Online Harms
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(4 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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.
Hospitality Sector
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Hospitality has been battered by a perfect storm of punishing taxation, regulation and soaring operational costs, which has left pubs and restaurants fighting for survival. In recent months, I have visited 36 of the 55 pubs in my constituency and hosted a hospitality roundtable. I will shortly be sitting down again with the family chain, the Healy Group. Everywhere I go, the story is the same: rising costs, thinning margins and landlords asking, “How much longer can we keep the lights on?”
In this darkness, I can bring a little ray of delight and hope to my constituents. During the summer recess, I continued my constituency pub tour, part of my best pub campaign. I am delighted to announce to the House that the Crown at Arford has won that accolade in the Farnham and Bordon constituency. You may be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Fleetwood Mac’s “Down at the Crown” was inspired by this pub, so if the Chancellor ever finds herself lost in East Hampshire, she might fancy a visit—though judging from Labour’s economic stewardship, she would probably relate more to one called “Closing Down at the Crown”.
I joke, but there is nothing amusing about the reality. Since May, four pubs in my constituency have been driven out by Labour’s relentless war on small businesses, including the Wheatsheaf Inn at Grayswood, which has closed indefinitely. The sector is collapsing, despite what Government Members say. Six pubs are closing every single week. That is because, from April this year, relief collapsed to 40%, halving their protection while doubling their pain. The Budget hiked national insurance, increased the minimum wage and added £3 billion to their bills. The Chancellor’s 1p off a draught pint gesture was not just laughable but insulting.
Jay at the Six Bells told me bluntly that on a £5.50 pint, pubs make about 8p. That is the future that Labour is offering. The Bluebell in Dockenfield, a family business run by Lucy and Robin Catchpole, is fighting tooth and nail to thrive. Pubs are the heart of our towns and villages, and Labour is ripping out that heart.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I do not want to rain on the hon. Gentleman’s pub parade, but my constituency has a proud history when it comes to pubs, as for 60 years it was the only place in the country where the pubs were nationalised—although I am not calling on the Minister to reintroduce nationalisation of pubs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing that would help our pubs would be to extend the pubs code by introducing a guest beer agreement—like the one in Scotland—so that we get more independent products, and more people, into our pubs?
Gregory Stafford
That sounds like an interesting idea. I will support anything that will get the pub industry thriving, but to be frank, Labour is destroying the opportunities for pubs to thrive, and I am afraid a guest ale will go no way towards solving that problem.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will touch briefly on the fact that it is not just Labour in Westminster that does not understand the hospitality industry. The Liberal Democrats in Waverley are showing the same wilful blindness. Farnham is undergoing major infrastructure works, and its hospitality and retail businesses are struggling. I urge the council to act. It has the powers to provide business rates relief, but it has done nothing. Borelli’s Wine Bar and Grill, for example, has operated since 1987, yet the Lib Dems sit on their hands, proving that they share Labour’s contempt for small businesses.
Hospitality is being taxed, squeezed and regulated into oblivion. If Labour carries on like this, the last orders bell will ring not just for our pubs, but for the very character of British life itself.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I was pleased that the first increased payments to mineworkers’ pension scheme members were made at the end of November. I understand the strong feelings on the British coal staff superannuation scheme, which is why the Minister for industry met the trustees last year. We will work with the coal staff trustees to consider their proposals once the new mineworkers’ pension scheme arrangements have been agreed.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The City Minister has acted appropriately by referring herself to the independent adviser. We brought in our new ministerial code to allow Ministers to ask to establish the facts, and I am not going to give a running commentary on that important exercise.
Project Gigabit
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the rollout of Project Gigabit in rural areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your unexpected chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
Broadband and internet access are as vital today as electricity and water. They underpin our daily lives, helping us work, learn, access healthcare and stay in touch with loved ones.
In my former career in healthcare, I saw the transformative potential of digital connectivity. From telemedicine to electronic records, fast and reliable broadband has revolutionised how care is delivered, making it more efficient and accessible, but for too many of my constituents in rural areas these opportunities remain out of reach.
Over recent years, the UK has made remarkable progress in expanding broadband access. Project Gigabit, launched as part of the Conservative Government’s national infrastructure strategy in 2020, aims to deliver gigabit-capable broadband nationwide. Nearly four years on, 81% of UK households have gigabit access, compared with just 7% in January 2019—a dramatic leap that highlights the success of the initiative.
In constituencies like mine, Farnham and Bordon, that progress has been essential. Faster, more reliable broadband has driven economic growth, created jobs, improved educational opportunities and enhanced social inclusion. However, the roll-out has not been without challenges, especially in rural areas where significant disparities persist.
The Conservative Government committed £5 billion to Project Gigabit to deliver the fastest broadband to homes and businesses across the country. That funding has supported 37 major projects worth £1.9 billion and reached more than 1 million premises. An additional 118,000 gigabit vouchers have been awarded, enabling rural households and businesses to upgrade their broadband infrastructure.
The rural gigabit connectivity programme, with £200 million-worth of investment, targeted the most remote and hard-to-reach areas. These upgrades have transformed connectivity in places previously left behind. Public sector buildings such as GP surgeries, libraries and schools have also benefited, ensuring that vital services have the infrastructure to support their communities. The resilience provided by gigabit broadband was especially crucial during the covid-19 pandemic, enabling remote working, virtual learning and digital healthcare.
For those not covered by Project Gigabit, the universal service obligation introduced in the Digital Economy Act 2017 provided a safety net. That legal guarantee of a minimum of 10 megabits per second ensured that no one was completely left behind.
Despite these successes, however, there remains a stark urban/rural divide in broadband access. Although 81% of urban premises now have gigabit-capable broadband, only 44% of rural premises can say the same. These statistics highlight the ongoing challenges facing constituencies like Farnham and Bordon.
Gregory Stafford
I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right to identify the progress made in constituencies like his, Farnham and Bordon, or mine, East Hampshire. Does he agree, however, that improvement is all the more urgent and important in the most rural areas, where there is already very poor or no mobile signal and very poor broadband speed? They are not on the list for the commercial gigabit roll-out and some are not on the list for the second tier of gigabit roll-out. On top of all that, they hear the announcement that the PSTN—the public switched telephone network—is going to be switched off. In the event of an emergency, in the event of a power cut, they are in danger of being marooned.
Gregory Stafford
My right hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily prescient point. That is a combination of factors that will leave many in rural areas, especially those who are elderly or have other caring needs, at a real disadvantage. That is why it is so essential to turbocharge this roll-out going forward.
Ann Davies
Gigabit availability in my constituency of Caerfyrddin in west Wales is just 42%. The Welsh average is 70% and the UK average is 79%; we are on 42%. The Public Accounts Committee has previously said that the 2030 target for full UK-wide gigabit coverage is not feasible, given the delays and the overreliance on commercial providers. Can the Minister reassure the people in rural Wales that they will not continue to be left behind, and that the target will actually be met? Diolch.
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The fact is that many of our rural constituencies are so far below the national average that it is a real problem. In my constituency, gigabit coverage lags well below the national average, with 65.5% of premises connected in the old constituency of South West Surrey and 64.4% in the old constituency of East Hampshire. Both are over 10% below the UK average despite being just an hour’s drive away from London. In the villages of Tilford, Dippenhall and Greatham, broadband speeds are shockingly poor. In one Dippenhall postcode, 100% of properties lack speeds above 10 megabits per second. Similarly, in parts of Greatham, constituents are stuck with outdated speeds that cannot support modern digital demands. To put this in perspective, Londoners with gigabit connections enjoy speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second, while my constituents struggle with speeds 100 times slower.
These numbers represent more than just technical deficiencies; they have a real and profound impact on people’s lives. Take, for example, a resident of Dippenhall who wrote to me to share their frustration. Their home is deemed inaccessible by Openreach, leaving them completely excluded from the benefits of gigabit broadband. Another example is Victoria, a magistrate in my constituency who commutes two hours each way to London. Victoria’s broadband speed—1.5 megabits per second download and 0.8 megabits per second upload—makes it impossible for her to work remotely or participate in virtual court hearings. During the covid-19 pandemic, while her colleagues in London worked from home with ease, Victoria was left unable to contribute. This digital inequality places an unnecessary strain on her family life, finances, and professional opportunities.
Even Moor Park, in the east of Farnham, suffers from poor speeds of just 20 megabits per second download and five megabits per second upload—far below what is needed for modern working or learning. These residents, along with those in Beacon Hill, Hindhead and Frensham, feel increasingly left behind in a world that is becoming ever more digital.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Perhaps we should hear a bit of good news, as it is only right that we should do that. Whenever the DUP were in partnership with the Conservatives, part of that deal was a £200 million boost for Northern Ireland to ensure better connectivity. All of that has been spent. Some 96.42% of premises in Northern Ireland now have the most up-to-date connectivity. But connectivity for rural businesses is the issue—there are still some 60,000 businesses that need to be reached. When it comes to looking forward to the future, to see what we can do, does the Minister agree that small businesses need to be focused on?
Gregory Stafford
Absolutely; I agree. As Conservatives, I am very happy to work with the DUP on any matters that are in our interest together. It just goes to show that this is not just a regional issue—it covers the whole of the United Kingdom. We need to support small businesses.
That brings me to a number of those compound challenges that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) also talked about. According to a Lloyds bank report, 11 million people—nearly 21% of the UK population—are digitally disadvantaged. In Surrey, an estimated 200,000 people face digital exclusion. It is the same in Hampshire, particularly in Headley Down, Grayshott and Liphook. Even in more populated areas, such as Farnham town, broadband speeds are far below the national average, affecting businesses, schools, and families. For many of my constituents, the lack of reliable broadband creates barriers to accessing healthcare, education and job opportunities. It also isolates people socially, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable. I pay tribute to two county councillors in my constituency, Debbie Curnow-Ford and David Harmer, who are working hard to help with that.
In hard-to-reach areas such as Dippenhall and Moor Park, alternative technologies offer some hope. Satellite-based internet, for example, could provide connectivity to rural areas where traditional infrastructure is not economically viable. Competitive bidding within Project Gigabit has already allowed smaller telecom providers to target these underserved regions, breaking Openreach’s historical monopoly.
Earlier this week I met representatives from CityFibre, which operates in parts of Hampshire, including Bramshott, Liphook and Headley Down. Their involvement shows how opening the market to competition fosters innovation and provides tailored, affordable broadband packages to meet local needs. That diversification is critical for ensuring fair and affordable access for all.
Diversifying the network also encourages local internet service providers, such as Grayshott Gigabit in my constituency. It is an award-winning full fibre broadband service and the winner of the Internet Service Providers’ Association UK award in 2024 for best rural provider. Those smaller-scale operatives can only continue to expand if they have continued Government support.
While I recognise that the new Labour Government have pledged to deliver nationwide gigabit broadband by 2030, I want to hold them to account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) pointed out when he was the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, we must avoid recreating the digital divide seen in Wales, as referenced earlier, where only 76% of premises have gigabit access, compared with nearly 90% in England.
The Labour Government must ensure that rural areas are not left behind. We cannot repeat past mistakes, in which funding and resources disproportionately favoured urban centres, leaving rural communities to fend for themselves. To address those challenges, I join colleagues in writing to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology with the following requests: that the full £5 billion allocated to Project Gigabit is retained; that the funding is divided proportionately between urban and rural areas; and that rural areas where broadband is not commercially viable are prioritised for future investment.
As I have said, Project Gigabit has already transformed lives and communities, but there is much more to do. We owe it to constituents such as Victoria, the residents of Dippenhall and the families in Moor Park to deliver the connectivity that they deserve. Let us ensure that no community, urban or rural, is left behind in the digital age. It is time to close the digital divide once and for all.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called.
Gregory Stafford
I thank all Members who have contributed. Given that I have only one minute and 14 seconds to respond, I will not go through everyone’s villages. What has become clear today is that there is significant concern around the roll-out in rural areas. I am pleased that the Minister responded in the way that he did, and that he has offered to meet us to go through it “village by village”—I wrote that down. I am sure that many Members here will be taking him up on that.
I will go back to what I said at the start: the facility to have superfast, gigabit-enabled broadband is going to be essential, and it is essential that we reach the target by 2030. We need to ensure that those people who are living in the most rural areas are not left behind, and that with the Opposition and the Government working together, we can move forward so that every property that is able has gigabit connectivity.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the rollout of Project Gigabit in rural areas.