Online Harms

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sullivan]

My apologies to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom).

I was speaking about “Inside the Rage Machine”. What people have witnessed is remarkable. The documentary makers found that serious exploitation cases were not being prioritised by TikTok, and that algorithms were repeatedly pushing harmful content.

It is not as simple as saying that we must ban children from social media; we need a suite of measures. The core issue is that young people, who are forming their identities, are vulnerable. Addictive algorithms are designed to maximise time and engagement, and they prioritise provocation instead of the truth. Louis Theroux’s Netflix documentary on the manosphere is an incredibly powerful and timely contribution to the debate, and he shows us that the online world is like a gold rush in the wild west. The approach of “hook, identity, monetise” drives profits, with streaming platforms like YouTube rewarding people who spout abominable things. There is a business model behind this, and I think we are all very much aware that we need to do something about it.

Harmful content spreads across platforms, so we need to be very clear about any ban on social media. Last week, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee looked at the ban in Australia. We learned that because Australia defined which social media companies were to be included, other companies took their place. We can learn from that and it can feed into the Government’s consultation. We have to make the legislation stronger. Bans have limits, because they can be bypassed, as we see in Australia. They also shift the responsibility to the user. Why can we not shift the responsibility to the companies? We should not be banning children from social media; we should be banning the companies from exploiting our children.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I support a number of the things that the hon. Lady is saying about the dangers of online harms, especially for children, but I am unclear about her position on a social media ban for those under 16. Although I accept her overall point, which is that social media companies have a responsibility, we could send them a really clear signal, and protect children, by bringing in an immediate ban on under-16s using social media. Does she support that or not?

[Dr Sullivan]

I welcome that intervention. Initially, action needs to be taken, but I am not sure whether a ban would be clearcut enough, because there are so many ways to get around it. How do we verify if a person is 16? The emphasis is being put on the young person—the user—who is trying to access that service. As long as the tech company can say, “We have done facial recognition—we have done all that is reasonably possible”, the liability is on the young person. It should be the other way around, with the responsibility being on the tech company. The hon. Member may well agree that the tech companies need to be doing more, and that is where the Government consultation on strengthening the regulations needs to come in.

These online harms are not isolated occurrences; they are being designed into platforms, they are being amplified at scale and they are shaping the real world. We must be serious about protecting our young people. We must address the systems and the incentives that are driving this harm, and hold the tech companies to account. The question is, should we be banning children from social media or should we be banning social media from exploiting our children?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). I have been very impressed and moved by the quality of the speeches from across the House. I really do appreciate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) securing today’s important debate.

I want to touch on two specific aspects of this issue: to try to explain the awful impacts of some these cases, based on a case I have been involved in of a constituent who sadly was killed through online bullying; and to address some of the issues—my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy made very good points about the enormous difficulties that parents face—and ask the Minister to hopefully give us some indication of the Government’s direction of travel.

First, I will explain the case in Reading, which some Members may know about but others may not. My constituent Olly Stephens had just turned 13 years old when he was stabbed and brutally murdered by two other boys in a local park just yards from his house on the outskirts of the town. It happened through online bullying. The attack was heavily linked to the sharing of images of knives online, which led to his death. None of us can imagine the impact on his parents, Stuart and Amanda Stephens, and what they have been through. They are now incredibly powerful and determined campaigners against online harms. They have worked with Ian Russell and many other families. They have been able to explain some of the horror of what happens in these dreadful incidents. It is worth explaining a little bit about their views on regulating social media.

I want to highlight the point at which the attack on Olly happened: it was before the Online Safety Act became law. However, some of the same issues still appear to be taking place. The two boys who carried out the attack were 13 and 14 years old at the time—it happened in 2021—had both seen videos and other images of knives on 11 different social media platforms. They had seen them repeatedly and none of the companies responsible for those platforms had taken any of that content down. These young people had been bombarded with these images and were sharing them. They were sharing pictures of knives and teenagers playing with knives in bedrooms. That may have influenced their behaviour. It is the most awful thing.

Stuart and Amanda have tried very hard to raise awareness of the different aspects of this issue: the huge dangers of knife crime, the dangers of online bullying, the dangers of social media, and the effect of social media on young people. I know them very well as constituents. They have talked to me very powerfully about the way in which their son was addicted to his phone—they tried to take it off him and he threatened to run away. They believe he was being groomed through all sorts of other things that were happening online. It is absolutely shocking to see it from their perspective.

Their experience is different to some of the other cases we have heard about today. We have heard some very powerful stories told by other colleagues about issues in their own constituencies, or other ones they have come across, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) in her work in relation to suicide. I have also come across that issue, which is absolutely appalling. I had the privilege—although it was a very difficult thing to do—of attending an event run by the Molly Rose Foundation. People were shown videos of some of the content she had been exposed to, which was quite shocking, and the deluge of the content and its repetitive nature through the algorithms targeting vulnerable young people—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham rightly said—and the way that young people are particularly vulnerable to these terrible images. However, we need to think very carefully—and this is the other point I ask the Minister to address—about the difficulty of trying to then respond to that.

I have a lot of interest, and I totally understand that in Stuart and Amanda’s case they would like to see a complete ban on social media for under-16s. There is a powerful case for that. I am not completely convinced, however, because I know that the Russell family take a different view and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said, there are practical issues around the risk of companies being able to circumvent some of those.

I hope that when the Minister responds, he can give an early indication of some of the issues that are being discussed in the consultation. That is important work being led by the Government and it is extremely difficult. It is great that Australia and other countries have already taken some action. Hopefully we can learn from their experience, build on what they have done and take things even further in our country to do even more to protect vulnerable young people and, indeed, vulnerable adults—the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) spoke about some of the appalling things involving adults as well.

A specific aspect that is particularly challenging for many of us, as parents, is that this area is evolving so rapidly and it is very difficult for many to keep up. In fact, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy about the need for parents to be reassured that they were doing the right thing and about the difficulty of finding the right way forward was very powerful. We need to think about how we can help parents, schools and other places where young people are.

[Gregory Stafford]

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am very convinced of the need for a social media ban. That is why I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s stance on that. On his point about communities, schools and parents, if we do not go for a full ban, there are some technologies that could be used. I think of Jason in my constituency, who runs a company called Orbiri. He is looking to set up communities, where a school—maybe a class or a whole school—can set the parameters for usage time and the sites and apps that are used, so parents do not feel that they are alone but are part of a wider community, all working together to limit and control the social media usage of their children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something like that would help?

[Matt Rodda]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The other thing to consider is that there would be a risk to older teenagers—those over 16—if the ban for under-16s were imposed. We may need to look at a number of complementary, but different, measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham also mentioned. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and the Minister might want to reflect on the work done by the company in his constituency.

To conclude, it has been a privilege to speak today. This is an extremely difficult subject. It is wonderful that the House has been able to discuss it in some detail this afternoon, and I look forward to the Minister responding in a little bit more detail. I realise that the consultation is under way. When he looks into this further, can he take submissions from MPs, where we have been carrying out our own, local work? I have done that, with a local consultation that is a mini version of the Government’s one. A very high proportion of people who responded wanted to see firm action. There is a range of views on what that might be, but there is certainly a serious intent to change things.