Online Harm: Child Protection

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House makes provision as set out in this Order:

(1) On Monday 9 March 2026:

(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply;

(b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;

(c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);

(d) at 6.00pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the leader of the second largest opposition party or another Member on their behalf to move the order of the day that the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill be now read a second time;

(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time;

(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.

(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (19) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.

Timetable for the Bill on Monday 9 March 2026

(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Monday 9 March 2026 in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 8.00pm.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 10.00pm.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Monday 9 March 2026

(4) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme Order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by The Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;

(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order.

(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day

(8) If on any future sitting day any Message on the Bill (other than a Message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any Message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that Message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded.

(9) On any day on which such a Message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that Message—

(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;

(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;

(c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.

(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:

(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;

(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted—

“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.

(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.

Reasons Committee

(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.

Miscellaneous

(13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.

(14) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(15) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply.

(18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.

(19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—

(a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and

(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party.

This afternoon is an opportunity for the House to come together to take urgent and meaningful action and to legislate within weeks—not months or years, but weeks—to keep our children and young people safe online, whether that is protection from harmful social media, artificial intelligence chatbots or addictive gaming. It is clear that we are at a tipping point, with widespread public and cross-party support for decisive action.

Every parent across this country knows the threat that social media poses to our children—to their mental health, to their physical health, to their sleep and to their concentration. They have written in their thousands to every single MP in this House—I want to take this opportunity to thank the 1,500 or so parents and carers in my Twickenham constituency who have written to me—and they are begging for a change in the law, so that they can better protect their children. They are not abdicating parental responsibility, as some people would like to suggest; they are pleading with the Government for help in providing the tools and safeguards that they need when faced with the might and the business models of enormous tech companies profiteering from our children’s attention.

For me, this is personal. My husband and I fight a daily battle at home with our children, aged 11 and seven, on screen time and what platforms and games they can access. Peer pressure is overwhelming for children—especially those just starting out on their secondary school journey, as my daughter recently has—who are desperate for belonging and connection. Parents are torn between wanting to ensure that our children are not left out of online spaces, which all too often we ourselves struggle to understand, and wanting to protect our children.

I believe that it is time we sent this message, loud and clear, to Musk, Zuckerberg and the other tech giants: “If your platform spreads harmful content or relies on addictive and harmful algorithms, you should not be allowed anywhere near our children.” That is why the Liberal Democrats have today introduced a Bill that would provide a range of protections for children from online harms, including the restriction of access to harmful social media.

Before I describe what we would ideally want to include in the Bill, let me emphasise that if the House were to support the motion, we would seek to work on a cross-party basis to introduce workable and effective legislation quickly, given that there is support for action across the House. This is not about one party winning or owning the issue; it is about us—as politicians, policymakers and parents—coming together to protect our children, their safety and their wellbeing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank and commend the hon. Lady for initiating the debate, and for her devotion to this subject. Does she agree that we should consider education and the role of school principals? In Northern Ireland the Education Minister, Paul Givan, has introduced a pilot scheme on phone-free schools, and I have held an event in my constituency to discuss that very issue. The aim is to prevent children from being harassed while at school, and from understanding things that they should not be understanding or doing. Does the hon. Lady agree that phone-free schools to help our children should be part of the policy and part of what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do?

[Munira Wilson]

It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is the first to intervene in the debate, and I entirely agree with him. I will touch on the point about phones in schools later, and I believe that we will have a chance to vote on that specific measure shortly, when the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to this House.

As I have said, we want to approach this legislation in a cross-party way, but let me now turn to what the Liberal Democrats would ideally like to see in it.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making her case very personally and passionately, describing the harms to young people’s mental health that result from the predatory algorithms that the tech giants have devised to create addictive content for children. I, too, think that there is cross-party agreement on the need to look very carefully at how we protect children. Today I was on a call with members of the campaign group “36 Months”, discussing how they are approaching the issue in Australia. Does she agree, however, that the right approach is to have a full public consultation—as has been proposed—so that parents, schools and the rest of us can get this right, learning from evidence and learning from places such as Australia in order to protect our kids?

[Munira Wilson]

I hope the hon. Lady will not mind if I call her my hon. Friend, although we are on opposite sides of the House. I thank her for her intervention, and I take her point, which I have also heard the Government express. I agree that we need to consult, but I think we should be consulting on how we implement some of these proposals, not on whether we do or what we do, because there is clearly a general consensus. When we look at the findings of every opinion poll—certainly when it comes to such measures as banning social media for under-16s—we see overwhelming public support. There is also cross-party support in this House and, as we have seen recently, in the other place. For me, if there is a consultation, it should be about how those things are implemented and not whether we do that or which ones we implement. However, I will touch on the Government’s approach towards the end of my speech.

We Liberal Democrats would introduce a film-style classification system, with social media rated at 16 as a default, and give Ofcom the powers to back up such a framework. That echoes the film and video classification system established in the 1980s, adapting a trusted framework for the digital age. Companies would be required to age-gate their platforms based on the harmfulness of their content, the addictiveness of their design and the impact that that can have on a child’s mental health. The onus would be on social media companies to stop children getting on to their platforms and to take steps to make their apps safer in the meantime.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sympathetic to all the hon. Lady’s arguments. However, it appears that we are about to have a Second Reading debate on an as yet unpublished Bill, when the motion on the Order Paper is about whether we have a day for that Second Reading debate. I am conscious, because I have been to the Vote Office, that the Bill is not available yet. What are we debating this afternoon? If we were to vote with the hon. Lady this evening, what Bill would we be asked to look at on that future day?

[Munira Wilson]

It is simple. As I have said, I want us to come together in a cross-party consensus on what should be in that Bill. I have heard what the Conservatives have had to say, I am about to set out what the Liberal Democrats have to say and I am keen to hear what Ministers have to say on what should be in the Bill. We do not have a Bill yet because we think there is an opportunity to work together on this issue.

There have been suggestions that there is party politicking on this issue. I do not think it is a party political issue; I think we all agree that children’s safety and wellbeing is a cross-party priority. The idea is that we agree to move forward, come together and work cross-party on a Bill which, hopefully, we can get through Parliament very quickly and on to the statute book to start protecting our children as soon as possible.

[Gareth Snell]

I do not wish to make this a procedural debate, but the hon. Lady presented a Bill earlier for First Reading. We have been asked to consider that Bill for Second Reading on a future date. That Bill is not available. Although I absolutely respect her approach for a cross-party consensus to design the Bill, as I understand it the Bill is already written and we are being asked to give over Government time for that to be debated on Second Reading. Again, what are we debating today if the Bill is not available but has been written and we will not have a Second Reading debate until sometime in March?

[Munira Wilson]

We are debating today the principle of bringing forward legislation quickly. I know that the Government are saying that they want to bring forward legislation sometime in the future. We do not know when that is. I am trying to put a timeframe on it, because we know that what will come back shortly from the other place in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will not be accepted by this House. That is why I am trying to find an opportunity for us all to come together and get to a point that we all agree on. This is about agreeing the principle that we should have primary legislation sooner rather than later. I am happy to make time in my diary tomorrow to start those discussions.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes a passionate case and spoke movingly about the debate in her own family and how to protect her children. I recognise that. I have two young children and I think carefully about what they look at online. I worry about when they get older and how we will deal with that.

The hon. Lady talks about age-gating as the principle on which she wants to work, but I am concerned. We know that the algorithms are addictive and that they reinforce people’s worst prejudices. What evidence is there that that stops at 16? Is she not concerned that simply focusing on age-gating will diminish the pressure on social media companies to open up the algorithms so that we can have a look at how they affect society more generally?

[Munira Wilson]

I have not said that we should focus only on age-gating; as I continue through my speech, the hon. Gentleman will hear about the range of other things that I think should be in any legislation that is brought forward—quickly—to protect our children. The age-gating of certain platforms based on their harmfulness, which would be a key principle and part of the legislation, is part of our proposals, but so are various other things that I will talk about in terms of tackling the addictiveness of algorithms that is so damaging to our children.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I wanted to ask the hon. Lady about the register and the ranking of age-appropriateness for content. We have sat opposite each other on many occasions discussing this matter. I have grave concerns about who will register those individual self-published bits of content and who will manage it and pay for it, and how it would actually work in practice.

[Munira Wilson]

I was about to expand further on that before I took the two preceding interventions. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to continue and, if I have not addressed her concerns, she can intervene on me again.

Ofcom would be given the powers to force platforms that do not want to play ball to do so or to face serious consequences. We believe that that would mean a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. Family friendly services such as Wikipedia or Tripadvisor would be available at a lower age, as those sites fall under the current user-to-user definition in the Online Safety Act. We know, however, that even 16 could be too young to access the most harmful of sites—those that host violence and pornography—which is why our proposals would allow what we think are really harmful platforms, such as X, to be age-gated up to 18.

A harms-based approach, like the one we are proposing today, is supported by 42 charities including the likes of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation and others, and would protect children from the worst of the web without breaking the parts of the internet that families actually rely on. Crucially, it is future-proofed and could be applied to chatbots, games and other emerging technologies.

I welcome the fact that the Conservatives’ Opposition day motion a few weeks ago, which we were unable to debate, moved towards the Liberal Democrats’ nuanced approach to keeping under-16s aways from “harmful” social media. I hope that the Conservatives will be able to support our motion today and this approach going forward, despite the fact that they were unfortunately unable to do so in the other place just a month ago.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is right that we did table an Opposition day motion in Conservative time on this subject, but the difference between our motion and the Liberal Democrat motion is that ours contained proposals. This afternoon, she is asking us not to debate a motion on the topic in the title of the Bill, but merely to give the Liberal Democrats control of the Order Paper on 9 March. Why did she not choose to bring forward a Bill, allow the House to look at her proposals and have a solid, principled debate on it before she asked us to give her control of the Order Paper on 9 March?

[Munira Wilson]

While the House would be giving me, or the Liberal Democrats, control of the Order Paper, I have made it abundantly clear that we would work together to bring forward legislation—[Interruption.] The Conservatives have proposals; the Government are consulting on something, although I am not quite sure what, because they have not published the consultation yet. We put forward proposals in the other place that the hon. Gentleman’s party unfortunately chose not to support. However, I do not think we are that far apart.

We have published proposals in the other place and would use those as a basis for discussion. The Technology Secretary has already told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) that she would happily work with us on our proposals. There are proposals out there in the public domain. This is about the principle of legislating soon and quickly to bring forward legislation that we can all agree on to protect our children.

[Paul Holmes]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again, because I have to push this point. She has outlined that her party has published proposals in the other place, but her party is called the Liberal Democrats—this is the democratically elected Chamber, and we should be debating a proposed Bill from the Liberal Democrats on their Opposition day. I agree with her that we need urgent legislation. Why is she depriving Members across the House of detailed proposals that we could vote on and instead asking the House through a procedural motion to give her party control of the Order Paper on 9 March?

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

All I can do is repeat myself: I know that if I had published all these things that I am laying out as a piece of legislation, Members on both sides of the House would probably have voted it down. I have told the House that I am happy to come forward in the spirit of co-operation to draft something together—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Munira Wilson]

I am going to try to move on now—[Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, because I think we have now tested the procedural approach to death.

It is important that we reach consensus on our approach and reject the unworkable blanket bans that have been proposed elsewhere that put enormous powers in the hands of an individual politician. I do not think any Reform Members are here in the Chamber, but given that Reform wants to scrap the Online Safety Act altogether, I shudder to think what future Ministers might deem acceptable if they were allowed to choose what our children and young people could access, which the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill coming from the other place would allow the Secretary of State to do.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

In among the discussions around procedure, which are important in this place, I fear that we are missing the nub of what my hon. Friend is trying to get to, which is that this is a nuanced space. This is not a blanket “we say no to everything”. Some people are arguing that we should do nothing, and that it should just be down to parents to deal with it. Does she agree that the thoughtful way that she is putting this across, trying to get us all to come together around this issue with the public, is how we will create something that is future-proof? So much of legislation in this area involves chasing our tails, but this is an opportunity for us to get ahead of it, for once.

[Munira Wilson]

That is indeed what we are trying to do. Putting forward a blanket ban on a particular list of social media sites determined by any Secretary of State at any given point in time is necessarily acting after the fact. That is not future-proof or particularly effective, and it is subject to politicisation. That is why our harms-based approach, which I want to negotiate to get into legislation soon, would be future-proof and work to act on things such as chatbots and games. I know from the discussions we have at home how addictive games such as Roblox can be, for instance.

We Liberal Democrats have long been pressing for a suite of measures that would make the online world safer and healthier for all. One measure that could be implemented overnight would be to ban tech companies from profiting from our children’s attention by raising the age of digital data consent from 13 to 16. This would end the hold that addictive algorithms have on children.

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is making excellent points on the substance, but they bear no resemblance to the motion on the Order Paper. Are you able to give me guidance on what is up for debate this afternoon? Can the hon. Lady point me to where what she is debating sits in the motion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The motion is to give consideration to a Bill on the specific matter which has been outlined clearly on the Order Paper: “Protections for children from online harms”. I reassure the hon. Lady that any contribution she chooses to make on that matter would be in order.

[Munira Wilson]

What I am setting out is what I would want to put forward as suggestions for the Bill. As you have helpfully pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will be dividing on whether there should be a Bill very soon on the broad subject of protecting children from online harms.

The other measure I would want to bring forward in any legislation is a doomscrolling cap, which would end the infinite scroll feature on short-form online platforms for young people, limiting the amount of time for which children are pushed to TikTok-style video content to two hours. I would also want to see health alerts on social media platforms for under-18s. Just like cigarettes and alcohol, these addictive products carry well-documented risks, especially for young people. The evidence is clear that excessive use of these apps exposes children to mental health issues, anxiety and sleep disruption, and causes real harm to attention spans. Do they not deserve to know that? When we pick up a packet of cigarettes, we expect to be told about the harm that product will pose to our health, so why is social media—a key driver of the crisis in our young people’s mental health—any different?

Given that young people themselves say they want a break from the stress of social media at school, and given the impact of phones on children’s concentration and focus, will the Education Secretary finally listen to her own Children’s Minister and put the Government’s guidance on mobile phones in schools into law to give teachers and headteachers the back-up and, crucially, the resources they need to restrict their use? That is also something that could be part of this Bill if the Government refuse to accept the amendment that will be coming from the other place to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

I recognise that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has announced a consultation on children’s online safety and that she will be tabling an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to enable further legislation to come forward on something at some point in the future—all as yet to be determined. Frankly, the Government are kicking the can down the road.

Baroness Kidron in the other place, who is an expert and campaigner on children’s safety online, said the Government’s consultation

“does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research or while they are being investigated. The consultation is entirely focused on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its Back-Benchers might agree to. The consultation’s purpose is to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance; it is about party management. The UK’s children deserve better than that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2026; Vol. 852, c. 318.]

Those are not my words; they are the words of the esteemed Cross-Bench peer Baroness Kidron in the other place.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I had understood that the hon. Member’s party was keen on public consultation, and there is clearly a lot of public concern about the very real problem of online harms and the need to protect children. I am therefore puzzled by the fact that she is seeking to control the parliamentary agenda in just a couple of weeks’ time with rushed-through legislation and without any substantive proposals or consultation. If she is concerned about the scope of the consultation the Government have announced, why not try to amend that scope? Why not emphasise the importance of parents in particular having their voices heard rather than rushing through legislation that will probably be quite flawed if there is not sufficient time to ensure that everybody’s voices are heard in this conversation? It feels like politicking, to be honest, rather than a substantive engagement with the details of the issue.

[Munira Wilson]

I am sorry the hon. Member feels that way. We have brought forward a lot of these proposals previously. It is not politicking; we have long been committed to this issue. A number of these things could be done tomorrow. They do not need to be consulted on. The age of digital data consent could be raised tomorrow without any further consultation. There was flexibility in European law on the age it was set at and the UK chose to set it at 13. A number of other countries have recently raised the age. Unfortunately, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill to do just that was rejected. The bit that probably needs consultation is how any ban or restriction on harmful social media would work, but we could legislate for the principle and consult on the operational detail. I do not think that is a problem.

On the hon. Member’s point about making sure that the voices of parents and young people are heard, I think they have been heard loud and clear up and down the country. They have been pushing and pushing for this. They are concerned that the consultation will just delay action further. Parents, teachers and young people are crying out for urgent action now. We need a smart approach that allows young people to benefit from the best of the internet—whether that is learning or staying connected to their friends and family online—while properly tackling the harms it can cause.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Member give way briefly on that point?

[Munira Wilson]

I have given way to the hon. Member a couple of times. I am just about to finish.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am confused about what the Liberal Democrats’ proposals are. The proposals laid out by the hon. Lady are not those introduced in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, only user-to-user services were talked about, not addictive online gaming, for example. Are we discussing a Bill containing the proposals laid out in the House of Lords, or is the hon. Member putting forward new, ethereal proposals? I do not understand what this Bill is going to be. I was expecting to actually see it so that we could discuss it today.

[Munira Wilson]

The harms-based framework that we proposed in the other place would apply to chatbots and gaming as well. The point is that, as I have already laid out, we would come together and come forward with proposals that we can all agree on.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Member give way? I want to help her out.

[Munira Wilson]

I am very grateful that the hon. Member wishes to help me out, but I suspect that he does not have my best interests at heart. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Oh, go on; I am happy to take his intervention.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is being characteristically courteous in giving way, and I always have her best interests at heart. She is right to say that people are keen to be heard loud and clear, and she is rightly setting out her position about legislation she wants to see before the House. However, if she thinks that people have been heard loud and clear, can she tell the House whether the things she has outlined today are in a drafted Bill, sitting in a safe somewhere within Liberal Democrat HQ, and why she chose not to publish that this afternoon so that we could have a principled debate on her policy proposals?

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

No, I will not give way; I would not expect the hon. Member to help me out.

At various points, we have tabled all the things I have mentioned as amendments in both Houses, so they have been drafted—although I am happy to admit that they have not been put together in one Bill for me to present today. I apologise on that procedural point, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I can see has upset many Members, but all the proposals that I have outlined have been tabled in both Houses as amendments to various Bills, including the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

To reiterate, the only consultation that we should focus on now ought to relate to how the restrictions might work in practice, not whether they are needed at all—the public and campaign groups have made their views on that pretty clear already, whether they support or oppose a blanket ban. Although I have been criticised for coming forward without a Bill, the whole point was to say, “Let’s work together,” because I think there is cross-party consensus on this matter.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

There seems to be great confusion in the Chamber, even though the Liberal Democrats have time and again set out our proposals quite clearly in different places. I find it fascinating that the official Opposition accuse us of politicking when they probably agree with the substance of our proposals. They are contorting themselves to find a way not to support the motion, which is about urgency and acting more swiftly than the Government propose to do—I, for one, think that is a good thing.

[Munira Wilson]

Discussing the substance of the issue is exactly what we are seeking to do. It has been a long time since this Chamber has had a proper debate on these issues. In a few weeks’ time, we will discuss amendments that suggest individual parties’ views on the way forward. We are proposing a discussion on what the proposals should be so that we can return with a piece of legislation that meets the needs and requirements of the public—our children and young people, and their parents and carers.

We Liberal Democrats say to Ministers and the official Opposition that we have a set of solutions, and we will work with them in the best interests of children. We need to act now, so they should vote with us today and make time for this Bill on the legislative agenda. If the Government do not want to make time for our Bill, perhaps they will make time for one of their own, but we need one quickly. We stand ready to work across parties to create the safer future that our children deserve—

[Anna Dixon]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Munira Wilson]

I was just about to end my remarks, but I will give way.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the hon. Member—I will call her my friend, as she gave way to me on the last sentence of her speech. She has made a powerful case for cross-party working, hearing different perspectives and bringing forward change quickly, but that is the point of consultation: to find out how we should do something, get the views of parents, schools and everyone else, and come out with something that will be effective in the long term. The Online Safety Act 2023 took far too many years, while this proposal bounces us into something when we are not even sure of what we are voting for. I say with huge respect for her that we should use the consultation process.

[Munira Wilson]

I say gently that although the Prime Minister has promised us legislation at some point following consultation, it would be secondary legislation, which gets far less scrutiny than primary legislation, and I am afraid that his track record for U-turning on commitments is not great—let’s face it. I have tried to be as consensual as possible and not make political jibes, but we have had 14 U-turns. He said just a few months ago that he did not want to bring in any sort of ban on harmful social media for under-16s because of the experience of his teenagers, but he made a speech last week in which he said that, because of his teenagers, he did want to do so. I am not sure which version of his comments to believe. I would like to press this issue so that the Government introduce legislation sooner rather than later. I think it needs to be primary legislation so that we can discuss it, debate it, amend it and look at it thoughtfully, and we need a clear and strong timetable for it.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Munira Wilson]

I will take one final intervention.

[Joy Morrissey]

We all want to find a solution to online harms—we would not be in this debate if we did not care about protecting children—but the way to do that is through a long consultation period outside the Chamber before we come forward with a Bill. Procedurally, this is not the way that we debate Bills, assess their merit or take them through the stages of becoming law. If the Liberal Democrats want to take this seriously, they should use the correct procedure for taking forward a Bill. We should all be able to debate it. There should be a long consultation process, and then we can take it forward together.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention about procedure. I say to her gently that her party and others have in the past used this mechanism to try to force Governments to introduce legislation on various issues.

[Joy Morrissey]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Munira Wilson]

I will not give way again, because I think we have tested this argument to death. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about procedure, but this mechanism is not unheard of. The Labour party did something similar on fracking a few years ago when Liz Truss was Prime Minister. I remember it well—I was in this place, as was the hon. Lady—and we voted on that. There was no substance, but Labour wanted to bring forward legislation.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Munira Wilson]

I am about to come to an end.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a procedural question. Given that the long title of the Bill is not in the motion, does that mean that the Bill can effectively cover any subject or theme if the Order Paper is seized on that day?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further point of order. Clarification on that point had best be sought from the Public Bill Office. It is my understanding that any Bill brought forward will have to cover online services age restriction, but I appreciate the distinction that he makes between the long and the short titles.

[Munira Wilson]

I am perplexed, because I think there is support on both sides of the House for restricting online harms and protecting our children, and for the principle of bringing forward legislation, although I understand that people are vexed about the procedural point. I fear that there has been some contorting to find a way to justify voting against this motion. I am sorry that that is the case, because we Liberal Democrats are ready to work in a cross-party manner to create the safer future that our children deserve so that they can flourish and thrive in the online and offline worlds. I hope colleagues across the Chamber will support us.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members might be jaded by my making this point of order, but I am grateful to you for allowing me to do so; as a democrat, I like this Chamber to work properly. Will you clarify the procedural basis of the request by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for the Government to make time for the Bill? I ask this because if the motion is accepted, the Government will not be able to pick a time for the legislation; instead the Liberal Democrats would take over the Order Paper and force the Government to accept their legislation on 9 March, with the procedures that are outlined.

May I also ask your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the motion? It would make a number of amendments to the Order Paper on that day, including that

“No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies...

The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.”,

and that only a “designated Member” would be able to make any decision about the order in which a Bill was to be taken. In subsection 19 that designated Member is

“(a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and

(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party.”

Despite the protestations of the Liberal Democrats that they want this to be a cross-party approach, this is them taking over the Order Paper and giving their leader carte blanche to table what they like on 9 March. It does not give the Government the opportunity to table legislation on a cross-party basis at a timing of their choosing—it has to happen under the jurisdiction of the Liberal Democrat motion, does it not?

Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is a powerful champion on this issue. I am a feminist; I believe in deeds, not words. The deeds and the action will provide the proof that the very tough legislation already in place must be implemented—British rule of law. Ofcom needs to act, and swiftly.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements. She rightly set out the abhorrent and criminal nature of the content being created through Grok. As well as being subjected to that abuse, our children are being exposed to harmful content not just on X, but on many social media platforms—together with AI chatbots that never sleep, doomscrolling and addictive gaming. Children and young people, and their parents, are crying out for further action. I implore the Secretary of State to finally consider raising the digital age of data consent to stop big tech companies profiteering from our children’s attention. She opposed that when we proposed it last year for the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, but next week we will have another chance in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the other place.

[Liz Kendall]

Opposition Members, and many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, have called for a ban on social media for the under-16s. That is not currently the Government’s policy, but I will always be driven by the evidence. I am closely monitoring the evidence, including where similar action has been taken in other countries. We are very concerned about screen time, and today we have announced that for the first time ever we will have new guidelines for screen use for the under-fives. We are very worried, including from recent evidence, that children under two who have the highest levels of screen time are struggling more with language. We are determined to take action, but I will always be driven by the evidence.

United States Film Tariff

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

That is a very fair point; I am happy to do that.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I am deeply proud that St Margarets in my constituency has been home to Twickenham Film Studios for over 100 years. The studios have been involved in production and post-production work for big-name films including “The Italian Job” and “Ghandi”, and most recently they did the Oscar-winning sound production for “Top Gun: Maverick”. However, they have been beset by financial challenges, from the US writers’ strike to the sky-rocketing business rates mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The tariffs could deal a fatal blow to studios such as Twickenham. Can I urge the Minister, as others have, to work with the Treasury and the Valuation Office Agency on bringing down the rateable value of film studios? Can I also invite him to follow in the footsteps of Tom Cruise and come to St Margarets to visit Twickenham Film Studios?

[Chris Bryant]

The thing is, Tom Cruise does all his own stunts, doesn’t he? I am a little bit nervous about being dangled off the back of a helicopter or dumped in a vat of—I don’t know. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says he will happily arrange it. Well, then, I invite him to see the Rhondda tunnel; we can dangle him down a hole as well.

The hon. Lady is making a point that has been made several times. Tom Cruise is one of the biggest investors in the UK because of all the movies that have been made here, and we are very grateful to him. The British Film Institute will be honouring him next week, and I think that is really good. As I say, we are the best place in the world to make movies, and we want to continue that.

I feel very left out, not having a studio in my constituency, but we have produced some of the best actors in the world, including Sir Stanley Baker. I think one of his best films—you will know this, Mr Speaker—was “Sodom and Gomorrah”.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I agree with all the points the shadow Minister is making about keeping our children safe online, so why does new clause 19 only commit to a review of the digital age of data consent and raising the age from 13 to 16 for when parental consent is no longer required? Why does he not support the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 1 that would start to implement this change? We can still, through implementation, do all the things the hon. Gentleman proposes to do, so why the delay?

[Dr Spencer]

There are a few issues with new clause 1. One is the scope in terms of the definition of networking services and ensuring platforms such as WhatsApp are not captured within it. Looking at new clause 19, there are challenges to implementing in this area. There is no point in clicking our fingers and saying, “Let’s change the age of digital consent,” without understanding the barriers to implementation, and without understanding whether age verification can work in this context. We do not want to create a system and have people just get around it quite simply. We need the Government to do the work in terms of setting it up so that we can move towards a position of raising the age from 13 to 16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am going to come to the right hon. Member’s amendment in a moment.

The study is being led by Dr Amy Orben of Cambridge University, and it is supported by scientists from nine of the UK’s premier universities, all with established expertise in this field. The study will report to the Government this month on the existing evidence base, ongoing research and recommendations for future research that will establish any causal links between smartphones, social media and children’s wellbeing. The Government will publish the report along with the planned next steps to improve the evidence base in this area to support policy making. Considering the extra work we are doing, I hope Members will not press their amendments.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that I will not give way.

On new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), we share the concern that children’s data in education must be safeguarded. We have already committed to instructing the Information Commissioner’s Office to produce a statutory code of practice on the use of children’s data by edtech services once the findings of their audits have been published. We believe that defining the scope of the code in legislation now or imposing a six-month deadline for its publication risks undermining that evidence-led process.

Amendment 9, tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), seeks to ensure that platforms adopt strong age-assurance mechanisms when designing their services under the new children’s higher protection matters duty in clause 81. Of course, we subscribe to that policy aim, but the clause already strengthens UK GDPR by requiring providers of information society services to take account of how children can best be protected and supported when they are designing their processing activities. The ICO’s age-appropriate design code will be updated to provide clear and robust guidance on how services can meet these obligations, including through proportionate risk-based age assurance, where appropriate. I will take the right hon. Member’s intervention if he wants—he asked first—but I am afraid I have to be very careful because I have a lot of questions to answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Member makes a fair point.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am terribly sorry, but I do need to crack on because I have very little time.

I have not yet mentioned new clause 21 and amendments 39 and 40. Let me start by saying that the Government accept the Supreme Court ruling, but it is paramount that we work through this judgment carefully, with sensitivity and in line with the law. We cannot simply flick a switch; we must work through the impacts of this judgment properly, recognising that this is broader than data used by digital verification services. I reflect the comment made earlier by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), when he said that data accuracy is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

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

The House has worked incredibly hard to get the Bill to where it is today. It is a relief that after so many attempts to get this piece of legislation through, over such a long period of time and multiple Governments, we will finally get it across the line. I put on record my thanks to the people who have got us to where we are, including the Members from across the House who have contributed in sincere and passionate ways during today’s debate on Report, and now on Third Reading.

I also put on record my very sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), the Minister responsible. He has seen the Bill through assiduously, persistently, and with passion at all times to make sure that it passes through Parliament and is out there, benefiting the people of Britain. I thank him, and also officials in my Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There are certain officials who have been working on this Bill since 2022 and who have put their life and soul into it, often seven times a week. Their dedication to getting this piece of legislation through should be recognised by Members right across the House—it certainly is by me. I thank them very much.

I hope the House has noticed that the Government have tabled amendments to improve the Bill until the last moment. By making it an offence to request the creation of deepfake intimate images without consent and empowering the courts to deprive offenders of images and devices containing them, we will ensure consistency in our approach to protecting women and girls from that vile, demeaning form of abuse.

To conclude in the short time I have available, the Bill will make life better for working people right across our country.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Peter Kyle]

I am afraid that in the time I have, I cannot give way. I want to do the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak), the courtesy of allowing him to have his say in the remaining couple of minutes.

The Bill will give working people across our country a stronger economy, better public services, and more time to do the things they like with the people they love. I look forward to working with people, including hon. Members from across the House, to resolve as quickly as possible any outstanding issues that may arise after the Bill passes. The version of the Bill that is before us today is its third substantive iteration. It follows two failed attempts by the previous Government, the first of which started back in July 2022. It is time that we got this done; for far too long, our citizens and businesses have paid the price of the failure to deliver data reform, and we cannot expect them to put up with it any longer. Today, we have an opportunity to finally get it right. The Bill that is before us today will remove the brakes that are holding back our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising this issue again. Russia’s abduction of Ukrainian children is sickening—I think all of us across the House would agree on that. A peace settlement in Ukraine must see Russia held to account and those children reunited with their families. In specific reference to my hon. Friend’s question, the UK is playing our full part in international efforts, including funding the Bring Kids Back initiative through the partnership fund for a resilient Ukraine. I want to reassure the whole House that we will do everything we can to see those children returned and reintegrated as safely and quickly as is possible.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The seven-year-old adopted daughter of my constituent Sarah suffered immense trauma in her early years. Thanks to support from the adoption and special guardianship support fund, she has been able to access much-needed therapy that has helped her to progress. However, she and thousands of others do not know whether they will be able to get more help, because in just five days that fund ends, and Ministers have repeatedly refused to confirm whether it will continue. Can the Prime Minister give a cast-iron guarantee to vulnerable children, adoptive parents and kinship carers that he will not cut that fund, so that Sarah—in her own words—can give her daughter

“the absolute best second chance in life she deserves”?

[The Prime Minister]

We will set out the details just as soon as we can, on the basis of the principles that I set out earlier. The welfare scheme overall is not defendable on terms, but it must be one that supports those who need it. The details will be set out.

Children’s Social Media Accounts

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[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)]

Order.

[Munira Wilson]

I did ask your permission, Sir Desmond.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

No; all remarks are addressed to the Chair.

[Munira Wilson]

I just want to pay tribute.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Do, but do it 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

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[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)]

Q13. Nick swims regularly in the Thames at Shepperton, but after a recent dip, he found himself hospitalised with cellulitis for 13 days. His doctors think this was caused by polluted water. What caused that polluted water? Well, Thames Water dumped filthy sewage nearby just days earlier. Will the Prime Minister tell Nick and everybody else: why does he think that it is okay for water companies to keep polluting our rivers for another 25 years?

[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

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

1. Whether the committee has had discussions with the Electoral Commission on whether it plans to make an estimate of the number of voters turned away at polling stations for not having acceptable ID on 4 May 2023.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

4. Whether the committee has had discussions with the Electoral Commission on whether it plans to make an estimate of the number of voters turned away at polling stations for not having acceptable ID on 4 May 2023.

[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.