Children’s Social Media Accounts
Munira Wilson Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am delighted to contribute to this extremely important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for setting out in such a well-informed and balanced way the issues we are considering.
With your permission, Sir Desmond, may I take this opportunity to address Ellen Roome directly? I want to pay tribute to your great courage and bravery. I am a mother of two young children. I cannot begin to imagine what you have been through. To start this petition and push this campaign forward in the way that you have is—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
No; all remarks are addressed to the Chair.
Munira Wilson
Okay. I will do so now. Thank you, Sir Desmond.
I pay tribute to Ellen for her campaign. I also want to say how cross I am that Ellen is having to push this campaign to get access to Jools’ online data. A number of us who were here during the passage of the Online Safety Act in the previous Parliament attended a meeting organised by Baroness Kidron, at which she brought together Ian Russell and some of the lawyers who supported him in Molly’s case. They talked powerfully about the battles they had to go through to access data. Baroness Kidron led a really strong campaign to change the law but, sadly, it has still not happened, which is why we are here today.
The use of social media accounts is now prolific across society, especially for young people. Ofcom’s 2023 Online Nation report highlighted the fact that children aged eight to 10 spent an average of two hours and 23 minutes a day online. That rose gradually to an average of four hours and 35 minutes online daily—the equivalent of 66 days online per year—for 15 to 17-year-olds. That is just an average; we all know that a number of young people spend far more time than that online.
The digital age has transformed the way we live, communicate and interact, and social media in particular has become an integral part of our daily lives, especially for children. Although the platforms offer numerous benefits, they also pose significant risks. As Liberal Democrats, we advocate a balanced approach that respects the privacy of our young people while ensuring their safety and wellbeing.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) touched on the point that of those aged eight to 17 with profiles on social media, video sharing platforms or messaging platforms, nearly six in 10 have said they use more than one profile on any particular social media app or site. When asked why, just under a quarter said it was because one account was just for parents and families to see, while a similar proportion said that one account was for close friends and one was for everyone else. Meanwhile, 13% of eight to 17-year-olds who had more than one profile said that one account was for the “real me” and another contained edited, filtered posts or photos. Those statistics tell us an awful lot.
Children themselves are concerned about their time online. An Ofcom report last year showed that young adults were less likely than older people to think they had a good balance between their online and offline lives. Another Ofcom survey showed that children’s concern about their time online increases with age. Indeed, last year the Children’s Commissioner published a brilliant report on the “Big Ambition” survey, in which she spoke to more than 367,000 children. The survey found that staying safe online was a huge issue and priority for many young people.
We must remember that young people want to be consulted and involved in the discussion and solutions. It is not just about us telling them what is right, and it is not about the tech companies telling them what is right: it is about involving young people in the solutions. That is why the ongoing inquiry into youth violence and social media by the Youth Parliament is so important. I urge young people throughout the country to participate in the inquiry by sharing their experiences on social media, and I keenly await the publication of the inquiry’s findings.
Behind each of the statistics I have cited are young people, their peers and their families. I have heard from some of those parents and young people in my constituency, and I thank the 465 people in Twickenham who signed the petition. I also speak as the mother of two young children. I have a six-year-old and a 10-year-old, and the 10-year-old is desperately begging her parents every single day for a smartphone. Some of her friends already have their own YouTube channel. We are trying to delay as long as we can—hopefully until some time into her secondary schooling—before we give her a phone. I know, as a parent and from hearing from other parents and young people in my constituency, that we as legislators have a responsibility to act.
I am afraid it was after many years of delay that the Conservative Government introduced the Online Safety Act. The Liberal Democrats welcomed a number of the measures in the Act as an important step forward, and we support its swift implementation. Empowering coroners to obtain information from online services about a deceased child’s online activity was a significant step in the right direction but, as we have heard so powerfully today, there is a strong case to be made for parents to be able to access data after their child is deceased. That provision should be made retrospective as well. As others have pointed out, the data Bill provides an ideal opportunity to explore such a change and how it could work.
However, measures often come too late, and too many young people’s lives have been tragically lost already. We cannot afford to delay before we take some sort of action, and there is much more we can do to protect our children and young people online by putting in place more guardrails, as others have described them. Social media companies must do more to enforce their existing minimum-age requirements, using the latest age-verification technology. They must do more to create age-appropriate digital environments and increase transparency in their data practices. Ofcom should do more to use the full powers of the Online Safety Act, including looking at the harms caused by the functionality and design of social media, as well as the content.
After meeting organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation, 5Rights and the Molly Rose Foundation, it is clear to me that we must push for not just strong regulation but safety by design. We must recognise that children and teenagers are particularly vulnerable to the dangers of the online world. Cyber-bullying, exposure to harmful content and online prejudices are just a few of the threats they face. Both the Government and the social media companies must do much more to protect children from harmful content and activity online. I would like to hear what the Government are doing to work with Ofcom to ensure that children are protected during the transition period.
We must also be mindful of the importance of privacy and trust. There are good reasons why parents cannot access children’s data while they are alive. That is an important safeguard, and we have heard some of the reasons for having it. Adolescence is a time of exploration and self-discovery, and young people need space to express themselves freely. However, that safeguard relies on children being kept safe online, which is patently not currently the case, so Ofcom and social media companies need to do much more on that front. Any measures that we implement must strike a delicate balance between safeguarding children and respecting their right to privacy.
Education is crucial to achieving that balance. Schools need to teach children about online dangers and how to use the internet and social media safely and responsibly. Parents must also be empowered to protect our children online—I say that as a parent who feels like I am way behind my younger children—including through digital literacy education and advice and support on best practice. Dare I say, although this is not necessarily a politically expedient thing to say, that we parents also have a lot of responsibility over how much time we allow our children to spend online and what devices we give them access to. It is hard when our children face so much peer pressure, but we need to take responsibility too.
The Education Committee report last year, “Screen time: impacts on education and wellbeing”, also called for education, as well as a cross-Government, holistic approach. It said:
“Government should work across departments including DHSC, DSIT, Education and the Home Office to produce guidance for parents on how to best manage and understand the impact of screen time on their children.”
I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that point. That is why the Liberal Democrats are also calling on the Government to create an independent children’s online safety advocate, as called for by the NSPCC, which would act like a consumer watchdog to promote and protect children’s interests. We must ensure that proper safeguards are in place and that children are not just protected from online harms but empowered to exercise their digital rights.
This petition on parental access to children’s social media accounts highlights a critical issue that demands our attention. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, we must prioritise the safety and wellbeing of our children. By implementing thoughtful and balanced measures, we can protect our young people from the dangers of the online world while respecting their right to privacy. Let us move forward with compassion, determination and a commitment to creating a safer digital future for our children. Thank you, and with apologies, Sir Desmond.
Internet Service Providers and Suicide-related Content
Munira Wilson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. My constituent David Parfett has been in the news speaking about his son Tom, who sadly took his own life following his visits to a very harmful site—quite possibly the same one that the hon. Gentleman is talking about—that promotes how people can take their own lives. He sourced poison that way and took his own life. There are 97 Britons who have lost their lives after using this website. We need to take action on these very small but very harmful websites. The Online Safety Act contains a provision for such websites to be included in category 1, the most highly regulated category, yet the illegal harms code published yesterday does not include them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a massive oversight, and that these websites should be included in category 1?
Richard Burgon
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will mention her constituent’s horrific experience later in my speech. I agree that there is much further to go to ensure that the Online Safety Act does what it needs to do to protect as many people as possible.
Of this website, Joe’s sister-in-law Melanie said yesterday on social media that
“the problem with these websites is that they are accessed by people at their most vulnerable and children. I’m Joe’s sister in law and I know Joe would still be here if he hadn’t accessed that website because the method he used is only discussed there he wouldn’t have known any other way. These sites are run by people who prey on the vulnerable and say they too are going to end their life but 4 years later they are still here doing the same thing pushing methods. We are never going to end suicide, but we know that so many people can be helped.”
The BBC investigation identified one of the creators of the site, and tracked him down to his home in Huntsville, Alabama in the US. He was doorstepped by the BBC reporter and he refused to answer any questions, but an account associated with this creator of the site issued defiant responses about the UK’s wanting to block the site.
As part of its investigation a year ago, the BBC contacted internet service providers, as did Joe’s sister-in-law and his mother. Sky Broadband, for example, responded by saying that it had blocked the site. Catherine and Melanie said at the time:
“It’s really important to us both, as it means access is becoming limited to prevent others…finding it—which is a step in the right direction.”
The hon. Member mentioned her constituent David Parfett, and David’s son Tom was 22 when he ended his own life in 2021 after accessing this site. Responding to Sky Broadband’s decision as an internet service provider a year ago to block this site, Mr Parfett said:
“It made me cry. It’s pure relief, mixed with anger that Tom may still be here if”
it
“had been regulated two years ago. My sole aim has been to stop other people being influenced to take their own life.”
Responding to a defiant response from the site linked to the founder of the website, Mr Parfett added:
“These people encourage others to die and celebrate death”.
In a statement at the time, Ofcom told BBC News—this was just over a year ago—about the then Online Safety Bill:
“If services don’t comply, we’ll have a broad range of enforcement powers at our disposal to ensure they’re held accountable”.
In a recent Westminster Hall debate, I intervened on the Minister about this, and I congratulated the internet service providers Sky and Three on taking action to block access to this site. The Minister very helpfully welcomed that intervention, and made the important point that
“internet providers do not have to wait for the Act to be enacted; they can start making such changes now.”
She went on to say that
“the Online Safety Act…is a landmark Act, but it is also imperfect. Ofcom’s need to consult means a long lead-in time; although it is important to get these matters right, that can often feel frustrating.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 250WH.]
It is right that internet service providers do the right thing and take responsibility.
Just as Joe’s family have been contacting internet service providers, so have I. I very much welcome the fact that Three has responded to representations by blocking this site, which I will not name, as has Sky. Other responses were not quite as positive or as practical. Vodafone responded by saying that the site is blocked
“where customers have adult content filters enabled”.
BT responded by saying that
“our fixed network level broadband parental control settings for all ages block the site”.
The response from Virgin Media O2 concerned me, and I want to put it on the record. It originally came back to me saying that it would block the site if a court order told it to. We need to be clear that it is not impressive to say, “If a court tells us to do something, we will do it.” A court order is a court order, and companies have no choice other than to comply. Virgin Media O2 also referred to people changing settings so that they cannot access this site. Virgin Media O2 needs to get real. Somebody who is in the mindset of considering taking their own life—somebody who is struggling to control that impulse—is not likely to disable the setting to stop themselves from looking at it.
Feryal Clark
Every site, whether it has five users or 500 million users, will have to proactively remove illegal content, such as content where there is proven intent of encouraging someone to end their life. Ofcom has also set up a “small but risky” supervision taskforce to ensure that smaller forums comply with new measures, and it is ready to take enforcement action if they do not do so. The Government understand that just one person seeing this kind of content could mean one body harmed, one life ended, and one family left grieving.
Munira Wilson
The problem is that the sites that the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) referred to—and there are many others like them—do not necessarily fall into the illegal category, although they still have extremely dangerous and harmful content. Despite a cross-party vote in Parliament to include in the Online Safety Act these very small and very dangerous sites in category 1, there has been a proactive decision to leave them out of the illegal harms codes, which were published yesterday. Can the Minister put on record exactly why that is? Why can these sites not be included in that category? There is all sorts of content glamourising suicide, self-harm, eating disorders and other hate speech that is being promoted by these small sites. They should be regulated to a high level.
Feryal Clark
Based on research regarding the likely impact of user numbers and functionalities, category 1 is about easy, quick and wide dissemination of regulated user-generated content. As Melanie Dawes set out in her letter to the Secretary of State in September, Ofcom has established a “small but risky” supervision task, as I mentioned, to manage and enforce compliance among smaller services. It has the power to impose significant penalties and, as I say, to take remedial action against non-compliant services. As the hon. Member for Leeds East mentioned earlier, the Online Safety Act is one of the biggest steps that Government have taken on online safety, but it is imperfect. It is an iterative process, and it will be kept under review.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, and for bringing to our memory Joe Nihill and those like him, who turned to the internet for help and were met with harm. On his final point, on the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act, we will continue to engage with all providers in this space. I am confident that these measures are a big step in making tech companies play their part in wiping out those harms and making the internet a safer place for us all. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of an outstanding question. I do not know whether he has gone to the wrong Department, but I will commit to looking up that question and ensuring that he receives a response to it.
With that, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and wish you and the whole House a very happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue? The law does require duty holders to assess whether asbestos is present, what condition it is in and whether it gives rise to a risk of exposure, and they must draw up a plan to manage that risk, which must include removal if it cannot be safely managed where it is located, but I commend her for her continued campaigning on this important issue.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister
It was just last week that it was clear that only one party will protect the environment, and that is the Conservative party. That is why we have given the Environment Agency more powers of enforcement, that is why we are moving to unlimited fines, and that is why we have a clear plan to increase investment and increase monitoring of sewage overflows. It was the rank cynicism and hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats that they could not even show up to support those plans.
Oral Answers to Questions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The Speaker’s Committee has not had discussions with the Electoral Commission on the matter referred to. The commission will publish a full report on how the May elections were delivered. That will cover how voters found taking part and any lessons that can be learned for the future. As part of that process, the commission will examine evidence about how the new voter ID requirement was implemented. It will collect data from every local authority that held elections, including about the number of voters who did not bring an accepted form of ID to the polling station and were therefore unable to vote.
Cat Smith
My hon. Friend, who is a seasoned campaigner and is familiar with the scenes outside polling stations, has identified the potential gap in the data. Of course, polling station staff will not be able to collect data from people who do not go into the polling station. However, the commission has identified that as a potential issue and will undertake public opinion research on the reasons why people did or did not vote in the elections.
Munira Wilson
The new voter ID regulations have removed from millions of people across the country the right to vote unobstructed, and local authorities are already reporting a number of problems in implementing them. If we cannot collect accurate data on how many people are turned away, there is a risk that results may be challenged, undermining trust in our democracy. Does the hon. Lady agree that the plans should be halted for the May elections and scrapped altogether?
Cat Smith
It is clear that the issue of elections being challenged in electoral courts would be a matter for the courts, not the commission. The commission is doing everything possible to ensure that the polls are delivered as successfully as possible and to the highest standard. There does remain the established petition process to challenge the result of elections in the circumstances that the hon. Lady identifies.