Contribution
I agree. There is a plethora of sources of harm on the internet, and such chatbots are one example. Another example that somebody was telling me about is suicide forums, which encourage all sorts of awful views and behaviours. It is perhaps not directly part of this debate, but the Government having the ability to stop that stuff, in addition to the social media debate, is absolutely key. As I understand it, more powers may be needed to go that far, but I agree that it is necessary.
Tragically, we cannot even rely on the companies’ own numbers. Ofcom stated in its report that its exposure data
“only account for content detected by service providers.”
In other words, the companies count what they catch and do not count what they miss. Content that Parliament regards as harmful might not even be prohibited under the companies’ own rules. Ofcom says that the data are
“indicative rather than direct measures.”
None of that proves that a safe platform is impossible, but it does show that complying with today’s rules is no certificate of safety.
Given the scale of harm we are seeing, it is clear that we should be applying the precautionary principle. It is right that the Government impose a circuit-breaker ban now, as they have promised to do. In the meantime, they are right to be working on a system for deciding how platforms can earn the right to serve under-16s by showing that they are safe, including by removing addictive and harmful features.
Some say that Ofcom does not have the capability to police whether sites are safe in practice. In February 2025, I led a debate in this Chamber in which I called for a social media ban, and I asked why we cannot simply reverse the burden, so that it is not for the regulator to prove that an app is harmful, but for the company to prove that it is safe. I think that is the right question to ask; I believe that the Government agree, but I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that that is the way they are looking at it. An off-ramp can only ever be acceptable if the burden genuinely shifts. Then, if there is incomplete data or uncertainty about safety, that must mean that there is no exemption, and not another long investigation while children remain exposed.
Assuming that companies can demonstrate that they are safe, I have five questions for the Minister about this potential off-ramp. First, what exactly must a company show on harmful content—including what it misses—on contact from strangers, on addictive design and on risks to the most vulnerable children to demonstrate that its platform is safe? Secondly, who checks that evidence independently, with access to the real product rather than just the company’s own statistics? Thirdly, will the regulations expressly state that insufficient evidence means no exemption, rather than the regulator being required to prove everything, as it currently has to do, which is very difficult when it comes up against a well-resourced social media company?
Fourthly, will major changes to an app or algorithm trigger a reassessment? If new evidence of harm emerges, how quickly can an exemption be suspended or withdrawn? The Molly Rose Foundation says that exemptions must be hard-earned, with stretching demands in order to keep them, and requirements reviewed and updated annually. Finally, will Ofcom have the powers, expertise and resources to access the data needed to administer the system?
The young people who signed the petition are right to put freedom—the freedom to express themselves and to find their community—at the heart of this debate, but that must also mean freedom from harassment, from content that damages their wellbeing and from design that makes it harder for them to put their phone down and spend time on other things that they themselves value. Those freedoms matter as well. I recognise that restrictions will limit choices. That is why the aim must be not permanent exclusion, but requiring companies to offer something that is better and—most importantly—safe. Young people should not have to choose between connection and safety, and companies should earn the right to serve them by respecting both.