Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I completely agree that there is an urgency to this issue, and the strength of feeling out in the country among not just parents but children themselves shows that we should take action.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for the national debate he has stimulated about this; we should all be grateful to him for that. I wondered what advice was already available to parents from the national health service, particularly in Scotland. I could find no guidance on screen time on the NHS Scotland website. On the website for my health board, NHS Lothian, I found guidance for parents with the very youngest children. In Glasgow—which is Scotland’s second city, I have to stress; it does not even have a castle—the health board offers guidance that dates from 2016. Things have moved on since then, and surely parents deserve to have the very latest guidance when it comes to considering this matter.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Updated advice from the nations’ CMOs is so important because it can cascade through health systems to guide professionals and parents.

Finally, the Bill calls on Government to conduct more research and further develop the evidence and guidance that is so important for future action. Given how rapidly these devices and services are developing, it is vital that parents and carers are given up-to-date advice on the harm their children might be exposed to.

Why has this not been done before? The technology companies that are profiteering off this rewiring of childhood are incredibly effective at casting doubt over any evidence of a link between screen time and negative impacts on children. This is not the first time an industry has fought against a tide of evidence in order to keep peddling their product. In the 1960s, the tobacco industry was lobbying hard against the link between smoking and cancer. In the absence of evidence of a causal link, they cast doubt on the overwhelming correlational evidence available.

In the end, our Government acted on the basis of correlational studies using criteria set by the epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill. The criteria attempt to help policymakers to make decisions when causal studies do not exist. His criteria included that

“Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.”

For example, the fact that students across the western world began reporting feeling increasingly lonely in school from 2012 is important. Another criterion is that

“Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect”—

essentially, the dose-response effect.

Studies of multiple large datasets, including the UK’s own millennium cohort study, show that teenagers who are heavy users of social media are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, eating disorders, body dysmorphia and other mental health harms. It could take years for evidence of a causal link, through scientific studies, to be established. In the meantime, our children’s mental and physical health degrades, their education continues to be affected, and evidence of a correlation gets stronger and stronger. As lawmakers, we must use tools such as the Bradford Hill tests to make the best possible decisions with what we know now. We must act on excessive screen time today, in the same way that we acted on smoking back then. Like debates that were had on smoking and car seatbelts, it took a process of legislation, rather than one big-bang event. That is why starting with these initial steps today, then following them through with major action soon, will be so important.

Let me address head-on the arguments made against taking action to curb social media and smartphone use by children. As I see it there are five common arguments against action. First is that there is not enough evidence to act. Over the past few months, I and others have had a number of evidence sessions and engagements with experts that have shown that that is plainly untrue. Even so, where should the burden of evidence sit? Should it sit with parents and campaigners who have noticed the damage being done to their children, with children themselves who are calling for more support, or with the companies who are selling them products and services that are designed to be addictive and have completely transformed the nature of their childhood?

When it comes to protecting children from harm, a precautionary approach is surely advised. For almost any other product, companies would have to prove that it was safe before selling it to children, rather than being free to sell that product as they wish, until the evidence of harm becomes so overwhelming that something needs to be done. It is instructive that the US Surgeon General advice states that social media has not yet “been proved safe.”

Second is the argument that this is simply the latest in a line of moral panics. People used to fear that watching too much television would turn their eyes square; in the Victorian era, that reading novels would degrade intellect; or in the 20th century, that playing violent videogames would turn all our children into thugs. But for every example of overblown moral panic, we have many more examples of genuine public health crises that we took too long to address, but eventually were forced to tackle. Research that has come out this morning from More in Common demonstrates that this is not an issue of luddite older generations bemoaning shifting social trends. Concerns about social media and smartphone use are dominant in every generation, and half of generation Z regret the amount of time that they are spending on social media.

The third argument I hear is that the genie is out of the bottle, and it is too late to do anything now. Phones and social media are undoubtedly here to stay, but their harms do not need to be. Regulation can find a way of allowing children to experience the benefits of this technology, without being exposed, relentlessly, to its harms. As introducing seatbelt laws saved thousands of lives from road traffic accidents without killing off the car industry, introducing a virtual seatbelt can protect children from excessive screentime. Action in other countries, and our experience with the Online Safety Act 2023, early though it is, has shown that tech companies are not beyond the power of Governments.

The fourth argument, which tends to come from big tech, is that proper age verification is too difficult, and age restriction unproven—that the technology does not exist or is imperfect. As companies such as Yoti and many other age verification platforms show, that is no longer the case. I am also a technology optimist. The reason why this technology is not yet pervasive is insufficient demand. Introduce the regulation, and technology will have to catch up—we will see that in Australia later this year.

There are some suggestions that it is not the Government’s job to get involved and that this is an issue of parental responsibility. That misses the point that this is a collective action problem. Parents and children alone are not able to establish new, shared rules for something that is addictive at a societal level. The reason why smartphones and social media are causing so much stress and conflict in families is that we are giving parents the unenviable choice of either removing devices and ostracising their children or giving into demands for access and living with the health, sleep and learning consequences.

Additionally, not only are parental controls at device, operating system and app level confusing and opaque, but our own existing data laws give children as young as 13 the power over their data that means that they can opt out of those parental controls in year 8 of secondary school. We disempower parents on a problem that is common across society, then when they ask for help, we say that it is a matter of personal responsibility. I hope that today’s debate can bury the argument that responsibility for this problem lies with parents struggling with that impossible challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), from the far and beautiful north-west, has made an extremely strong case for the original Bill that he envisaged bringing before this House. I am afraid that today I will speak not to celebrate progress, but to lament the gutting of what could have been a landmark Bill.

Sadly, this Government, like the last—notwithstanding the Online Safety Act 2023—have dithered, diluted and capitulated, and I am afraid that what remains is a hollowed-out gesture and an opportunity missed. As the hon. Gentleman said, the evidence is strong, the damage is profound and the public support is overwhelming. Documentary after documentary details the significant damage being done to our young people on a daily basis. Parent after parent in millions of homes across the land is screaming for help and assistance from the Government. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, we are allowing smoking for the brain in our youngest children, with the long-term impact that that will have. I am afraid to say that in the face of all that overwhelming evidence and momentum, the hon. Gentleman has been done over in bringing forward this Bill. When we look at what we are presented with, as I said, we have nothing more than a gesture.

The first point is that the CMO should bring forward guidance. As the hon. Gentleman surely knows, there is already plenty of guidance out there for parents—the NSPCC has online guidance, as does Internet Matters. Lots of organisations, including schools themselves, are issuing guidance for parents. In truth, the CMO producing guidance within 12 months will be no more effective than those organisations have been, and possibly less. As the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, we are dealing with a collective action issue. An organisation can issue guidance, and a small percentage of parents may pick up that guidance and observe it, but if the percentage is below 20%, so strong is the peer pressure and so addictive is what we are dealing with that those parents end up in screaming matches with their teenage children on a daily basis.

[Dr Arthur]

By explaining that there are so many fragmented and—no doubt—contradictory sources of information, surely the right hon. Gentleman is making the argument for there to be a single source of advice to parents right across the United Kingdom? Surely this Bill will create an authoritative set of guidance for parents that they can share with their children.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not convinced that the guidance created by this Bill will be any more authoritative than that created by the NSPCC or by Internet Matters. The point I was making was not necessarily that the guidance is going to be pivotal, but that we need to get to a critical mass of observance before guidance is likely to have any impact. The original Bill was likely to do that, not least through the ban in schools, which created a nucleus of clear space for children that could be translated into homes. Many Members may have heard on the BBC this morning a short piece on the Fulham boys school, which has an absolute ban on even bringing a smartphone to school. That ban during the school period has resulted in the periods before and after school also being phone-free, and therefore much more social and beneficial to those pupils.

Children’s Social Media Accounts

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson). I am sure all my constituents in Edinburgh South West who signed the petition will be grateful for the time he invested in crafting his introductory speech. Like others, I pay tribute to Ellen Roome. She has shown herself to be a fantastic campaigner and I am sure her family is proud of her. However, the situation she finds herself in is absolutely shameful. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) is right to question the motives of the social media companies and to ask who would oppose them doing the right thing. Hopefully we will hear from them sooner rather than later on this issue. However, we have to accept that the framework within which these companies are operating was set by either action or inaction within this building, so we have a duty to fix it.

My children are all adults now, at least in theory—I hope they are not listening. However, when they were younger, it was always difficult to get the balance right between respecting their privacy and ensuring that they were safe in all aspects of life, but particularly online. We have to accept that the internet is a dangerous place. All of us are concerned about material online relating to eating disorders, self-harm and even suicide and, we should remind ourselves, have a duty to do more about it.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is not in his place today, but before Christmas he had an Adjournment debate on the role of internet service providers in blocking the most harmful content, which had been linked to the deaths of vulnerable young people. I went along to that debate just to learn more about the subject, but was utterly ashamed and frustrated at what is happening. There are companies that seem to be looking for reasons not to do the right thing rather than find a way to support vulnerable people across our country.

I hope the Minister can support as much as possible what Ellen Roome and her campaign are asking for, but we all, including the Minister, have to go beyond that. It is not just about the law: it is about creating a culture online for our young people where service providers and social media companies feel that they have a social responsibility to support the most vulnerable people in our society and do all they can to support them.

Internet Service Providers and Suicide-related Content

Scott Arthur Excerpts

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.

Edinburgh Festivals: Cultural and Economic Contribution

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Efford.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing time for this important debate. Edinburgh—Scotland’s beloved capital and my home—is renowned worldwide not just for its historic beauty and ancient heritage but for its vibrant cultural scene. This goes beyond grand shows with expensive tickets. It includes things like Big Noise Wester Hailes, Forget Me Notes, Edinburgh Printmakers and the Filmhouse, which I hope will reopen soon. All four of those organisations operate in my constituency. Edinburgh’s festivals are a beacon of cultural expression, showcasing the very best of literature and all varieties of performing and creative arts. But more than that, the festivals serve as a cornerstone of the city’s economy and underpin the wellbeing of its citizens.

I welcome the progress made by the Dunard Centre and the redevelopment of the Royal High School. These venues will extend the tourist season in Edinburgh and enable it to compete with the great European cultural centres—places like Hamburg, Vienna and Paris. I have no doubt that the Dunard Centre will be world-class. That will be not just because it is a fantastic building but because of its values. I not only expect people from the most deprived parts of my constituency to be working in the Dunard Centre; I expect them to have places in the audience, and I also expect Big Noise Wester Hailes to be on the stage. This reflects the Edinburgh International Festival’s mission statement, which is

“to provide the deepest experience of the highest quality art for the broadest possible audience.”

For countless businesses across Edinburgh, the festival season throws a lifeline of increased footfall, which provides income that sustains them right through the year. The associated demand for staff is invaluable in providing local young people and students with the opportunity for summer work. The festivals provide many people in Edinburgh with their first paying job. We in this place have a responsibility to ensure that staff are supported by legislation and that they are well treated at work. That is why I will support the Deputy Prime Minister’s new deal for working people, which will help to enable that.

Investing in the breadth and depth of the festival offering in Edinburgh also helps to spread the tourist economy to the quieter parts of the year. It will help Edinburgh to move upmarket, with visitors staying for longer and spending more. This will mean that working in the tourist economy will be a career for more people—rather than just a summer job—with better pay and better conditions.

The economic contributions of the festivals do not stop at employment opportunities and turnover for local businesses. They also provide a wholly unique opportunity to show off and sell not just Brand Scotland but Brand Edinburgh to the world. Culture lets us connect with our international partners on an emotional level that no sales pitch can compete with. We should not forget that Rudolf Bing, a Jew who escaped Nazi Germany, established the Edinburgh international festival in 1947 as a way of bringing people together in post-war Europe.

I am proud that people come to Edinburgh from all over the world, but too often I am ashamed of what they see. Edinburgh’s position as Scotland’s worst-funded local authority comes with consequences, not least where homelessness is concerned. To address the point about why Airbnb is being regulated, it is a key driver for that in Edinburgh. The indifference that our capital is shown means that hardly a year goes by without a council-owned cultural venue being put at risk. Last year it was the King’s Theatre; this year it is the People’s Story Museum. Edinburgh needs fair funding, and the importance of its ecosystem—

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Jim Shannon.