Online Abuse

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Seema Kennedy

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I have met my fair share of bullies in my time. As you may have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am, as they used to say in my home town of Liverpool, a chap who is built like a brick outhouse—I think that is the parliamentary version of the term—so bullies have not really bothered me much over the years. However, I am aware, not least as a father, that the internet and social media have brought about two big changes that have meant that I probably would not have avoided bullying were I a teenager now.

First, bullying is now 24/7. As other Members have said, it is inescapable. There is no refuge from bullying these days—no chance to get home, shut the back door and sit down to your fish fingers safe in the knowledge that it will not occur again, at least for a few hours. Secondly, social media has unfortunately decreased our children’s resilience, creating a whole host of exploitable vulnerabilities, including eating disorders, self-harm, harmful sexual behaviour, depression and anxiety. For teenagers, many of whom are hard-wired to take the judgments of others to heart, the amplification of bullying that the online world allows will obviously lead to more permanent damage.

As many Members have said, it is pretty shocking that we have allowed things to get to this stage. We seem to have sleepwalked into an epidemic of terrible mental health, particularly among children, whose self-confidence has been wrecked by social media with its unrealistic expectations and the kind of digital solipsism that it seems to encourage. Perhaps it is because we have been too wrapped up in our own smartphones to notice their obsession—too wrapped up to remember that there are two distinct types of people in society: adults and children. It is the job of adults to make decisions about the boundaries that protect children from harm even when they do not always like it. Instead, I fear that we have become carried away by technology, which has led us to become too indulgent to be seen to be backtracking.

The current generation of teenagers are glued, perhaps irreversibly, to a social media world filled with images of continuously perfect, happy people—so obviously fictional—paired with the unavoidable realisation that they can never attain that ideal. The result is both an insatiable sense of entitlement combined with a crushing hopelessness, which can only lead to self-loathing and anger. They are too often made to feel like failures. Throw into that mix the pressure of exams and the signal sent to children that their entire future and value as a person rests on their academic performance and social standing at school, and it is no wonder that cyber-bullying is the trigger for a whole host of problems. Such pressures contribute to deep unhappiness and many feel the need to put on a brave face and not burden their families, which compounds the isolation. As the president of ChildLine, Esther Rantzen, wrote recently, unhappiness and low self-esteem are the main new phenomena that the organisation is seeing. It only appeared in the top five of children’s worries a couple of years ago but accounted for 35,244 of their counselling sessions last year alone. Make no mistake, we have done little to halt the trend and it is only going to get worse. We must not consign the next generation of teenagers to the same fate.

Turning to the main subject of the debate, the resilience-sapping effect of social media and the addiction to smartphones are far more fundamental and intractable than the cyber-bullying issue, which is a product of them. There is much to be said about how we tackle cyber-bullying. Many people need to be involved in that conversation and consultation, which will have to include the mega-corporations, such as Facebook, that are the common platforms on which the problem occurs. We have let the resilience issue get out of control as a result of complacency in Parliament and an inertia in law, and we need to address them with more urgency than the bullying.

Like many Members, I hope that the response to the bullying issue will take the shape of a new online offences Act, which would replace the 30-plus pieces of legislation currently covering online abuse. It would include, among other things, a specific online abuse offence as well as an extensive definition of the duties of internet service providers in relation to young people. On resilience, we also need to get on with a children and young persons Act that is fit for this age, in which we can clearly define the duties of parents, in law, to help them cope with the impact of social media on their children. It is plainly not right that under-16s spend an average of three hours a day online, making them, according to experts, much more likely to suffer mental health problems, or that two in three 12 to l5-year-olds have their own smartphone given that parents have no idea what they are doing on them.

Spending too much time on social media has been shown to inhibit personal development by many different researchers, including in research carried out by the Government. We must be less complacent about the evidence. The change has been allowed to happen partly owing to parliamentary complacency, but also parental naivety and short-sightedness, and we need to put things right. No one is particularly to blame. That this House has failed to consider the issue properly is down to the same reason that parents across the country and around the world get caught out so badly by the change. Nothing comparable was around when we were growing up, and we are not equipped with the knowledge or understanding to guide children in their use of social media, especially as children themselves seem to be driving the evolution of the platforms on a daily basis.

The pace of change also explains how the main pieces of legislation on children are so out of date. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the Children Act 1989 constructed the framework under which we still operate today, but obviously they do not have anything to say about parents’ duties to children in the social media age or about cyber-bullying. Making it harder still, it appears that getting the guidance and supervision right requires a level of intrusiveness that was not commonplace among parents of previous generations, one that children today will certainly resent and resist. Understandably, given where we are now, any group of teenagers would react with horror at the idea of handing their smartphones in at the beginning of the school day and picking them up at home time.

[Seema Kennedy]

My hon. Friend says that teenagers might resist that, but he began by saying that there are two groups of people in this world—adults and children—and surely it is incumbent on us adults to make them give these things up.

[Kit Malthouse]

Exactly, as I was about to say. Let me continue: but I will be firm here and say that the reason we have not done something in a systematic way, when teachers and experts on children have been telling us for some time that there was trouble brewing, is down to an increased weakness of parents and some teachers who act as though it was the children who should set the rules. Once again, adults seem to be unwilling to act as adults, meaning action has been weak or tentative. However, given the gravity of the situation in children’s mental health, in particular, we obviously cannot afford for that to continue. We need a new direction from which to approach this important area, but it is right to deal with the causes as well as the fallout.

I fear that this situation is again down to an indulgence that leads people to the conclusion that we can never declare that what someone is doing is harmful or bad for them, even when that person is not yet an adult and cannot be expected to understand properly what is good for them. Increased funding for talking therapies for distressed young people, which everybody has been pushing for over the past few months, is right, but no amount of therapy will stem the tide of the children’s mental health crisis if the root cause of why we need this resilience is not addressed.

I agree with many hon. Members who have spoken today about the need for legislation to clarify and consolidate the law relating to offences committed online. More fundamentally, however, we need to look more seriously at the resilience of children, at availability and at the time they spend online, and decide for ourselves, as parents and as a country, whether we should set firmer boundaries about what they can and cannot do in their own time.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Seema Kennedy

Friday 22nd January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise to speak to amendments 1, 3 and 2, which—inexplicably, given their strength—stand in my name only, as well as the splendid amendment 9 and the unfortunate amendment 4. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my experience, debates with you in the Chair are often the most efficient and good natured. I hope that today’s debate will be just that.

On amendment 1, when one tables an amendment, it is a great pleasure to have one’s speech made for one much more eloquently than one could make it oneself, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for his support. Recently, there have been significant charitable scandals in this country. Much of the time of the House and of the Public Accounts Committee has been taken up with Kids Company. I have become convinced that one of the phenomena at work in that organisation was group-think. Those hon. Members who are students of psychology will know of the phenomenon of group-think: individuals in a group, often when they are led by a charismatic leader, can get lost in a miasma of consensus, in which they are unwilling or unable to acknowledge any view that departs from theirs, and indeed are hostile to outside views of their conduct.

The most famous political example was the Bay of Pigs disaster: the group around President Kennedy became trapped in group-think. We have seen commercial examples of it in the UK. Marks & Spencer and British Airways got trapped in group-think in the 1980s, when they went for massive international expansion. They did so against the views of everybody on the outside, but both boards convinced themselves that it was the right thing to do. Disastrously, Kodak and Swissair, which was once talked of as the “flying bank”, went bust because the management were unwilling to look for outside views.

[Seema Kennedy]

My hon. Friend takes me back to my time as a student in Paris 20 years ago, when I was very grateful for the expansion of Marks & Spencer so that I could get my English pies and pasties, but I digress. My hon. Friend is giving examples of group-think from 30 years ago. Does he not agree that the world has moved on, and that the rise of the individual makes our children—the millennium generation—much less likely to fall into that sort of psychology?

[Kit Malthouse]

I assume that my hon. Friend was not a shareholder of Marks & Spencer at the time. For those of us whose families were shareholders, it was a complete disaster, but I am glad that she was able to munch her pasty. The answer to her question is no; it is quite the reverse. The modern mind is much more akin to group-think, indeed to group hysteria. As politicians, we experience that daily on social media. We have all seen how small untruths, half-thoughts or theories can whip themselves up, on Twitter and Facebook, to become reality in a short space of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

The truth is that non-executives are technically appointed by the shareholders, so they are appointed by people who have an interest in the board being challenged constructively. The problem with charities is that non-executives are appointed by the board, the members of which more often than not appoint people in their own likeness. When the members of a board get trapped in group-think, they will appoint people who agree with them. Brave would be the chairman or chairwoman of the trustees who appointed somebody awkward or difficult, who might question or challenge them, particularly when one charismatic person is in charge.

[Seema Kennedy]

My hon. Friend clearly feels passionately on this matter, but he paints a bleak picture of a nation of volunteers and charity workers led by demagogues, where everybody follows their leader blindly. I have been a trustee and can reassure him that that is not the case. There are challenging voices. Given that his amendments would reinsert the power of the Secretary of State, he seems to lack confidence in people’s independence of mind and confidence in their charities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I hesitate to be repetitive, but the truth is that these charities are different. Let me give a practical example. Say, for instance, that an NHS charitable trust that has become independent and that has independent trustees runs a huge appeal to raise money for a CAT scanner to go into a hospital. It gets three quarters of the way through the appeal and, suddenly, it becomes apparent that the money has gone missing. There are people queued up, waiting to use the CAT scanner. The charity may get lost in months and months of inquiry, and much of the money, which was for a dedicated purpose, may be defrayed on other things to deal with the problems—accountants, lawyers, judges, challenges from elsewhere or whatever else. We have seen that sort of thing happen before. I would want the Secretary of State to be able to step in and say, “No. We are now going to appoint trustees who will make sure the money is spent on the CAT scanner, and that people get the treatment they need.”

[Seema Kennedy]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is giving an excellent pitch to be the Health Secretary one day. I want to return to my previous point about his bleak outlook on the way that charitable boards and their trustees conduct themselves. There is adequate provision in charity law for interventions to take place. It is not necessary for the Secretary of State for Health to step in.

[Kit Malthouse]

The truth is that there have not been adequate safeguards in charity law, as my hon. Friend will know. That is why the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill is going through the House at this very moment. Anybody who has followed the passage of the Bill or sat on the Committee will know that part of it will beef up the powers of the Charity Commission to give it greater control in the event of financial misdemeanour or charities getting into financial trouble. It will strengthen exactly those powers about which I am talking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

This is a difficult area. Some charities are composed in such a way that their entire purpose is a social mission. For War On Want or the Child Poverty Action Group, for example, decisions made by politicians are intrinsic to their objectives. Other charities, including some in the health sector, are more about providing funds and ancillary support to hospitals, and that kind of political campaigning is not intrinsic. I am not knowledgeable about the 2014 Act, but since my hon. Friend has raised it I will go and have a look. He may well be right to suggest that it contains enough protections, but I maintain my point that the special status of these charities, and the fact that they raise their money because of their association with the NHS, means that the Secretary of State must maintain some kind of toe-hold. To set those charities completely free is asking for political disaster at some point in the future.

The second part of amendment 2 would mean that if all trustee positions were vacant for three months, the Secretary of State could—and indeed should—appoint some new trustees to kick-start the organisation. That obviously will not happen often, but much of the business of this House involves planning for the unexpected. If a charity were for some awful reason to lose all its trustees at once—perhaps they are all off on a fact-finding mission together and there is a horrible accident; who knows what may happen, but let us pray to God that it does not—the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint people.

[Seema Kennedy]

I apologise to the House for being repetitive, but my hon. Friend has a vision of doom for the trustees and others. I once applied to be a trustee of Great Ormond Street hospital, and there were hundreds of applications. Those places are filled, and the amendment provides for a situation that does not seem to have any basis in fact.

[Kit Malthouse]

I apologise if that is a vision of doom, but much of our life in this House involves dealing with the stream of human misery that comes through our letterbox daily. We have urgent questions and statements on all manner of horrific events here and overseas, and much of our legislation is to plan for the unexpected, which seems sensible. Much of our legislation dates back many hundreds of years, and I hope that this Bill will last for a similar period. Who knows whether there will be trustee vacancies in the generations to come. I hope not, but if there are, it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to appoint someone. At the moment, there is nobody else to do it.

Shale Gas

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Seema Kennedy

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this debate. I will keep my remarks short.

The decisions taken at county hall in Preston yesterday and last Thursday directly affect my constituency. Lancashire County Council’s planning committee has rejected Cuadrilla’s applications to frack at Roseacre Wood and Little Plumpton, both of which are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). Those two sites are on the north side of the River Ribble, just a few miles away from a site at Hesketh Bank in South Ribble, where Cuadrilla was given a licence to frack in 2008. That licence was suspended, along with all others, in 2011.

Most of my constituents accept that we need to explore this new form of energy as it will help national self-sufficiency in energy. Too often, however, those with legitimate concerns about fracking are dismissed as luddites or nimbys, but many of my constituents’ worries have not yet been adequately addressed by Government or the energy companies. The main worries are about safety, specifically water contamination, the lack of adequate infrastructure to support a new industry and the details of the compensation framework.

South Ribble is the floodplain of the River Ribble and is known as the salad bowl of England. Grade 1 agricultural land makes up 32% of my constituency, which puts it in the top 10 of such constituencies in the country, and 41% of my constituency is grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land. The neighbouring constituency of West Lancashire has the highest proportion of grade 1 agricultural land in the country, and many of the farmers and growers in my constituency have fields that cross constituency boundaries. The industry employs many thousands of people and contributes to our nation’s food security.

The quality of the products grown relies on their growing in pristine soil that must be free from water-borne contaminants, which is the growers’ No. 1 concern. Fracking involves injecting water, sand and chemicals into the ground, but what is the composition of those chemicals? We are told that drilling takes place well under the water table, but my constituents are looking for further reassurance from Government and the energy companies that there will be no seepage into the water table and that the pipes will not develop fissures. They also have certain concerns about residual flowback fluid.

The site at Hesketh Bank is down a long country lane. The villages of Tarleton and Hesketh Bank are already clogged up with wagons transporting salad and vegetables to market. I am already working with local campaigners to put pressure on the council to build the “Green Lane Link” because the road system is not even adequate for our primary industry of agriculture. Were a new industry to be introduced, local people would expect the energy companies to contribute towards new infrastructure. They would not want it all to come out of their council tax.

Finally, let me turn to the compensation framework. Research from the US is conflicting on whether house prices are affected by having wells nearby. There needs to be robust compensation for those whose homes and livelihoods are affected. We need statute to set down the framework, which should include obligations to provide infrastructure such as roads and schools, rather than leaving it to local council planning authorities. Furthermore, the news on jobs is unclear. Are they the sort of high-skilled, long-term jobs that we want in Lancashire? DEFRA’s report from March 2014, “Shale Gas: Rural Economy Impacts”, states that jobs will be available for locals

“on the availability of skills and experience in the local labour market.”

My constituents want more reassurance that energy companies will train local apprentices and employ local people for the long term.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the local impact of the industry, which generates significant concern in my constituency. Given the Government’s statement last week that local communities should have the final say on wind energy, does she agree that there should be special rules for fracking—I see in the paper today that the industry is calling for a change in the legislation—requiring applications to go through the normal planning process, like in every other industry? Local communities would therefore get a say about what the industry looks like in their area—if it appears at all.

[Seema Kennedy]

We have all accepted that local communities need to have total buy-in, and I am talking about what the energy companies do as well. National Government need to lay down such obligations. The companies need to be seen to be engaging fully with young people, providing apprenticeships and local jobs.

My constituents are not nimbys, but they want reassurance that fracking will not affect the quality of their land. They want concrete reassurances that their communities will be adequately compensated for any risks that they might face.