Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Joe Powell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

In the brief time available to me, I want to reinforce my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for his excellent work in leading the Bill, which I have been proud to sponsor. In the hearings over the past few months, it has been eye-opening to see parents and campaigners face to face with tech executives, regulators and others, who have been either unwilling or unable to act to tackle this problem head-on.

I will pass on three messages to the Minister in the two minutes that I have. On health, at a recent event with local campaigners in Kensington and Bayswater, a doctor shocked the room when she said that the impact of excessive phone and social media use on children is now the main concern among her paediatrician peers—not pollution, not smoking, not diet. It is the issue we are debating today that most worries paediatricians.

Although there will always be calls for more evidence of causality, it is time, as others have said, to flip that narrative. We should challenge those who want to go slow on this issue to come up with any plausible alternative cause of the recent mental health trends. Next week, the House will discuss the huge rise in incapacity benefit, including for people with mental health challenges. If we want to tackle that issue, we must tackle the root causes such as the one we are discussing today, which will fail not only our children, but our future prosperity.

In the last 30 seconds of my speech, I want to give one story of hope from Andrew O’Neill, headmaster at All Saints Catholic college in north Kensington, who was recently awarded headteacher of the year. When he saw what had happened post-covid, with that toxic combination of isolation and smartphone addiction, he extended the school day, making it a voluntary 12-hour school day, with breakfast at 7 am and supervised study classes, cooking and extracurricular activities in the evening. He has managed to break that cycle—he is a pioneering head. I want that for every child in the country, not just those students.

The final word goes to Zayneb, who attends school in my constituency, and who has been watching from the Gallery all day. She said to me:

“You say you’re just going to check a message, but suddenly you’ve fallen into the black hole of posts, YouTube videos, and endless scrolling. Next thing you know, two hours have passed, and you’ve done nothing productive.”

She asks whether this is truly the future we want for our children, or whether we will look back and regret it. Her message is that young people want control over their screens, not the other way around, and they need our help to make that happen now.

Social Media Use: Minimum Age

Joe Powell Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The debate so far has done a really good job of summarising lots of the reasons why I chose to bring forward a private Member’s Bill earlier last year to address some of the issues relating to the addictive features of smartphones and social media, such as the impacts on sleep, mental health and educational attainment. There are also increasing concerns about conspiracy theories and their ability to spread, particularly among young children.

Today, I will focus specifically on the evidence, because I think that that is where the political debate is moving and where there seems to be the greatest disagreement—particularly on whether we have enough evidence now to act with confidence or whether we should pause and wait for further evidence.

There are three ways I think about this issue. The first is that, in 2012, something happened not just here, but around the western world and beyond, and it was specifically to do with teenage mental health and levels of anxiety and depression among our young people. That global event coincided with the rise in access to smartphones and social media and high-speed internet. There is no other plausible hypothesis that I have heard or come across—I would welcome interventions from colleagues here today—to explain that global phenomenon; there is no coherent alternative hypothesis. So when we think about the evidence that we require to act in this country, we should think carefully about whether we are looking at developed, different hypotheses for why this problem has grown.

The second element is the precautionary principle, which links to another point that was made. The tech industry in particular is very effective at casting doubt over findings from studies. Over the years, the burden of proof and of evidence has fallen on those like the many Members present and the petitioners. It has been for them to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there is a causal link between the use of smartphones and social media and the harms that it may cause. It is important in this debate, and in others, to balance where that evidence should be brought from. Surely we should place a burden of proof on those rolling out technology and platforms that are gobbling up huge amounts of children’s and young people’s time. At a fairly conservative estimate, the average 12-year-old is spending the equivalent of a part-time job every week on their smartphone. That must have some effect on how they might otherwise have used their time, the development of their brains, and their relationships with other people while they are on those platforms.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his private Member’s Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. On the subject of evidence, pilots are increasingly being undertaken, such as the one in the “Swiped” documentary that was referenced earlier. I met 70 parents at All Saints Catholic college in my constituency two weeks ago to discuss this topic, and they have seen, from the school’s own evidence base, the impact of a much stricter smartphone policy. We are starting to see both the evidence of the harms, as my hon. Friend talked about, and interesting pilots that show the improvements that could be achieved by measures such as the internet age of consent and a stronger policy in schools.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue in his constituency. He is absolutely right. Micro-experiments and anecdotal feedback from members of the public, who have signed this petition in large numbers, show that parents are really worried that something is going on here, but it will take some time to gather the evidence. The second aspect is about where the burden of proof should lie. Applying the burden of proof in one direction only—to those advocating for tighter regulation—is not balanced. It should apply both ways.

The third point about evidence relates to the absence of causal studies. They will take many years, so what do we do, in their absence, with the weight of correlational evidence before us? This is where we must look at the work of Sir Austin Bradford Hill. The Bradford Hill criteria, which were named after him in the 1960s, were based on the epidemiologist’s work to try to fill in the evidence gap for policymakers when the debate was being had about the public health impacts of smoking. The tobacco industry did a very effective job of casting doubt over whether smoking itself caused cancer or, as the industry then said, it simply brought cancer out earlier—that cancer was inherent within people. That was the argument: the industry said that there was no correlational study to prove that that was not the case, which goes back to my burden of proof argument.

We need to fill in the gap, because we will not have causal studies for many years. Petitions like this will continue to come, the debate will carry on raging, and politicians will be pulled towards this problem until we find a way of solving it. In the absence of those correlational studies, we have to find a way of applying a framework to look at the existing causal studies. I will not go through all nine of the Bradford Hill criteria, but one of them is dose-response rate: does the dose of a certain factor relate to the degree of the impact? In 2019, the UK millennium cohort study found that

“social media use is associated with mental health in young people”,

and greater use means greater impact. A 2022 dose-response meta-analysis found that more time spent on social media was “significantly associated” with depression. There are stacks of studies out there that show the correlation between time spent and impact. When one works through the nine criteria, in the absence of a causal study or series of causal studies, the evidence points in a clear direction: we need tighter regulation that can empower parents to set boundaries and the collective rules for how our children use smartphones and social media.

There is a risk, at times, that the sides to this debate are characterised as pro- or anti-tech. My final reflection is that, for the UK to be the global sandbox and incubator of great tech development that it should be, we need good, intuitive shared rules that can garner high degrees of public consent and support. If we move quickly on this issue, and do it smart, as a country, we will get benefits not only for economic growth and the tech industry, but for our children and their future.

Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan

Joe Powell Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful that my hon. Friend has brought his experience from the classroom into the Chamber and into debates such as this one. As somebody who has experienced neurological challenges and barriers to learning as a child and through life, one of the most exciting parts of the digital and AI revolution that is unfolding is that, if we harness this correctly, a single classroom can exist both for students who have barriers to learning and for others who have specific talents that need stretching and challenging. Of course, there is no replacement for great teaching and the people and teachers in the classroom working with students, but with the assistance of digital technology and with what AI can do to provide a granular, detailed and tailored experience for students, that is something we are working on. My Department is working with the Department for Education so we can get this technology into classrooms and, as he says, for the benefit of all students right around the United Kingdom.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

On Friday, I visited a major National Grid upgrade project in my constituency, which will connect to a huge new data centre in north-west London. The Secretary of State has talked about the additional energy infrastructure needed, but how will he work to speed up the planning system, including taking on those who seek to block this critical new infrastructure, so that we can harness the benefits?

[Peter Kyle]

We certainly saved a great question for last. We are absolutely determined about the plan we have put forward today, and let me express my gratitude one final time to Matt Clifford for doing the report. To fully embrace this technology, we need to get a lot right. We need to get regulation and planning right. We are already undertaking a huge reform of our planning system—the biggest for well over a generation. That will include the ability for Government locally and centrally to ensure that investment into industries and infrastructure of the future is expedited and that it faces no barriers, so it can be put to the common good for our country and its citizens without delay.