We must support all the brave schools trying to eradicate this problem for their teenagers. I fully commend the petition and, cross party, we really need to do something about this.

Children’s Social Media Accounts

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I am very grateful to be able to speak in this debate, which was prompted by Ellen Roome’s petition, although I am extremely sorry that any of us needs to be here at all. I pay tribute to Ellen and all the other families in the Bereaved Families for Online Safety network for their tireless campaigning.

A week before Christmas, I sat in a Committee Room with Ellen and senior representatives from all the major tech firms, including Meta, TikTok, YouTube and Snap. One conversation that morning will stay with me for a very long time—a conversation that I can describe only as harrowing, shocking and deeply depressing. Sitting alongside two other heartbroken parents who have also lost their children because of online harms, Ellen confronted the representatives of TikTok and Instagram, pleading with them to release information that could give her some peace of mind following the death of her beloved son, Jools. There can be nothing worse for a parent than losing a child, but to lose a child and not understand how or why must compound that agony.

Ellen does not know why Jools died. Unlike many other children and young people, he was not being bullied online and did not seem to have any mental health issues. All Ellen wants is to find out what her son was looking at online before he died; it might shed some light on this tragedy that has clearly caused immeasurable grief. It was infuriating to listen to the tech firms’ pathetic excuses that morning about why they could not or would not release the data that Ellen is asking for.

There was—there is—no good reason not to release that data. Jools is no longer with us, so claiming data protection seems frankly pointless. TikTok said that it would be fined for releasing the data, but my question is: by whom? Who is going to press charges against a global tech company for supporting the request of a bereaved mother? Who in their right mind would think that a court case on that point would help anyone?

As we have heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), some social companies have behaved differently in such cases. It is quite clear, however, why some will not agree to release that data: it is a pathetic attempt to avoid the potential bad publicity that will follow if it becomes clear that Jools’ short life ended after taking part in a social media challenge, which is one possibility. It is about protecting the reputation of those social media companies. It is about the accountants who fear the lawsuits. In short, I suggest it is about money. The absence of humanity, care and compassion in that room before Christmas was palpable and I applaud Ellen for having the courage to come back here today.

I can see no reason why tech companies cannot immediately release the data that these devastated parents are asking for. I fully support Ellen and all the other parents in their attempts to get Jools’ law on the statute books. In the meantime, I plead with Instagram and TikTok to not wait for a legal challenge, but just release the data: find your inner human and do something decent; imagine if it were your child.

Under UK law we have clear, legal processes for handling physical estates after death. It is high time that we establish clear protocols for the digital estates that are left behind, particularly the digital estates left by young people. The law must catch up with the world we are living in. Current provisions, such as Facebook’s legacy contact feature, are not sufficient, because they rely on a child making a decision while they are still alive, often without fully understanding the implications, as has been mentioned. It is also quite possible that, if children were asked whether their parents could have full access to all of their digital online life in the event of their death, they would say no. Without formal, legal access arrangements, parents are left with no way of viewing their children’s account.

[Lola McEvoy]

I was reading up on that issue in preparation for this debate and I came across some amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would require those huge providers and tech companies to have a complaints procedure, where parents could appeal to their better nature for the release of the data, but if they were refused it, there would be a proper complaints procedure. Does the hon. Lady think that goes far enough?

[Caroline Voaden]

No, I do not believe that goes far enough. There should be a legal right to access that data without having to go through any complaints process, particularly at a time when one is struggling with the worst bereavement imaginable.

The petition seeks to address that gap in law and ensure that, in the tragic event of a child’s death, parents have the right to access their child’s account to gain closure, to preserve memories and to ensure that harmful content is removed. I support the addition of Jools’ law into the Online Safety Act, and I urge the Government to do whatever they can to apply it retrospectively for those who have campaigned on this issue.

What Ellen’s family have been through is the absolute worst imaginable, but tens of thousands of families up and down the country are struggling with the impact of social media on their children and teenagers. Those children are addicted to their screens because of the wicked algorithms that lure them in; cowed by bullies who can intimidate them in their own bedrooms late at night; struggling with their body image because they do not look like the influencers they watch; depressed because their lives do not resemble the doctored, airbrushed Instagram image of perfection; and brainwashed by influencers who spew toxic messages through their pages.

The damaging impact of social media on our children is vast. Medical professionals from all disciplines tell us regularly of the harms children are experiencing from hour after hour spent glued to a screen. Their physical health is damaged, their mental health even more so, and even their ability to communicate and socialise with other humans is changing.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about not only mental health harm, but inattention? I speak to many headteachers in my constituency who tell me that children are unable to concentrate any more because of hours spent on their screen. Would she agree that the Government study announced in November that seeks to explore that issue further should be published soon, because every day and every year we leave it, more children are at risk of harm?

[Caroline Voaden]

I could not agree more. What is becoming obvious is the impact of children being on their phones late at night, which affects their sleep—even that has a knock-on effect on how well they can operate.

Parents across my South Devon constituency are desperate to protect their children, but they are overwhelmed by the digital world and the power it has over young people. They need legislation to empower and support them. The NSPCC reports that over 60% of young people have encountered online bullying. That is a staggering number, highlighting the need for more robust protections from us for children in the digital space.

It is clear that we need more robust protection, and it is incumbent on us as lawmakers to protect children as we do from other harms such as tobacco and alcohol. It may be right that parents should not have access to their teenager’s social media because of privacy reasons and to protect children’s ability to seek support online, but that makes it even more important and urgent that social media companies should be required and obliged to take responsibility for watertight age verification, and that we should look seriously at raising the age of access to some social media platforms to 16.

I urge the Government to work with social media companies and other stakeholders to create a clear and respectful framework that allows parents access to their child’s social media accounts after a death with no questions asked. This is not about data protection; this is about ensuring that families can concentrate on grieving and healing rather than going into battle against the world’s tech giants.

It is abominable that any bereaved parent should have to do what Ellen and other campaigners are doing. I urge the Minister to legislate so that that does not happen again. I commend the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate to the House and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central for introducing it.