Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I often say that I would not like to be a teenager growing up today in an environment dominated by social media. It was bad enough that by the time I got to secondary school everyone had a phone, and by the time I left everyone had a smartphone. There is no doubt that the threats to children have been utterly transformed in just the last decade, so we need to transform how we address those issues in this place.

I certainly support the thrust of the Bill. The Government must treat children’s use of digital devices and social media as a health issue. Children are spending more and more of their lives on social media at younger and younger ages. Those aged 12 to 15 spend on average 35 hours a week on their smartphones, and we know that poor mental health has spiked among young people in the last 15 years.

I do, however, have some concerns about the proposals before us. While I fully respect the intentions of the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for the Bill, and his passion for the issue, I am frustrated that the Bill does not seek to make any changes to the current situation. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a plan for research into the impact of the use of social media within 12 months. In general, the public get really frustrated with Parliament and politicians when we say, “We are going to do some research,” or, “We are going to have a meeting.” They want to see action in lots of the areas that we speak about in this place. There is massive consensus from all parts of the Chamber for the hon. Member’s Bill and the work that he has done to introduce it. Among those who have spoken, there is also consensus about the need to go further and faster on the issue, which I would certainly support.

The Bill contains just a feeble instruction. Would parents and kids who are struggling now be comforted merely by the publication of a plan for research into the topic as far away as the middle of 2026? As we have heard, the Government have established a research project that is due to report its findings in May. Do we really need to add to the statute book to ask the Government to do that?

I also fear that the Bill will simply outsource decision making to others rather than allowing our elected Parliament, parents and children themselves to contribute to a policy solution. Rather than publishing a plan for research in the next 12 months, would it not be better if the Government came forward with a proposal, for example, to increase the digital age of consent, so that Parliament could debate that?

The Bill mentions consultation with Ofcom and the Information Commissioner. It should be Members of Parliament representing families in our constituencies who ultimately make a decision on the right course of action. If the Bill does pass, I hope that Parliament will be consulted before any changes are made.

We can all agree that there is a serious problem affecting society and younger generations as a whole, but, because we can all agree on that, we need to see firm proposals from the Government coming forward, and not just more research. I completely concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) said. I will not often call for Government intervention, but this issue has become so great to lots of members of our society that we do need to legislate in this area. It is quite clear that, over the short to medium term, social media companies have failed to step up and do more. They could do so without legislation—they could be more proactive—but they have failed in that. The time is right for that.

I hope we can take away from today the fact that we have had a debate and aired some of the grievances around the harms that social media does to younger generations. By the time the proposal comes back within 12 months, I hope—I do live in hope—that social media companies might have solved some of the issues and worked harder and faster in the fear that legislation is coming, and I hope that legislation will come. I think we all have skin in the game. My sister has recently given birth and I am now an uncle, so I do have skin in the game. We have to act. If we do not, I fear not only that we will let down generations coming through the education system now, but future generations, including my niece, who have not even started in the education system.

I fully support a lot of the comments in the House today. I urge the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington to keep going and to help the Government to come forward with some stern proposals. I believe there is cross-party support among all who have spoken today that we need to go faster to solve the issue, and hopefully save future generations coming through the education system and wider society.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). It has been an honour to work alongside him on this crucial issue.

Tackling children’s online safety in our country is a diamond issue—it is rare, it is popular, it is tough—and getting it right will deliver on what is our most precious responsibility: the protection of our children. As a society, we have a duty to protect our children from predators, from each other, from themselves and from harm. The contrast between the reasons not to legislate further and the reasons to take action now could not be starker. The argument is won: we must go further than the current reading of the Online Safety Act to protect our children’s right to a safe and healthy childhood. I am going to use my time on the Floor of the House in this debate to talk a little bit about why I care about the issue, the work that has already been done, and then how we need to go further and act now.

A long, long, long time ago, I was 11-years-old and “Titanic” the movie was coming out. I am sure hon. Members all remember that it was a huge box office hit. I was desperate to see it, but it was rated 12 and, as an 11-year-old, my parents told me that I was not allowed. I loved drama, history and Leonardo DiCaprio, and I was incensed at the injustice that I was not allowed to watch it, because of all my friends were—outrageous! I gave my parents hell on the issue. I tried every persuasion technique available and I still was not allowed. Now, I still love history and drama—Leo less so—but the reason I am talking about this is because I was not really upset about not being able to see the film; I was scared of being left out from my peer group.

This is the key issue that parents bring up in Darlington. They say to me so frequently that the pressure to give their child a smartphone, when they are not sure if they are safe, is overwhelming. It is time for us to help them to answer some of their questions. They need stronger legislation and guidance from Government about what is safe for their children to do online. Should their children be allowed a phone? If so, when? Should they post pics of them online? Should they be allowed to use the chats on games? Should they be allowed social media profiles? Should they limit their screen time? Those are all questions that require answers and parents want them from us.

Parents, as we know, will always know what is best for their children, but children often disagree with parenting styles. That can be a cause of contention in peer groups in schools, and it can be a clash of values, among many other things. That is normal. The issue is not about parenting styles and choices, because, as we have heard today from everybody’s contributions, parents are united across the country that they need more action and guidance from legislators.

Over the course of this campaign, I have become convinced, without any reasonable doubt, that more legislation is needed, that the public support that, that Ofcom’s reading of the Online Safety Act is unnecessarily narrow, and that the first iterations of the children’s codes that are coming out are not strong enough to protect our children. It is accepted that even the strongest legislation will take time to bed in and will be imperfect, so let us go further now.

I want to lay out the reasons why I still support the measures proposed in the original Bill from my dear and hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington. The first measure is should children have phones in schools? Teachers do not think so, children know they should not, and evidence from schools where phones are banned has seen sickness absence in teachers reduce, attendance in children go up and behaviour improve.

When I was elected, I started an online safety forum in Darlington with two children from year 10 in every school in the town. I brought them all together and asked them what the big issues were for them. They said that peer-to-peer bullying, exacerbated by the use of smartphones in and outside of school and their online activity, was far and away the biggest issue. They told me that people were using their phones to film each other and then sending the videos around, attacking and bullying each other, and it was causing a big mental health issue. It is hard to argue against the rationale that schools should be for learning.

[Lewis Cocking]

The hon. Lady is making an impassioned speech. Does she agree that in some cases social media has made bullying 24 hours a day, because it means that it can happen at any point, even when a child is no longer at school?

[Lola McEvoy]

That is exactly the case. Being 14 is hard. Being at school is tough. There has always been bullying, and it is unreasonable and unrealistic to say that we, as legislators, will completely eradicate it. But children used to be able to go home and be protected from what was going on at school, and that is no longer the case. We have to do everything we can to give them some time off their phones in school. I believe there is no case for children to have their smartphones in schools, and I think most teachers and headteachers agree.

The next point that the Bill addresses is increasing the age of digital consent from 13 to 16. That is absolutely necessary. Children deserve a right to anonymity throughout their childhood, and a right not to have a digital footprint when they come of age. I absolutely support the lifting of the age of digital consent from 13 to 16—the sooner we do that, the better.

I cannot fathom how there is any argument that children should be exposed to addictive-by-design algorithms and content on social media. I do not know who would possibly argue that that was a good idea. Our job is to protect children.

AstraZeneca

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, and I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. The Oxford-Cambridge corridor is really important. Reading the newspapers over the weekend, I was intrigued by how many Conservative commentators kept on saying, “What I don’t understand is why the Conservatives didn’t do this over the last 14 years.” It is not enough simply to build the Oxford-Cambridge corridor; we need to make sure that we build on creative and scientific innovations at all our universities in the United Kingdom, and not just at Oxford and Cambridge.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

We received terrible news from AstraZeneca over the weekend. It is businesses across the country, such as those in my constituency of Broxbourne, that create economic growth, not the Government. The Government have increased red tape and employer’s national insurance contributions. Can the Minister outline how he is promoting businesses and encouraging them to invest in the United Kingdom?

[Chris Bryant]

As I have already said, we had £63 billion of investment at the summit before Christmas, and we have had £14 billion of investment since Christmas. I have a specific responsibility for data in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the number of data centres investing in the UK is significant. We now have 500, which puts us third after the United States of America and Germany. We are determined to grow the economy. The hon. Gentleman is sort of right to say that it is the private sector that creates growth, but it is also true to say that the Government contribute to growth. For instance, if we manage to build 1.5 million additional homes in the UK, that will contribute to growth. If the Conservatives do not believe that, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for being such a champion for Plymouth. As he knows, we are providing £25 billion extra over the next two years for the Department of Health and Social Care, including the largest real-terms capital budget since 2010. We will ensure that every corner of the UK will see the generosity, and that services will improve for them. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss in detail how Plymouth can capitalise on that.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Q4. The town of Cheshunt in my constituency has no banks or building societies, and we have been told that we are not eligible for a banking hub. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that every town that wants a banking hub should be eligible for one, so that my residents have access to their hard-earned cash?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We have committed to 350 banking hubs through this Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to meet the hon. Member on that point. I hope he will thankful for the levelling-up fund round 2 money that we secured, with £14.3 million going to Waltham Cross renaissance project, to regenerate the town centre for his constituents.