Internet Service Providers and Suicide-related Content

Debate between Richard Burgon and Scott Arthur

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I did not come here to speak, but he is discussing a key topic. As we move into Christmas, many of us are looking forward to it, but it can be a low time for people. I worry about people accessing this content and content around eating disorders. The question for any internet service provider—hopefully they are watching this debate—is, what possible justification can they have for continuing access to this site? Are they hiding behind freedom of speech? To me, there is a complete imbalance between the need to protect the rights of these young people and the wider freedom of speech argument.

[Richard Burgon]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. This is not a freedom of speech issue; this is a particular website linked to the deaths of 50 people in our country and many more worldwide.

In its reply, Virgin Media O2 also said that it was handling this matter through its partnership with the Internet Watch Foundation. I contacted the Internet Watch Foundation, and it replied that

“we work with companies to block child sexual abuse material specifically, so don’t work on suicide related content I am afraid”.

It was therefore a poor reassurance from Virgin Media O2 to point to a partnership with an organisation that does great work, I am sure, but not in relation to this specific issue.

I pressed Virgin Media O2 further, and it said:

“We will review the specific website you raised with us and consider if further action should be taken”.

Of course further action should be taken. There are technological limits that sometimes mean a block cannot be 100% effective, but lives can be saved and will be saved by restricting the number of people who access this site.

I put on record that I have had no answer from EE. It should answer, and it should act. I encourage all internet service providers to do the right thing and, in whatever way they can, to block this specific site, which is linked to 50 UK deaths, is the subject of police investigations, as we understand it, and is referred to in various coroners’ reports.

To give a sense of the scale of the challenge, Three UK has kindly provided me with data today that shows that it has blocked 10,025 attempts to access URLs that it has categorised under suicide and self-harm in the past month alone. Three UK should be congratulated on what it has done. The fact that it can inform me of the number of attempts to access such sites that it has blocked shows why it is fundamentally necessary for other companies to do the right thing.

The site is hosted by Cloudflare, a major company with a good reputation and a corporate office in London. I draw the House’s attention to a written question asked by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who I emailed earlier about this. On 24 October 2023, he asked a written question that was passed to the Home Office. It said:

“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether her Department has held recent discussions with Cloudflare on removing the website linked to deaths by suicide reported on by the BBC on 24 October 2023.”

He was asking what the then Government had done to pressure Cloudflare, which hosts this site, to take it down and disrupt its operation. No answer was given to that. He is still awaiting a response to that question that was due an answer on 31 October 2023.

On 29 May 2024, I wrote to the chief executive officer of Cloudflare, Matthew Prince, making it clear what had happened in this situation. I said:

“The reason I am writing to you today is because it appears your company is hosting this website and I would like to draw this to your attention so you can terminate your hosting of this site, to protect the public in both our countries”—

the USA and the UK—

“and across the world. I know a successful company of over a decade’s good standing like Cloudflare with an excellent reputation, would not wish to be associated with such harmful content, linked to the deaths of many vulnerable people across the world.”

I detailed the whole matter, as I have detailed it to the House, and then I put:

“I would be very grateful if you look into this matter as a matter of urgency before any more vulnerable people are encouraged or enabled to harm themselves due to this website’s activities. Cloudflare ceasing to host its website would not be a contravention of the principle of freedom of speech but a choice of a reputable and respected company not to give a platform to a website which has been linked to the death of 50 people in the UK alone. Such a decision by Cloudflare could well save lives.”

I said:

“It should be noted that both Sky Broadband and 3 mobile have blocked access to this website”.

I got no response to that letter on a really serious matter. I hope not only that internet service providers will do the right thing, but that the major company Cloudflare will do the right thing and stop hosting this website. Disrupting its operation in that way could save lives, and I believe that it would save lives.

To conclude, I will ask the Minister, who has been doing a fantastic job on these sensitive issues, a number of questions. Will she congratulate those internet service providers who have done the right thing in taking action to block this site? Does she agree that those who have not should step up to save lives? Will she assure me that once Ofcom’s powers are fully enacted, the Online Safety Act 2023 will deal with this specific site regardless of the number of people who access it and whether those people are under or over 18?

I find it frustrating when internet service providers get back to me and refer to child protection. My constituent Joe was 23 when he took his own life, and the constituent of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) was 21 or 22 when he took his own life, so it is ridiculous to assume that harmful suicide-related content of this type is only a danger to people under 18.

In relation to the question to the Home Office tabled on 24 October 2023 by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington, will the Minister take action to ensure that her Department answers that question? Will she agree to the Government contacting Cloudflare as the host of the site and raise concerns and make representations? We are talking about the deaths of 50 citizens in our country.

I will finish my remarks by again paying tribute to Catherine and Melanie, Joe’s mother and sister-in-law. They have been navigating this complex, ever-changing world of dangerous activities that go on online and their actions have saved lives. They have been struggling to do so against great odds—it sometimes feels like a David and Goliath situation.

I note that when people are, for example, illegally streaming football matches, action is taken very quickly, yet this website, which is linked to the deaths of 50 people, remains up there. I look forward to the Minister’s response and thank Members for attending the debate.