Online Harm: Child Protection

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson]

I hope the hon. Lady will not mind if I call her my hon. Friend, although we are on opposite sides of the House. I thank her for her intervention, and I take her point, which I have also heard the Government express. I agree that we need to consult, but I think we should be consulting on how we implement some of these proposals, not on whether we do or what we do, because there is clearly a general consensus. When we look at the findings of every opinion poll—certainly when it comes to such measures as banning social media for under-16s—we see overwhelming public support. There is also cross-party support in this House and, as we have seen recently, in the other place. For me, if there is a consultation, it should be about how those things are implemented and not whether we do that or which ones we implement. However, I will touch on the Government’s approach towards the end of my speech.

We Liberal Democrats would introduce a film-style classification system, with social media rated at 16 as a default, and give Ofcom the powers to back up such a framework. That echoes the film and video classification system established in the 1980s, adapting a trusted framework for the digital age. Companies would be required to age-gate their platforms based on the harmfulness of their content, the addictiveness of their design and the impact that that can have on a child’s mental health. The onus would be on social media companies to stop children getting on to their platforms and to take steps to make their apps safer in the meantime.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sympathetic to all the hon. Lady’s arguments. However, it appears that we are about to have a Second Reading debate on an as yet unpublished Bill, when the motion on the Order Paper is about whether we have a day for that Second Reading debate. I am conscious, because I have been to the Vote Office, that the Bill is not available yet. What are we debating this afternoon? If we were to vote with the hon. Lady this evening, what Bill would we be asked to look at on that future day?

[Munira Wilson]

It is simple. As I have said, I want us to come together in a cross-party consensus on what should be in that Bill. I have heard what the Conservatives have had to say, I am about to set out what the Liberal Democrats have to say and I am keen to hear what Ministers have to say on what should be in the Bill. We do not have a Bill yet because we think there is an opportunity to work together on this issue.

There have been suggestions that there is party politicking on this issue. I do not think it is a party political issue; I think we all agree that children’s safety and wellbeing is a cross-party priority. The idea is that we agree to move forward, come together and work cross-party on a Bill which, hopefully, we can get through Parliament very quickly and on to the statute book to start protecting our children as soon as possible.

[Gareth Snell]

I do not wish to make this a procedural debate, but the hon. Lady presented a Bill earlier for First Reading. We have been asked to consider that Bill for Second Reading on a future date. That Bill is not available. Although I absolutely respect her approach for a cross-party consensus to design the Bill, as I understand it the Bill is already written and we are being asked to give over Government time for that to be debated on Second Reading. Again, what are we debating today if the Bill is not available but has been written and we will not have a Second Reading debate until sometime in March?

[Munira Wilson]

We are debating today the principle of bringing forward legislation quickly. I know that the Government are saying that they want to bring forward legislation sometime in the future. We do not know when that is. I am trying to put a timeframe on it, because we know that what will come back shortly from the other place in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will not be accepted by this House. That is why I am trying to find an opportunity for us all to come together and get to a point that we all agree on. This is about agreeing the principle that we should have primary legislation sooner rather than later. I am happy to make time in my diary tomorrow to start those discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

That is indeed what we are trying to do. Putting forward a blanket ban on a particular list of social media sites determined by any Secretary of State at any given point in time is necessarily acting after the fact. That is not future-proof or particularly effective, and it is subject to politicisation. That is why our harms-based approach, which I want to negotiate to get into legislation soon, would be future-proof and work to act on things such as chatbots and games. I know from the discussions we have at home how addictive games such as Roblox can be, for instance.

We Liberal Democrats have long been pressing for a suite of measures that would make the online world safer and healthier for all. One measure that could be implemented overnight would be to ban tech companies from profiting from our children’s attention by raising the age of digital data consent from 13 to 16. This would end the hold that addictive algorithms have on children.

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is making excellent points on the substance, but they bear no resemblance to the motion on the Order Paper. Are you able to give me guidance on what is up for debate this afternoon? Can the hon. Lady point me to where what she is debating sits in the motion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is being characteristically courteous in giving way, and I always have her best interests at heart. She is right to say that people are keen to be heard loud and clear, and she is rightly setting out her position about legislation she wants to see before the House. However, if she thinks that people have been heard loud and clear, can she tell the House whether the things she has outlined today are in a drafted Bill, sitting in a safe somewhere within Liberal Democrat HQ, and why she chose not to publish that this afternoon so that we could have a principled debate on her policy proposals?

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

No, I will not give way; I would not expect the hon. Member to help me out.

At various points, we have tabled all the things I have mentioned as amendments in both Houses, so they have been drafted—although I am happy to admit that they have not been put together in one Bill for me to present today. I apologise on that procedural point, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I can see has upset many Members, but all the proposals that I have outlined have been tabled in both Houses as amendments to various Bills, including the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

To reiterate, the only consultation that we should focus on now ought to relate to how the restrictions might work in practice, not whether they are needed at all—the public and campaign groups have made their views on that pretty clear already, whether they support or oppose a blanket ban. Although I have been criticised for coming forward without a Bill, the whole point was to say, “Let’s work together,” because I think there is cross-party consensus on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the Minister has no manners, but wishes to shout from a sedentary position. I sat listening to him and waiting to see if I could decipher, in his very long and self-regarding diatribe, whether he actually has any opinions, but it turns out that he does not. He is very comfortable to sit on the Front Bench and chunter away at me. [Interruption.] You see, he again says that I am such an embarrassment.

[Gareth Snell]

I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said, but last week I talked to a 15-year-old, who said to me, “We have no youth clubs. We go on the street, and I don’t feel safe and I get told I’m a nuisance. So I come home, and I interact with my friends online. Now I’m told I can’t do that.” I am not sure what the right answer is, and I sometimes think that not knowing the answer is as good as having absolute certainty all the time about everything. What would she say to that 15-year-old about the outcome for her? She is asking what she can do and how can she stay in touch with her friends. We do not have an answer to that yet, so what are the Conservatives offering?

[Julia Lopez]

I respect the hon. Member’s intervention for its politeness, but I do not think the answer is suddenly to encourage all children who are finding it hard to find purposeful and meaningful activities in the real world to retreat to their bedrooms. One of the challenges we have seen is that children have felt that the online space is the most stimulating for them. Unfortunately, that has led to an even greater retreat from the real world, and I think we can all recognise that that has been a negative for society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I set out clearly at the beginning of my speech why we cannot support the motion, which is effectively a blank cheque. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for Twickenham tried to set it out in her speech, nobody actually knows what the Lib Dems are trying to do here. The proposal before us is that the Liberal Democrats take control of the Order Paper and then can say whatever they like on internet governance. I am sorry, but I do not think that is the way to conduct ourselves in Parliament. There have to be clearer proposals.

[Gareth Snell]

I agree with the hon. Lady on this point. The other problem is that the motion caps the amount of debate at four hours—two hours for Second Reading, and then two hours for Committee and Third Reading. This will presumably have to be a meaty, multi-clause Bill to deal with an issue as complex as internet governance regulation, and it will be unamendable by this place because of the timescales available. It will not have the line-by-line scrutiny that would normally happen in Committee, and most of the amendments that get tabled will fall because there will not be time for Members to propose them. This is not a solution that brings consensus; this is the Lib Dems railroading through policies on a really complex issue that they cannot get through in conventional manners.

[Julia Lopez]

I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly.

Until now, we have implicitly decided that childhood must simply adapt to an environment that we as adults find totally overwhelming, undermining of our own sense of self and completely irresistible. We have been exposing our children to this place of no settled social rules where that exposure is constant, the boundaries are porous and responsibility is diffuse. Behaviour that would never be tolerated offline is normalised, monetised and then algorithmically amplified. The Online Safety Act, which we have discussed already, has been a step forward in trying to wrest back control, but it is, of course, an imperfect one. It focuses primarily on illegal content, seeks to keep the most extreme material offline and introduces age-gating for pornography and other over-18 content. That work does matter, but the problem before us today goes well beyond illegality and explicit material. There are also many concerns about the complexity of policing content, in terms of both the implementation and intent.

The central question is not just what children see but how social media works. Social media platforms are addictive by design. Their algorithms are engineered to maximise engagement and stickiness. They reward outrage, comparison, emotional intensity, competition and repetition. They draw children away from purposeful activity and into feedback loops that erode attention and resilience. Not all platforms operate like this globally, funnily enough. The Chinese version of TikTok is time-limited and feeds children content of scientific or patriotic value. In the west, it is emotional arousal that is fed to our kids.

Children are not simply consuming content; they are being shaped by the environment itself. It is happening when their brains are still developing. Their impulse control, emotional regulation and ability to assess risk are not the same as for adults. We recognise this everywhere else in law—in alcohol limits, in safeguarding rules and in age of consent protections—yet online we have decided to suspend that logic, and the consequences are increasingly visible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I am not seeking to occupy a moral high ground. I am seeking to set out a way towards keeping children under 16 off social media platforms, because trying to legislate for specific different activities is very challenging, as I think we saw with the Online Safety Act. There are very good causes and there are very important activities that we sought to stop online, but turning that into a workable law is a huge challenge. That is one of the reasons why we think it important to take a “whole of society” approach that tries to shift the debate and say that certain types of online space for people under 16 are simply not appropriate—a principles-based approach to governing the online world that tries to steer away from some of the difficult debates about how to write implementable law to stop nasty and negative behaviour.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again; she is being very generous. I confess that I have not made my mind up on this. Let us suppose that there was a blanket ban preventing anyone under 16 from accessing material of this kind. How does the Minister envisage that being enforced? Will enforcement sit with the parents ultimately, and if they are not able to carry out that enforcement, what will be their criminal liability? There are genuine challenges when it comes to what children can access, and who is made ultimately responsible for enforcing a simple approach that could be quite complex to implement.

[Julia Lopez]

I would not envisage that parents would be responsible for that. There are mechanisms to make sure that platforms would not be permitted to provide accounts to under 16-year-olds and they would have to have highly effective age-assurance techniques. In fact, I have spoken recently to representatives of a major platform who said that they had very effective techniques for testing whether somebody trying to open an account is the age that they say they are. I will not take further interventions for a little while so that I can make progress, as I know other people want to speak.

There are serious arguments against implementing a ban, some of which have been heard, and they deserve to be addressed and not dismissed. We are likely to hear more about those doubts today and they must be listened to respectfully. Indeed, I hold some of those anxieties and reservations myself. The first argument is that a ban would be unworkable and that teenagers would find workarounds through virtual private networks, foreign platforms or fake credentials. They will, of course, because teenagers have always tested boundaries. Fake IDs, sneaky booze and under-age rule-breaking are traditional parenting challenges, but we do not abandon age limits simply because they are imperfect. Instead, we impose them because they change norms, shift behaviours and offer parents reinforcement rather than resistance. Of course, the mandatory age limit will not remove every child overnight, but it will remove a critical mass and that matters.

Some fear that such a ban would require de facto compulsory digital ID, undermining anonymity and civil liberties, and again, that concern must be taken extremely seriously. However, as I have just suggested to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), age verification does not require a single state-mandated digital identification system. Other jurisdictions have explicitly prevented platforms from requiring accredited digital ID and instead mandated multiple verification techniques, with responsibility placed on platforms and not citizens. As I said, I was speaking to a major tech platform recently that set out some of those techniques, which can now be used very accurately to assess a user’s age. However, we must be clear that we do not have a surveillance state simply because 13-year-olds are kept off Facebook.

A third argument, and a point that has been made, is that social media provides vital support and connection for many children, particularly those who feel isolated offline. That can be true, but it is not an argument for leaving the entire system untouched. This is not about banning the internet, messaging, educational platforms, health support or professional development services; those places can and should remain accessible, and that is happening in other jurisdictions. This is about a specific category of platforms whose business models depend on maximising attention and emotional arousal and which are demonstrably harmful at scale. Another concern is the unintended consequence that children may be pushed into darker corners of the internet. That needs to be included in the Government’s consultation when it eventually sees the light of day, particularly whether there needs to be parental consent required for downloading certain apps.

Doing nothing already leaves children exposed, in plain sight, on platforms that we know are optimised against their wellbeing. Protection will never be perfect, but neither is inaction benign. Doing nothing is not neutral. It leaves parents despairing, schools firefighting and children navigating a digital frontier with no one by their side. There is also a broader freedom argument, which is that by keeping children off adult social media platforms we can restore freedom to adults online and will no longer need to contort those digital spaces to be universally child-friendly, which is where some of the challenges have come in.

Finally, this is about leadership. As I said earlier, a consultation without direction is not leadership, and a consultation that pushes real change 18 months down the line is, in truth, a decision to do nothing now. Labour MPs know that, which is why the coming moment will not rest on this rather nutty Lib Dem takeover attempt. Instead, it will rest on the Nash amendment, when this House will have a clear choice: to accept that the pioneer phase is over; to recognise the sanctity of childhood, which deserves clearer rules; and to acknowledge that giving parents support is not the same as the state stripping them of their ultimate responsibilities. Parents will and must always be the first line of defence. When harm is real and growing, leadership requires a decision, even when the answers are not perfect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will constrain my comments to three themes, and I want to start with policy. This has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have heard from many speakers across the House who have articulated the heartfelt and thoughtful concerns that all of us have about the pervasive way in which social media can influence our children, our friends, our families and young people in our society. I am the parent of a 15-year-old. I know what that battle is like—hearing the chirp of Snapchat going off every few seconds, it sounds like, some weekends, as my daughter and her friends communicate in the modern way, and trying to understand what she is doing on Roblox, the games she is playing, who she might be interacting with and the other platforms that, frankly, are alien to me, as someone who is past the age when that stuff makes much sense or is of interest.

The simple answer is to say, “We should ban it all—just lock them all away until they’re 16, and it will all be fine.” I worry about my daughter walking down the street—I worry about who she is going to meet when she is walking to school and her interactions in the physical world—but simply saying, “Right, you’re staying in your bedroom until you’re 35”, which we discuss on occasion, is not a solution to those real-world problems. Part of it is about how we help young people to understand the misinformation and disinformation that they are coming across, and it is also about the way in which we regulate the content that platforms share.

The part that has been missed today, in the many wonderful contributions from Members across the House, is that this is about not just the platforms that share the content but the creators who make that content in the first place—the people who go online to sow the seeds of hate and division: the homophobic content, the Islamophobic content, the antisemitic content that all too often is passed off as criticism of the Israeli Government, and the many far-right commentators in this country who put out toxic masculine culture commentary as though it is a reasoned point of debate. I understand what Conservative Members say about free speech, but we have always been a country and a society where it is not consequence-free speech—there are consequences to the things we say and the actions we take, and that is how we come to understand what the social norms are. We seem to have abdicated our responsibility for that in the online world.

I turn to my second point. The 15-year-old I mentioned in an intervention earlier was, in fact, my daughter, who has now given me permission to out her in that sense. The facilities that I enjoyed when I was in my teens simply do not exist any more. My daughter’s world is as much her online friends and sphere of activity as it is the physical world in which we live. Disconnecting people from that because we think it is unsafe does a disservice to them. I am also slightly worried about the impact of the fact that we are soon to legislate, I understand and hope, on giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote—a policy that I think will mainly get cross-party support.

I like to think that the political literature that I push through letterboxes in my constituency is of such compelling interest that every young person will snatch it from the letterbox, read it and think, “That is why I am going to vote for Gareth at the next election.” I am sure that the Liberal Democrats’ Focus leaflets have the same impact on young people in their constituencies. The reality is, however, that young people do not read the direct mail that we send out. They do not read our leaflets, or at least not as much as they should. Many young people derive their information, news and views from social media. If we say, “You know what? We are going to cut it off”, where will we force those young people to go?

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have not mentioned Harlow yet today, so I feel that I should. When I spoke to some young people at Mark Hall Academy in my constituency of Harlow—there we are, I have done it—about the potential social media ban, I was interested to hear what they had to say. They said, “We don’t care about Facebook”—because only old people like us use Facebook—but they did not want us to ban platforms like WhatsApp, which I had not thought of as being social media, although I suppose it is. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for young people’s voices to be heard during the Government’s consultation, so that we can understand their views on this issue?

[Gareth Snell]

Absolutely. I understand that my hon. Friend was a teacher in a previous career.

When I think of social media, I think of my Twitter account, which has been dormant for years; my Facebook account, which I use for the clips that all of us in this place are obliged to put out and then deal with the comments beneath them; and my WhatsApp, which it seems that every political party has to run with, because without it we would all stop talking to each other. My daughter would think of her Snapchat account. I too now have a Snapchat account with just one friend—her—and we use that to communicate when I am here and she is at home. It means that I get voice notes and little videos from her, and it is how we keep our weekend conversations going during the week.

We must ask ourselves where we draw the line. Members have mentioned access to YouTube. My daughter will freely use YouTube to help her with her homework. She goes to an all-iPad school, so much of the homework is set on iPads. Apparently the subject of screentime will form part of the consultation, and that should be genuinely considered. Will young people be told, “You cannot use your phone—it is the worst possible thing to have—but here is an iPad to look at for six hours a day, and if you get stuck on question 6, go to YouTube video 4 and follow the methodology”? On one hand we are sending one message, and on the other is something that is inconsistent with that approach. Let us be honest: the first job that all the children and young people we are talking about will have is going to be based on the use of some form of AI assistance, such as Copilot, and will depend almost entirely on the use of technology. We are going to have to think about how we integrate that sort of future-proofing into whatever regulation we produce.

My final point is about procedure. I am very sorry to return to that subject, because this has been an excellent debate. I went to the Public Bill Office—there is no Bill that is referenced in the motion. It is completely blank. I understand that the Liberal Democrats intend, if the motion is passed, to engage in a consensus-based process of writing a Bill in the next two weeks that we can debate and pass in one day. It is clear from what we have heard today—from the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who spoke so eloquently about the perils of eating disorders, from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who talked about the ability to sell drugs online, and from those on the Government Benches, including my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who talked about the way in which young people interact—that, as I said earlier, this will be a complex piece of legislation.

The idea that we can complete a Second Reading debate in two hours and the full Committee and Third Reading stages in two hours, on a single day, which will include the discussion of amendments, is simply impractical. I genuinely hope that the content of today’s debate will lead to better legislation, as part of the national consultation that the Ministers are leading, but I think that doing this in such a truncated way, through a single motion and on a single day, will lead to bad legislation.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is not just impractical; it is also anti-democratic. As Bills proceed through this place, there is interaction with our constituents who want to influence how we are thinking and how we are voting, so it is important for us to have time to discuss these matters with them as well as in the Chamber.

[Gareth Snell]

I agree with my hon. Friend; however, I would not say that it is undemocratic. I will be clear: I do not like the principles of Opposition parties taking over the Order Paper. I did not like it or vote for it when my party tried to do it when we were in opposition during the Brexit years, so I will not support it now. I will say that the next time a Minister stands up and says that we are moving at pace, I might pull my hair out—or what is left of it. What we need are some actual timescales for when things will happen. Otherwise, we will find ourselves talking in circles.

Today, we have been able to establish the core principles, which we would agree on. That is a good thing. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he can give a little flavour as to when the consultation will start and how we can all get involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and I will be doing events across our two constituencies with our colleges. That way, we can try and make sure that those views are harvested and fed in, and that a complex and nuanced issue gets the hearing it deserves so that we get the legislation right first time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. We have three more speeches left. I will start Front-Bench speeches at 6.40 pm, so let us start with a five-minute time limit.