Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I began my career as a teacher. I first entered the classroom in 2009. At the time, we were just beginning to see the use of smartphones among teenagers—there was the odd phone in the classroom and the odd instance of a child being bullied through their device—but neither I nor any other teacher at the time could have imagined the impact these devices would come to play in childhood.

From speaking to children and parents today, it is clear that children’s excessive screen time and unhealthy social media use are fuelling family disputes, childhood unhappiness and parental concern the length and breadth of our country. The problem is growing and voices of concern are getting louder. It is now time to act.

Today, the average 12-year-old spends 21 hours a week on their smartphone, which is the equivalent of four full days of school teaching a week; 93% of 12 to 15-year-olds are active social media users, and 76% of teenagers spend most of their free time on their screens. This is a fundamental rewiring of childhood itself, and it has happened in little over a decade.

Children are spending less time outside and less time reading, exercising, exploring, meeting people and communicating in person—all the things that make childhood special and are necessary for healthy childhood development. Instead, many of our children now spend their time captured by addictive social media and smartphone use—often sat alone, doomscrolling; being bombarded by unrealistic representations of life; communicating through asynchronous large group chats, rather than by looking at facial expressions, eye contact and body language, or learning to interact; moving less; smiling less; learning less; and growing increasingly anxious and depressed.

This rewiring of childhood has only one winner: the balance sheets of social media companies. Their business model, the very essence of their business, is built around monetising attention. As their understanding of our consumer habits and technology improves, the encroachment on childhood is set to get worse and worse.

What has been the impact of this transformation on childhood? The use of smartphones and social media has grown in parallel with a sharp increase in depression and anxiety among teenagers. The trend has been reflected around the world, and the trend lines everywhere have tightly followed one another. Greater time spent on social media and smartphones has run in parallel with higher rates of anxiety and depression. What are the credible explanations for this phenomenon—for the worldwide explosion in adolescent mental health problems—if not social media and smartphone use?

I am sure that nobody here needs me to highlight the crisis faced by child and adolescent mental health services. Our NHS is desperate for any action that might help to address this. The threat posed to our children by excessive screen time is not limited, though, to just their mental health. There is increasing evidence of a strong association between screen time and childhood obesity. Smartphone use also affects sleep. Children are 79% more likely to sleep less than the recommended eight hours if they use their phones. Some 45% of teenagers—nearly half—stay awake beyond midnight most weeks. This of course also has an effect on learning. Four in 10 teenagers admit that their smartphone is distracting them in school and from the grades that they could achieve.

For some children, the ubiquitous use of smartphones has forced them into a world of round-the-clock, inescapable bullying and abuse. Over 73% of girls and young women have experienced online harm in the last year. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has reported an 82% rise in childhood online grooming crimes in the last five years, and Ofsted found that 90% of girls and nearly half of all boys have been sent explicit pictures or videos.

This bombardment on childhood has not gone unnoticed outside of this building. Across the country, the number of incredible campaigners who have built huge communities calling for change has directly led to today’s debate. That is why I need to take a moment to thank all those who have contributed in some way to the development of this Bill and this debate, many of whom are in the Public Gallery. First, I must reserve my biggest thanks to Ben Kingsley of Safe Screens, and Joe and Daisy Ryrie and everyone else at Smartphone Free Childhood. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, to see the value of the contributions in kind that they have made to get us here today. I am extremely grateful for all their hard work and dedication to this cause. Their continued leadership on this issue gives me enormous confidence that laws will ultimately change to tackle these issues.

I also put on record my thanks to the tens of thousands of parents who wrote to their MPs via Smartphone Free Childhood—and I apologise to the 630 Members of this House who got extra emails to respond to in the process.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I would like to associate myself with my hon. Friend’s warm words about Daisy and Joe, who are both constituents of mine. Does he also recognise the impact that their ambition has had, and will continue to have, long after this debate? Their dedicated work has helped to start real and meaningful conversations about smartphone usage in schools across the UK.

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The campaign they have started will only grow over time.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments so far, but the emails I have received from constituents who support his campaign make reference to “raising the age of ‘internet adulthood’ from 13 to 16” and “to help support the ban on phones in school being brought by MP Josh MacAlister”. He will forgive me for saying that nothing he has said so far requires legislation. The Bill he has brought could all be achieved by the Minister just deciding to ask the chief medical officer to produce a report, or the Minister producing a plan. What has happened to the legislative action that was clearly in earlier drafts of his legislation and which campaigners clearly want?

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

I will get to that in my speech. I am keen to get on to those points, and I will address the questions the hon. Gentleman has asked.

The Smartphone Free Childhood campaign has grown from zero members to over 200,000 in less than a year, which shows the strength of feeling in the country on this issue.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

It would be remiss of me not to start by thanking my hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown on the issue. He has started a big conversation not just in this Chamber, but right across the country. That is certainly true in my constituency, where we have a fantastic local Smartphone Free Childhood campaign group, and lots of the young people I meet on my school visits and in campaigning conversations across the constituency have real concerns about this topic. As always, the views of parents and young people on these things tend to lead the way. Does he agree that, as well as being ambitious about gathering evidence, we will need to become more comfortable with the idea of legislating in this area with the same precautionary principle that we apply in every other aspect of children’s lives, to ensure that we protect them from the harms they are expressing to us?

[Josh MacAlister]

I completely agree that progress is inevitable, given the strength of feeling in the country on the matter.

I was grateful for the substantive research document pulled together by Rachel, Tom and the team at Nesta, which clearly demonstrates why action is needed, and for the polling and focus group research done by the New Britain Project and More in Common, which shows how popular taking action is among children themselves, as well as parents. Thanks also go to Arabella Skinner and Dr Becky Foljambe at Health Professionals for Safer Screens and all the health professionals they mobilised to engage with the development of the Bill, who witness at first hand the impacts of excessive screen time on the physical and mental health of the nation’s children.

Our teachers and school leaders are also on the frontline of seeing the impact on children in their care. I thank, in particular, the headteacher of the John Wallis academy, Damian McBeath, who organised hundreds of his colleagues in support of the Bill; Teach First; the Ambition Institute; all the school and academy trust leaders who backed the Bill; and the teaching unions the Association of School and College Leaders, the National Association of Head Teachers, NASUWT and, in particular, the National Education Union, which is leading a big campaign on social media and smartphone use, with a report out just this morning.

Children’s charities are alive to the detrimental impact of smartphone and social media use on this generation, and I have been delighted to have the backing of the big five: Barnardo’s, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Action For Children, the National Children’s Bureau and the Children’s Society. That is in addition to data and testimony provided by UK Youth, OnSide, the Scouts, Girlguiding, Coram and the King’s Trust—they have made their mark on this debate. A special mention goes to the current and former Children’s Commissioner for England for their backing.

Organisations representing parents have been vocal about the need for further action, and I record my thanks to Sue, Rhiannon and the wonderful team at Mumsnet for all their coverage and for the debate they have instigated on the topic. I also thank ParentZone and Parentkind for their contributions to the Bill hearings. I also thank all the other members of the public and professionals who came to the Bill hearing processes; there are too many to mention, but they certainly made an impact on the Members of Parliament who attended.

Finally, I thank the 5Rights Foundation and members of the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group, who I met alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy). They experienced the most devastating consequences of smartphone and social media use. They have done what many would find so difficult to do and have turned personal tragedy into a campaign for urgent change. I want to thank Ellen Roome, Mariano Janin, Lisa Kenevan, Ruth Moss, Lorin LaFave, Amanda and Stuart Stephens, and Esther Ghey for their bravery and for engaging with the development of the Bill.

With the problems so stark and the calls for change so loud, what is being done to respond to those issues around the world? Just this week, the Republican governor of the conservative state of Utah has passed America’s first law mandating age verification for app stores, to ensure that children use only age-appropriate apps, when their parents are happy for them to do so. Australia has legislated for an outright ban on social media below the age of 16, which will come into force later this year, and last week Denmark moved to ban mobile phones in schools and after-school clubs. Last year, Norway increased the minimum age limit on social media to 15 by changing the age of consent for data sharing. France has done the same, and has pushed for measures to be taken across the EU. Will it be just British children who are left unprotected against addictive harms of smartphones and social media? We cannot let that happen; we must act.

It is time that we caught up. That is why I am so pleased to be debating this issue today, following months of engagement across Government and beyond, with hundreds of health and education professionals; children’s, youth and online safety charities; parents, and young people themselves. I introduced the Bill because of the stark difference between conversations taking place out there in the country and the debates that we have here in the nation’s Parliament. It is fair to say that the public are well ahead of politicians on this issue. Today marks progress towards Parliament finally catching up with the mood of the nation.

The Bill has been drafted to secure explicit Government backing. It has been written to achieve change rather than just to highlight the issue. That is why it is narrower than where I started when this campaign began six months ago. I hope that the Minister will confirm in his response that the Government will take forward the measures in the Bill. What does the Bill do? Most importantly, it commits the Government to coming back within a year with a decision on whether to raise the digital age of consent from 13 to 16. Under general data protection regulation, the standard age of consent was set at 16. However, countries can choose to vary it to as low as 13, which is what the UK chose to do at the time. The appropriateness of that decision must be assessed, given the ways in which social media companies are now using teenagers’ data to keep them hooked to their platforms.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done on this issue. When decision makers chose to set the age at 13 rather than 16, what evidence did they use and what detailed work did they do to ensure that the decision was grounded in evidence and good for children?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Most countries landed on the age of 13 as a result of a protracted negotiation in the US Senate about data and online safety many years ago. That policy was not based on evidence; it was based on the compromise of a committee in another country. We must base such decisions on evidence, and there was no firm evidence for picking 13 over any other age.

Alarm bells on the question of data and consent are already ringing. Just this week, the Information Commissioner announced an investigation into how TikTok uses the personal information of 13 to 17-year-olds in order to make recommendations to them. Changing the digital age of consent would give parents more control over who accesses their children’s data, and it would dumb down the powerful algorithms that feed children addictive content.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill in the way he has and on becoming a Parliamentary Private Secretary. Does he support the Bill going into Committee? I think there is consensus across the House that it should be given its Second Reading. If it is not given its Second Reading, however, it will not go into Committee and we will not be able to discuss in further detail the points that he is making.

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member is, of course, a connoisseur of private Members’ Bills and has been known not to be keen to see many of them make it to Committee. I am sure he will not mind me gently making the point that I am here today, as so many Members are, to make a difference and ensure that the Government take action.

The Bill also commits the Government to instruct the UK chief medical officer to update and reissue guidance for parents and professionals about the impact of excessive screen time and social media use on children. It is nearly six years since that guidance was last issued, and we have seen the positive impact of recent guidance elsewhere, such as in America where the Surgeon General advice has stated more recently:

“social media has not been proved safe”

and that

“Children and adolescents who spend more than 3 hours a day on social media face double the risk of mental health problems including experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety.”

That advice led to calls in the US for cigarette packet-style health warnings on social media websites.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for this important Bill and the way in which he is presenting it. This week, in the education centre at Michael Hall school, I met A-level students who were very concerned about the addictive nature of what they are seeing. They absolutely want to see action. I applaud him for listening to UK Youth, Girlguiding and others who feel exactly the same. They want action now. All power to him—we need to push the Government for change, because a year or three months in childhood is a long time for that addiction to grow and not be challenged.

[Josh MacAlister]

I completely agree that there is an urgency to this issue, and the strength of feeling out in the country among not just parents but children themselves shows that we should take action.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for the national debate he has stimulated about this; we should all be grateful to him for that. I wondered what advice was already available to parents from the national health service, particularly in Scotland. I could find no guidance on screen time on the NHS Scotland website. On the website for my health board, NHS Lothian, I found guidance for parents with the very youngest children. In Glasgow—which is Scotland’s second city, I have to stress; it does not even have a castle—the health board offers guidance that dates from 2016. Things have moved on since then, and surely parents deserve to have the very latest guidance when it comes to considering this matter.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Updated advice from the nations’ CMOs is so important because it can cascade through health systems to guide professionals and parents.

Finally, the Bill calls on Government to conduct more research and further develop the evidence and guidance that is so important for future action. Given how rapidly these devices and services are developing, it is vital that parents and carers are given up-to-date advice on the harm their children might be exposed to.

Why has this not been done before? The technology companies that are profiteering off this rewiring of childhood are incredibly effective at casting doubt over any evidence of a link between screen time and negative impacts on children. This is not the first time an industry has fought against a tide of evidence in order to keep peddling their product. In the 1960s, the tobacco industry was lobbying hard against the link between smoking and cancer. In the absence of evidence of a causal link, they cast doubt on the overwhelming correlational evidence available.

In the end, our Government acted on the basis of correlational studies using criteria set by the epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill. The criteria attempt to help policymakers to make decisions when causal studies do not exist. His criteria included that

“Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.”

For example, the fact that students across the western world began reporting feeling increasingly lonely in school from 2012 is important. Another criterion is that

“Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect”—

essentially, the dose-response effect.

Studies of multiple large datasets, including the UK’s own millennium cohort study, show that teenagers who are heavy users of social media are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, eating disorders, body dysmorphia and other mental health harms. It could take years for evidence of a causal link, through scientific studies, to be established. In the meantime, our children’s mental and physical health degrades, their education continues to be affected, and evidence of a correlation gets stronger and stronger. As lawmakers, we must use tools such as the Bradford Hill tests to make the best possible decisions with what we know now. We must act on excessive screen time today, in the same way that we acted on smoking back then. Like debates that were had on smoking and car seatbelts, it took a process of legislation, rather than one big-bang event. That is why starting with these initial steps today, then following them through with major action soon, will be so important.

Let me address head-on the arguments made against taking action to curb social media and smartphone use by children. As I see it there are five common arguments against action. First is that there is not enough evidence to act. Over the past few months, I and others have had a number of evidence sessions and engagements with experts that have shown that that is plainly untrue. Even so, where should the burden of evidence sit? Should it sit with parents and campaigners who have noticed the damage being done to their children, with children themselves who are calling for more support, or with the companies who are selling them products and services that are designed to be addictive and have completely transformed the nature of their childhood?

When it comes to protecting children from harm, a precautionary approach is surely advised. For almost any other product, companies would have to prove that it was safe before selling it to children, rather than being free to sell that product as they wish, until the evidence of harm becomes so overwhelming that something needs to be done. It is instructive that the US Surgeon General advice states that social media has not yet “been proved safe.”

Second is the argument that this is simply the latest in a line of moral panics. People used to fear that watching too much television would turn their eyes square; in the Victorian era, that reading novels would degrade intellect; or in the 20th century, that playing violent videogames would turn all our children into thugs. But for every example of overblown moral panic, we have many more examples of genuine public health crises that we took too long to address, but eventually were forced to tackle. Research that has come out this morning from More in Common demonstrates that this is not an issue of luddite older generations bemoaning shifting social trends. Concerns about social media and smartphone use are dominant in every generation, and half of generation Z regret the amount of time that they are spending on social media.

The third argument I hear is that the genie is out of the bottle, and it is too late to do anything now. Phones and social media are undoubtedly here to stay, but their harms do not need to be. Regulation can find a way of allowing children to experience the benefits of this technology, without being exposed, relentlessly, to its harms. As introducing seatbelt laws saved thousands of lives from road traffic accidents without killing off the car industry, introducing a virtual seatbelt can protect children from excessive screentime. Action in other countries, and our experience with the Online Safety Act 2023, early though it is, has shown that tech companies are not beyond the power of Governments.

The fourth argument, which tends to come from big tech, is that proper age verification is too difficult, and age restriction unproven—that the technology does not exist or is imperfect. As companies such as Yoti and many other age verification platforms show, that is no longer the case. I am also a technology optimist. The reason why this technology is not yet pervasive is insufficient demand. Introduce the regulation, and technology will have to catch up—we will see that in Australia later this year.

There are some suggestions that it is not the Government’s job to get involved and that this is an issue of parental responsibility. That misses the point that this is a collective action problem. Parents and children alone are not able to establish new, shared rules for something that is addictive at a societal level. The reason why smartphones and social media are causing so much stress and conflict in families is that we are giving parents the unenviable choice of either removing devices and ostracising their children or giving into demands for access and living with the health, sleep and learning consequences.

Additionally, not only are parental controls at device, operating system and app level confusing and opaque, but our own existing data laws give children as young as 13 the power over their data that means that they can opt out of those parental controls in year 8 of secondary school. We disempower parents on a problem that is common across society, then when they ask for help, we say that it is a matter of personal responsibility. I hope that today’s debate can bury the argument that responsibility for this problem lies with parents struggling with that impossible challenge.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

I just thought my hon. Friend might like know that I will not be making any of the arguments that he is arguing I should not argue.

[Josh MacAlister]

I welcome the Minister’s intervention, and I am glad to have boxed off those five.

There are moments when politics falls behind the public mood. The process and traditions of our democratic system make it difficult to keep up with the rapidly evolving world of tech and social media, but this Parliament works best when it is a reflection of the problems and concerns of the people and a Chamber for earnest problem solving and action. Over the last few months, I have been encouraged by the sheer volume of support for this Bill and this debate, which comes from across the country, across the ages and across the House. My firm belief is that unless we as politicians are able to be the disruptors on this issue and solve it, we will be left being disrupted by it. Acting assertively together and sooner will bring benefits for our tech industry and public services, the quality of family life in the UK and, most importantly, the opportunities for our children. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The smartphone is one of the most remarkable pieces of technology ever invented. Smartphones keep us connected to the world and allow us to stay in touch with family, friends and colleagues no matter where we, or they, are. They give us access to the internet and the immeasurable amount of information that is available online. They give us access to our emails, allowing us to organise our schedules and do work on the train and even in this Chamber. They are also fantastic entertainment hubs, whether for music, movies, games or e-books.

Smartphones and the internet have transformed society, and while most of that technological progress is good, it has serious consequences for our children. In 2023, Ofcom reported that most children acquire their first smartphone between the ages of nine and 11. That is problematic, especially when it comes to social media. Social media on smartphones has become an integral part of our children’s lives, and it poses several risks that can have a negative impact on their wellbeing. One of the biggest concerns is the effect it has on mental health. Constant exposure to curated, idealised versions of others’ lives can lead to feelings of inadequacy, anxiety and depression. Teenagers may feel pressured to live up to unrealistic standards, affecting their self-esteem and sense of self-worth.

There is also the potential for addiction. With their constant notifications, likes and shares, social media apps are designed to capture attention and keep users engaged forever. That can lead to excessive screen time, reducing time spent on other important activities such as studying, physical exercise and face-to-face interactions, all of which are essential for healthy development.

Social media can also affect sleep patterns—having brought up two children, I know how difficult it can be to remove a phone at bedtime. Ultimately, parents are responsible for how they bring up their children. They are responsible for deciding whether and when to allow their child to have a smartphone, and how long they use it for. But parents need help, and tech companies have a responsibility to ensure that children are not exposed to harmful or addictive products.

Social media can also expose teenagers to cyber-bullying. Online platforms can be breeding grounds for harmful behaviour, as people feel anonymous and less accountable for their actions. Negative comments, trolling and harassment can take a toll on teenagers’ emotional health, sometimes leading to tragic consequences.

I was pleased when the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), having been successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot, announced that he would introduce a Bill to increase the digital age of consent from 13 to 16. As such, when the Bill was published—only yesterday—I was surprised to discover that the very measure he talked about has not been included. All the Bill requires is that the Secretary of State makes a statement about whether that age threshold should be raised. Why is that? I suspect that what may have happened is that the hon. Member received a visit from one of the Government Whips, who told him that he had a very promising career ahead of him, should he agree to do the right thing and water down the legislation to the point at which it does not actually do very much at all.

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member will know, as many in this House do, that private Members’ Bills are often a shot in the dark. From the beginning of this process, my aim has been to have a national debate, but also to put all of my energy into securing some action and progress. Regardless of party, this is an issue on which it has been difficult to make progress in the past; the previous Government made statements in 2019, 2021 and 2023 on introducing phone bans in schools, but those bans never fully materialised. I think the hon. Member would agree that we can work across the House to make progress on this issue at every available opportunity in the future.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but having spent a great deal of time talking about raising the digital age of consent and having asked my constituents to email me if they wanted me to be present in this House today specifically to vote for that, rather than working in the constituency, I wish that he had presented a Bill that said that, because we could then have voted on it and it would have passed. Of course, the Government might have killed it off at a later stage, but I actually think they might have been too embarrassed to do that.

There is nothing in this Bill that requires legislation. The Secretary of State could ask the UK’s chief medical officers to provide their advice, as clause 1 requires, and they would do so. The Secretary of State could publish a plan for research, as required by clause 2, and an assessment, as required by clause 3. The sad truth is that this Bill achieves precisely nothing, and the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington should be a little bit ashamed of having campaigned so vigorously and then presented this Bill.

Social Media Use: Minimum Age

Josh MacAlister 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want to be a hypocrite; this 63-year-old engages in all those things as well. In fact, it is a shocking shame for me every time I get that notification that says, “You spent on average x number of hours a day on your mobile phone.” I can make justifications—I have to find out what an hon. Member’s seat is, I have to send things back to my private office on WhatsApp and all of those kind of things—but the truth is that if somebody had said to us 40 years ago that they were going to invent something that would make us all, in an addictive way, spend hours and hours and hours looking at a phone rather than engaging with other human beings, we would have said, “Maybe not, eh?”

I was really struck by that when I went to a primary school in Blaengarw in my patch. The headteacher was saying that one of the difficulties is that all the parents waiting to pick up their kids were on their mobile phones outside, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) mentioned earlier. Whatever they did inside the school, the message that every single child got was that life was about being on a mobile phone. As has been said, one of the most important things that a parent can do is engage eye to eye with their children. If they are engaging eye to eye only with their phone, I would argue that that is as much of a problem. I will come on to some of the issues, but I do not want to be hypocritical about it.

I think we all accept that we have to do more. One thing that was not included in the list of things that someone might do if they did not have a mobile phone to spend all their time on was reading a book. I would love more young people to read a book. That longer attention span is one of the things that is an admirable part of being an adult human being.

Several hon. Members referred to the fact that legislation needs to keep up. I will put this very gently to Conservative Members: we argued for an online safety Act for a long time before one ended up becoming legislation. It went through a draft process, and there were lots of rows about what should and should not be in it, and whether we were impinging on freedom of speech and all those kinds of things, but the legislation did not end up on the statute books until the end of 2023. Even then, the Act provided for a fairly slow process of implementation thereafter, partly because Ofcom was taking on powers that, on that day, it simply would not have had enough staff to engage with. The process has been difficult, and I am absolutely certain that the Online Safety Act will not be the end of this story. That is why the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said clearly that everything is “on the table”, and that is why today’s debate is so important.

Of course, legislation has to be proportionate, balanced, based on evidence—I will come to that in more detail in a moment—and effective. That is why the Online Safety Act will require all platforms that are in scope, including social media platforms, to set up robust systems and processes to tackle the most egregious illegal content or activity proactively, preventing users from encountering it in the first place. Platforms will be required to remove all other illegal content as soon as it is flagged to them.

The Act will also require platforms easily accessed by children—this goes to a point made by several people—to deploy measures to protect children from seeing content that is harmful to them. That includes the use of highly effective age assurance to prevent them from seeing the most harmful types of content, such as that which promotes, encourages or provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms will also be required to provide age-appropriate access for other types of harmful content, such as bullying, abusive content or content that encourages dangerous stunts or serious violence.

Additionally, under the Act, providers that specify a minimum age limit to access their site must specify how they enforce that in their terms of service and must do so consistently. As many Members have said, this spring will be a key moment in the implementation of the Act, and that is an important point for us to recognise: later this year, things will change, because of the implementation of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom has already set out its draft child safety codes of practice, which are the measures that companies must take to fulfil their duties under the Act.

Ofcom’s draft codes outline that all in-scope services, including social media sites, will be required to tackle algorithms that amplify harm and feed harmful material to children. I would argue that that includes the process of trying to make something addictive for a child. Services will have to configure their algorithms to filter out the most harmful types of content from children’s feeds, and to reduce the visibility and prominence of other harmful content. In January, Ofcom published its guidance for services to implement highly effective age assurance to meet their duties, including the types of technology capable of being highly effective at correctly determining whether a user is a child.

[Josh MacAlister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course. I am about to come to my hon. Friend’s speech, in fact.

[Josh MacAlister]

I and a number of colleagues have had fairly extensive dialogue with Ofcom over the past few months about some of the detailed points, and there are two important gaps in the existing legislation. First, social media companies might put in a minimum age requirement, but there is no power to provide that social media platforms need to have a minimum age requirement to start with, so there is a big gap in the legislation in that respect. Secondly, despite the fairly extensive drafting in the Act, there is no requirement on Ofcom to look at functionality beyond where it relates to harmful content. Ofcom has stated clearly in writing to myself and other Members that it cannot regulate functionality unless it is specifically about harmful content, so much of what has been discussed today would not be covered by Ofcom’s current powers.

[Chris Bryant]

There are four or five different areas where the legislation is not sufficient for the task. Both codes require parliamentary approval, but that process will happen in the next few weeks, with the powers coming into effect this spring. As a Government, we have to decide whether it is better to make that happen now and bed it in, or say that we will have another piece of legislation. I am not allowed to make commitments on behalf of the Government, but I would be absolutely amazed if they did not bring forward further legislation in this field in the next few years. All these issues—and the others that will come along—will definitely need to be addressed, not least because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said at the beginning of the debate, we need to make sure that the legislation is up to date.

My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) talked about the burden of proof, and he is quite right. Of course there should not be a one-way burden of proof. We have to bear in mind two things about proof—perhaps evidence is a better word, because it is not about criminality; it is about evidence-based policy. The first is that, as everybody has said, causation is not correlation. I apologise for the slightly flippant way of putting this, but Marathon became Snickers at the same time as Mrs Thatcher gave way to John Major. I am not aware of any causal relationship between those two events. Many people understand that, but it is often very difficult to weed out what is causation and what is correlation in a specific set of events. For instance, we have all laid out the problems in relation to mental health for children, but only one Member mentioned covid. I would argue that covid is quite a significant player. It was shocking that we strove hard as a Parliament to open pubs again before we opened schools, and that children, who were at the least risk, bore the heaviest burden and that sacrifice on behalf of others. I think we need to factor that in.

The second point is something that I have campaigned on for quite a long time: acquired brain injury. Children from poorer backgrounds are four times more likely to suffer a brain injury under the age of five than kids from wealthier backgrounds, and again in their teenage years. Acquired brain injury in schools is barely recognised. Some schools respond to it remarkably well, but it is likely that there are somewhere between one and three children with a brain injury in every single primary class in this land. Nobody has yet done sufficient work on how much that has contributed to the mental health problems that children have today. We certainly know that the use of phones and screens after brain injury is a significant added factor, but we need to look at all the factors that affect the mental health of children to ensure that we target the specific things that really will work in a combination of policy changes.

Online Safety: Children and Young People

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) on securing this important debate.

I would like to say a few words about the context of this debate and the parallels between it and some of the debates in the last century, specifically to do with road safety. Despite the car being a relatively common feature on our roads from about 1900, it was not until the 1930s, when there were already 1 million cars on the road, that we decided to introduce any age limit on driving. It was not until 1983 that wearing a seatbelt became compulsory. At that time, many people, including MPs here in Parliament, argued that the law would be impossible to police, was an overreach of the state and would not save any lives. In fact, when it was introduced, deaths dropped dramatically and we got the best out of the rise of the motor vehicle. There is a strong parallel between the introduction of seatbelt measures and what we now need to do as a Parliament on online safety.

The Online Safety Act was an incredibly welcome piece of legislation, but it was the very first measure and must be seen as a stepping-stone piece of legislation rather than a destination in its own right. Most people involved in the creation of the legislation and those at Ofcom themselves would probably recognise that description. Where we need to go next, I believe, is to address issues of excess screen time, social media use and the wider harms that come from the fact that the average 12-year-old is now spending 21 hours a week on their smartphone. There are obvious harms from that. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington highlighted social anxiety and peer-to-peer comparison and the mental health impacts of that. There are very clear impacts on sleep and on the classroom, and the evidence behind that is growing. There is also an enormous impact in that those 21 hours a week used to be spent by children doing other stuff. Children used to do other things that they now do not do because they spend time on their devices. That presents a complete generational rewiring of childhood, which needs to be considered closely.

That is why it is really welcome that last week the Government announced that they will commission a study into this area. The evidence has moved on considerably since the chief medical officer last looked at this in 2019. With fresh eyes looking at the evidence now, I believe that the chief medical officer will give very different advice. That is why I have introduced the safer phones Bill—the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill.

I would like three things to happen. First, the age of digital consent for data sharing should be raised from 13 to 16. That would put not just Ofcom, but the Information Commissioner’s Office in a position to regulate this, and I would like extra powers for parent groups to come together to ensure that that is enforced. Secondly, Ofcom needs additional powers to make sure that it can go beyond just the content, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned. Finally, we need to look at this as a public health issue, as well as a tech regulation issue.