Children’s Social Media Accounts

Clive Jones Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 661407 relating to children’s social media accounts.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I start by paying tribute to the petitioners and in particular the petition creator, Ellen Roome, who I had the honour of meeting as part of my preparations for this debate and who is in the Gallery today.

Ellen’s son, Jools, died in April 2022. Since then, she has been a determined campaigner not just to get access herself to Jools’ social media data to help understand the circumstances of his death, but also to secure a future in which other bereaved parents do not face the situation that she has. I welcome that Ellen’s MP, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), is here, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who has been working with Ellen on this issue. I look forward in particular to their contributions, which I know will provide further insight and will rightly ensure that Ellen’s own words are on the parliamentary record.

Since Jools’ death in 2022, the law and practice related to social media data has changed in several ways, most notably through the Online Safety Act 2023. The changes were secured in large part thanks to the efforts of the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group, other members of which are also here today; I pay tribute to their work. What I hope will become clear in this debate is that recent changes to the law, the implementation of those changes and the response of social media companies are not yet sufficient, and further change is needed to help bereaved parents such as Ellen. The petition attracted 126,000 signatures. That is a testament to Ellen’s campaigning efforts and the public’s concern about these issues.

Online services such as social media, streaming and messaging are now features of everyday life, including children’s lives. There are undoubtedly positive aspects of age-appropriate online services—giving children opportunities to explore the world, connecting with others who share interests and extending peer support options—but as the level of public concern recognises, it is beyond doubt that there has been significant exposure of many children to online harms, and that the action in response to that has not yet been sufficient or fast enough to meet the challenges.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Ellen Roome has gone through the unimaginable; I am absolutely amazed at her ability to continue fighting for answers for her son Jools. Does the hon. Member agree that social media companies are not in the wild west of the internet age any more and have become an integrated part of our society with certain responsibilities? Does he also agree that one of those responsibilities is ensuring that children in Wokingham and across the UK are protected from harmful content?

[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.