Contribution
Thank you, Sir Roger, for being so lenient in allowing me to speak this evening; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I have supported calls for a ban on under-16s accessing social media—the volume of harmful content online makes unrestricted access a really serious concern—but I have become increasingly unconvinced that a full ban is the right answer. That is because when I speak to young people in my constituency, they do not tell me that they want to be excluded from online spaces; they want those spaces to be safer for them, with the harmful content removed, the bullying tackled, and stronger protections against exploitation and manipulation. In short, they want the platforms to be responsible.
Calls for a ban are a response to the failure of social media companies to act. Had they consistently prioritised safety and wellbeing over engagement, we would not be having this debate today. However, the burden to act should not fall solely on children and parents; it should fall on the companies that build and profit from these platforms.
Ofcom is working hard to tackle online harms, but it faces an uphill struggle, and I wonder whether it has the tools to manage the task. Although age-assurance measures have a role to play, they are not foolproof and young people can often circumvent restrictions through VPNs and other workarounds. The Australian experience perfectly illustrates that; despite restrictions on access there, many Australian teenagers have continued to use social media. That suggests that a ban alone is not a complete solution, and that we must also focus on having platforms that are safer by design, and on holding the companies behind them accountable.
There is also an inconsistency in our wider approach. Social media and digital platforms are increasingly used in educational settings to communicate with students, share learning resources and develop digital skills. If we recognise that these technologies have benefits in education and civic life, we should be cautious about treating them as inherently harmful in every context. For the same reason, I am not convinced that blanket age verification requirements are the answer. Measures that apply to every user can create privacy concerns and barriers to access, without addressing the underlying cause of harm.
We also know that platforms frequently fail to respond when problems are identified, as other hon. Members have said. Earlier this year, a constituent contacted me after repeatedly receiving content in his Facebook feed linking to pornographic websites. My office contacted Meta on his behalf several times, but we received no response. I am sure other Members have had similar experiences—it is simply not good enough.
The UK has taken important steps through the Online Safety Act 2023. However, this debate highlights the limits to any one country acting alone. These issues are not specific to the UK; social media platforms operate across borders and harmful content does not respect jurisdictions. That is why international co-operation is essential.
The 2024 UK-US agreement on children’s online safety was a welcome step, but it remains too focused on changing children’s behaviour, rather than on changing the platforms themselves. In contrast, the proposed EU KIDS Act places greater emphasis on platform accountability and on requiring the companies to remove addictive features, strengthen privacy protections and demonstrate that their services are safe for young people to use.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, have the Government considered whether elements of the EU KIDS Act’s “safety by design” approach could inform future UK policy? Secondly, what discussions have the Government had with international partners about establishing common standards on platform design, algorithmic transparency and child safety?
As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I was struck by the recent comments from the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, who argued that efforts to restrict children’s access to social media should not distract us from the need to ensure that platforms meet clear legal duties and are properly held to account. I believe that is the right approach; rather than placing the responsibility on children and their families to avoid harm, we should require tech companies to create products that are safe by default.
We can continue to debate an under-16 social media ban, but children will not truly be safe until the platforms themselves are held responsible for the harms they create. I believe that the answer lies in international co-operation, platform accountability and safety by design, and not simply in asking young people to stay away.