Communications and Digital Committee
Tuesday 1st September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:30
Baroness Keeley
-
-
Baroness Keeley
Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Communications and Digital Committee. It's our first meeting back after Parliament's summer break, and it's also the first evidence session of our inquiry into the Online Safety Act. Our aim in launching this inquiry is to examine what impact the Act has had since it was passed in 2023, and how successful its implementation has been to date. And it seems a really timely moment to investigate these issues. It's now a little over a year since the key duties focused on protecting children came into effect in July 2025.
More recently, as we know, the government has proposed introducing new restrictions on children's access to social media. As we know, quite a debate about calling for a ban on for under 16 seconds. But just last week in the US, we saw the trial with Meta Reach, a landmark settlement that will see the company introduce a range of protections for under 18 seconds on Facebook and Instagram. So we will be looking in our inquiry at how the act has affected a range of different groups and individuals, but children's experiences will be our key focus and as such, I'm delighted to welcome the Children's Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, to our session today.
And thank you for being here. I don't have any relevant interest, but members, if they do have interest to declare will, will do that as we're going through. So Dame Rachel, you and your predecessor, Anne Longfield, have been working to understand what children's online experiences are like. You've been trying to do that for several years, I think. Could you start by describing for us the online environment children were growing up in before the Online Safety Act was passed and the main risks they faced?
More recently, as we know, the government has proposed introducing new restrictions on children's access to social media. As we know, quite a debate about calling for a ban on for under 16 seconds. But just last week in the US, we saw the trial with Meta Reach, a landmark settlement that will see the company introduce a range of protections for under 18 seconds on Facebook and Instagram. So we will be looking in our inquiry at how the act has affected a range of different groups and individuals, but children's experiences will be our key focus and as such, I'm delighted to welcome the Children's Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, to our session today.
And thank you for being here. I don't have any relevant interest, but members, if they do have interest to declare will, will do that as we're going through. So Dame Rachel, you and your predecessor, Anne Longfield, have been working to understand what children's online experiences are like. You've been trying to do that for several years, I think. Could you start by describing for us the online environment children were growing up in before the Online Safety Act was passed and the main risks they faced?
14:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes. So I came into role in 2021. I'd been a head teacher for 20 years and run a large trust of schools out in East Anglia, and I knew there was a problem. Just before I came in, one of my head teacher came into this role. One of my headteachers had a young girl who had been bullied online and took her own life and said that that was a factor. So I knew, you know, we knew things were changing.
When I came in, everyone's invited exploded, and we knew that there were things, you know, that children's experience was not good. My goodness, I didn't know how much I was really shocked by what I saw. So the first thing I did was call in the porn companies, and I grilled the porn companies who expressed some desire to try to put age verification in place and were sort of sad and sorry. How I wish I'd have had such a good reception from the tech companies.
I pulled the social the tech companies in, and I did so regularly to ask them how many underage children were online, what they were doing about age gating? Were they going to step up before the legislation and protect children? And I got mealy mouthed words, lots of words, you know, in fact, I gave them ten minutes each and then showed them what children were seeing online. The two secretaries of state, DCMs and education asked me to take children's views and children's experiences through the Online Safety Bill, as it was at the time.
So I went out and did a number of pieces of work with children and started to really see their reality. I also at that time was doing the Big Ask survey, the biggest survey in the world of children talking. I spoke to 4 to 18 year olds, half a million of them, and got their experiences too. One of the most shocking bits of experience. I could talk to you all day, but one of the most shocking bits of experience then was the.
It was the content that children were seeing. I did a piece of work on pornography, published it in 23 and published redid it in 25, which is for another question. The majority of children had seen heinous, awful pornography, most of them the average age was 13, and about 25% were younger than that. And I'm not talking. I'm not I'm not sort of being prudish in saying, you know, this is they were just interested in having a look at bodies and things like that.
I'm talking about heinous, misogynistic, awful pornography to the extent that I was literally in a former secretary of state's office interviewing a group of children with him about the online world. And one little boy started to get very distressed, tiny little tot. And I suddenly realised he's he's seen porn. And I just took him to one side and said to him, what did you see? And he told me and I just said, you know, those people were acting.
It wasn't real. And made sure I spoke to mum and made sure. But this is what what? When I asked children, I did a piece of work with with young people about what they wish their parents had known and what then before the Online Safety Act they wish their parents had known was basically, don't give us our phones too young. Most of them got their internet connected phones very young and had access unfettered to everything that is awful, and were shown that and looked at that.
Don't let us take our phones to bed at night. They were. This was day and night. We know better now. But then it was pretty awful. Kids were talking to me about self-harm material. They were talking about suicide material. They were talking about, you know, body shaming, bullying. And it was completely un, you know, unfettered, some of the most difficult bits of work and conversations with children I had were I did some work on peer on peer abuse where the police gave me their transcripts and the psychologist gave me their transcripts.
And you could clearly see that the perpetrators who were children were enacting what they'd seen online in, in life. And that was and actually, you know, that was where they were getting the ideas. They were using that language. So, so it was, it was tough. And, and a piece of work I did as well before the Online Safety Act was around how sexual behaviors of children, boys and girls. I interviewed 18 to 21 year olds had changed because of what they'd seen online as children, with both both girls and boys, young women and young men by then talking about enacting violence and that being a norm.
So it really had a massive impact. And now it's so interesting when I talk to mid 20s, older 20s, and they say, do you know the adults didn't know, they did not have a clue. And I think that's the message when you ask me about what what we saw before. And that's why I was absolutely with many people in this room, an absolute passionate advocate for both wanting children to be able to express themselves and have digital experience and all the joys of the online world, but needing desperately to protect them.
And that's why we needed the Online Safety Act and why it was worth a fight. And it was a long fight to get it in.
When I came in, everyone's invited exploded, and we knew that there were things, you know, that children's experience was not good. My goodness, I didn't know how much I was really shocked by what I saw. So the first thing I did was call in the porn companies, and I grilled the porn companies who expressed some desire to try to put age verification in place and were sort of sad and sorry. How I wish I'd have had such a good reception from the tech companies.
I pulled the social the tech companies in, and I did so regularly to ask them how many underage children were online, what they were doing about age gating? Were they going to step up before the legislation and protect children? And I got mealy mouthed words, lots of words, you know, in fact, I gave them ten minutes each and then showed them what children were seeing online. The two secretaries of state, DCMs and education asked me to take children's views and children's experiences through the Online Safety Bill, as it was at the time.
So I went out and did a number of pieces of work with children and started to really see their reality. I also at that time was doing the Big Ask survey, the biggest survey in the world of children talking. I spoke to 4 to 18 year olds, half a million of them, and got their experiences too. One of the most shocking bits of experience. I could talk to you all day, but one of the most shocking bits of experience then was the.
It was the content that children were seeing. I did a piece of work on pornography, published it in 23 and published redid it in 25, which is for another question. The majority of children had seen heinous, awful pornography, most of them the average age was 13, and about 25% were younger than that. And I'm not talking. I'm not I'm not sort of being prudish in saying, you know, this is they were just interested in having a look at bodies and things like that.
I'm talking about heinous, misogynistic, awful pornography to the extent that I was literally in a former secretary of state's office interviewing a group of children with him about the online world. And one little boy started to get very distressed, tiny little tot. And I suddenly realised he's he's seen porn. And I just took him to one side and said to him, what did you see? And he told me and I just said, you know, those people were acting.
It wasn't real. And made sure I spoke to mum and made sure. But this is what what? When I asked children, I did a piece of work with with young people about what they wish their parents had known and what then before the Online Safety Act they wish their parents had known was basically, don't give us our phones too young. Most of them got their internet connected phones very young and had access unfettered to everything that is awful, and were shown that and looked at that.
Don't let us take our phones to bed at night. They were. This was day and night. We know better now. But then it was pretty awful. Kids were talking to me about self-harm material. They were talking about suicide material. They were talking about, you know, body shaming, bullying. And it was completely un, you know, unfettered, some of the most difficult bits of work and conversations with children I had were I did some work on peer on peer abuse where the police gave me their transcripts and the psychologist gave me their transcripts.
And you could clearly see that the perpetrators who were children were enacting what they'd seen online in, in life. And that was and actually, you know, that was where they were getting the ideas. They were using that language. So, so it was, it was tough. And, and a piece of work I did as well before the Online Safety Act was around how sexual behaviors of children, boys and girls. I interviewed 18 to 21 year olds had changed because of what they'd seen online as children, with both both girls and boys, young women and young men by then talking about enacting violence and that being a norm.
So it really had a massive impact. And now it's so interesting when I talk to mid 20s, older 20s, and they say, do you know the adults didn't know, they did not have a clue. And I think that's the message when you ask me about what what we saw before. And that's why I was absolutely with many people in this room, an absolute passionate advocate for both wanting children to be able to express themselves and have digital experience and all the joys of the online world, but needing desperately to protect them.
And that's why we needed the Online Safety Act and why it was worth a fight. And it was a long fight to get it in.
14:36
14:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Look, I hugely welcomed it. I think it's groundbreaking legislation, so I'm positive about it. I'm really pleased we've got it. And actually, when I talk to my counterparts across the world, I've been in Australia, New Zealand, most European companies, countries, talking to children's commissioners, they're quite jealous of our legislation. Right. So I think we can be positive. But well, let's start with the positives. I think we all agree.
Now. We all have a bit of a common definition about what would be harmful for children. So I think that is a positive. I think there is a general consensus that age verification is a good thing. That's a positive. I think when very serious things have happened at the very edge of harms, the tough edge of harms. I think what we've seen there is the act's been used to take action, whether that's, you know, some of the issues around grok or some of the issues around pornography companies.
So there are positives, negatives. Well, the biggest negative you're going to get from me, I'm the children's commissioner. Children think there is. Absolutely it has made absolutely no difference. When I talk to children, they don't even know what act. It's not made any difference to me and I'm out there at the moment. I've just talked to 625,000 children in my latest survey. So we've we're it's we're going for a million when I'm out there, they are dealing with, you know, horrors around AI.
I mean, basically I had to do a piece of work on new defying apps before we could get the government to ban them. You know, I would have wanted the act to be out there in front of these things. We wanted a flexible act that would, you know, would really, you know, would be safeguarding our children. You talk about the meta judgement, the meta judgment. You know, in America, the legal system is protecting the children. We have Ofcom, we have this act and that's why it needs to work.
So I think the act itself, the way it's been interpreted, is too focused on content. It's not been flexible enough. It's not kept up with the times. There's things that we need to do with it, even though in its creation, we knew it would need to grow and adapt. That needs to happen.
Now. We all have a bit of a common definition about what would be harmful for children. So I think that is a positive. I think there is a general consensus that age verification is a good thing. That's a positive. I think when very serious things have happened at the very edge of harms, the tough edge of harms. I think what we've seen there is the act's been used to take action, whether that's, you know, some of the issues around grok or some of the issues around pornography companies.
So there are positives, negatives. Well, the biggest negative you're going to get from me, I'm the children's commissioner. Children think there is. Absolutely it has made absolutely no difference. When I talk to children, they don't even know what act. It's not made any difference to me and I'm out there at the moment. I've just talked to 625,000 children in my latest survey. So we've we're it's we're going for a million when I'm out there, they are dealing with, you know, horrors around AI.
I mean, basically I had to do a piece of work on new defying apps before we could get the government to ban them. You know, I would have wanted the act to be out there in front of these things. We wanted a flexible act that would, you know, would really, you know, would be safeguarding our children. You talk about the meta judgement, the meta judgment. You know, in America, the legal system is protecting the children. We have Ofcom, we have this act and that's why it needs to work.
So I think the act itself, the way it's been interpreted, is too focused on content. It's not been flexible enough. It's not kept up with the times. There's things that we need to do with it, even though in its creation, we knew it would need to grow and adapt. That needs to happen.
14:39
14:39
14:39
14:39
Lord Knight of Weymouth
-
-
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Thank you, Rachel, for coming. Look, as you've just suggested, really, you've noted that many of the online safety issues arise from the the design of the systems that put the content in front of children when the legislation was going through here, many of us were arguing that we needed a piece of legislation that tried to regulate systems rather than just focusing on content, and we didn't manage to win that argument. What evidence is there, if any, that the act has led to any meaningful improvements to systems and features, rather than just suppressing harmful content?
14:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So we don't know. And actually, I say that on purpose because I'm really cross about it. So what what is the mechanism? Basically, the tech companies supposedly have written risk assessments for Ofcom. Now I and there isn't an outcomes measure. They are completely not transparent. I, as the most senior safeguarding person in this country for children, have asked Ofcom to see those risk assessments and they have said no and I have threatened to use my data powers.
I have statutory powers to get them and they have said that they will attempt to stop me getting them. So one thing I did want to ask this committee was for your assistance in this matter, because I am going to use, you know, I am planning to use my powers if we cannot even see the risk assessments that may well have put these put these mechanisms into place or may not have. We don't know how on earth can we judge the efficacy of it.
So I leave that one with you, but I am pretty furious about that.
I have statutory powers to get them and they have said that they will attempt to stop me getting them. So one thing I did want to ask this committee was for your assistance in this matter, because I am going to use, you know, I am planning to use my powers if we cannot even see the risk assessments that may well have put these put these mechanisms into place or may not have. We don't know how on earth can we judge the efficacy of it.
So I leave that one with you, but I am pretty furious about that.
14:41
Lord Knight of Weymouth
-
-
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I'm sure we will have noted that plea for help, if nothing else, so that you had a legislative power to to have access to those risk assessments. I mean, do you think that the, the, the regime of risk assessments and safe harbour and those sorts of things can ever work effectively? Or do we think do you think we need to legislate further to do better?
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:42
Lord Knight of Weymouth
-
-
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Well look, I suppose where I'm going with it is to an extent distracted by the meta settlement in the United States, where the courts look like they've achieved a settlement that goes further than our legislation does. Indeed. And I'm interested in your reflection on that, on whether or not, if it were possible to get that set of measures to apply to the UK and to apply to other social media companies, as well as the meta ones, whether that would be an improvement on what we've got through legislation.
14:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I would say, if you ask me now. So I gave you a description pre online Safety act of what children were seeing. And like , I've literally been out both. I've repeated the porn work and I've been out talking. I've literally got 625,000 responses from children talk to children right across the country will be publishing in February. They are concerned about different things, things that the meta legislation there covers.
So they're concerned about about functionality. They're concerned about being on line for too long, not being able to cut down on strangers coming into their games and talking to them on what AI means for them and how it's affecting, you know, affecting their lives. We saw it with new defying apps. So absolutely, the scope of the bill, and this is what we'd hoped would happen, would be able to change and evolve to this new world that our children are living in.
And trust me, believe me, it is new and different. As children's commissioner over, you know, five years, I cannot tell you how different 2021 is to now. And the concerns from children around the country are very, very different. So yes, gaming, you know, functionality and gaming time, online curfews, all of these things. We should be looking at why it's interesting up here in Westminster, we've been having this debate about ban on or don't ban social media.
Right. And it's a Westminster debate and it's everyone doing their best. And, you know, we've come to a come to a decision. But what when I say to children, do you want a social media ban? Their answer to me is always no. So I changed the conversation. And this is right across the country, from Preston to Birmingham to Bournemouth. I've been everywhere this year asking this question and they when I say to them, you know, you know, have you got any worries? They talk about the terrible things they see online.
They talk about issues with gaming. They talk about addiction needing to cut down. They talk about algorithm. And I say, well, do you need do you want the adults to protect you? And they say, yes. And I say, if the adults said, any company that doesn't keep you safe like this shouldn't be allowed to have access to you. Their answer is yes. So we need to be very careful about our language, I think, and there is an opportunity to engage with young people.
And that ban, not ban, is just so simplistic. They Online safety Online Safety Act and and banning social media. Most children will just think it's funny and like irrelevant. But the right conversation really does elicit a response, a creed occur, and a response of please help.
So they're concerned about about functionality. They're concerned about being on line for too long, not being able to cut down on strangers coming into their games and talking to them on what AI means for them and how it's affecting, you know, affecting their lives. We saw it with new defying apps. So absolutely, the scope of the bill, and this is what we'd hoped would happen, would be able to change and evolve to this new world that our children are living in.
And trust me, believe me, it is new and different. As children's commissioner over, you know, five years, I cannot tell you how different 2021 is to now. And the concerns from children around the country are very, very different. So yes, gaming, you know, functionality and gaming time, online curfews, all of these things. We should be looking at why it's interesting up here in Westminster, we've been having this debate about ban on or don't ban social media.
Right. And it's a Westminster debate and it's everyone doing their best. And, you know, we've come to a come to a decision. But what when I say to children, do you want a social media ban? Their answer to me is always no. So I changed the conversation. And this is right across the country, from Preston to Birmingham to Bournemouth. I've been everywhere this year asking this question and they when I say to them, you know, you know, have you got any worries? They talk about the terrible things they see online.
They talk about issues with gaming. They talk about addiction needing to cut down. They talk about algorithm. And I say, well, do you need do you want the adults to protect you? And they say, yes. And I say, if the adults said, any company that doesn't keep you safe like this shouldn't be allowed to have access to you. Their answer is yes. So we need to be very careful about our language, I think, and there is an opportunity to engage with young people.
And that ban, not ban, is just so simplistic. They Online safety Online Safety Act and and banning social media. Most children will just think it's funny and like irrelevant. But the right conversation really does elicit a response, a creed occur, and a response of please help.
14:45
Lord Knight of Weymouth
-
-
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My final question before opening up to others follows that up by asking, I suppose. Should we prioritize, prioritise the systems that the tech companies use, the algorithms, the addictive by design, the lack of age, you know, design for age over banning is banning just a political win. That's easy. And that there's a more sophisticated, more effective thing that that children will buy into.
14:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Okay. So, so I've been challenged in one of these rooms before on would you ban or not ban? And my answer always is, if it's a simple binary and there's nothing else at the moment with the levels of danger. And I think that's what people in this place are doing. They're trying to be responsible and protect children. Obviously, you know, having looked closely and talked to my Australian counterparts, it's not a magic wand.
So we we absolutely need to prioritize systems. We need to look at children up until the age of 18 as well. You know, I was in a youth prison last week sitting with the boys, and they were telling me about the kind of radicalization into violence that they experienced online at 17. You know, they need protecting. You know, we need to protect children. Full stop.
So we we absolutely need to prioritize systems. We need to look at children up until the age of 18 as well. You know, I was in a youth prison last week sitting with the boys, and they were telling me about the kind of radicalization into violence that they experienced online at 17. You know, they need protecting. You know, we need to protect children. Full stop.
14:47
Baroness Keeley
-
-
Baroness Keeley
Thank you. Just to go back to to you've obviously got very extensive you've done extensive work on, on consulting with children. You have all that all that input. Are there particular groups of children for whom significant gaps in protection still remain? You know, so with with the Online Safety Act, are there groups that that are outside of its scope really?
14:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So I would say 17 and 18 year olds because we we've only talked about 16 and under. And, you know, just because you get tall doesn't mean you're not still a very young person. So I would say the we the under eighteens. The most vulnerable, some of the most awful things I see are things like com sites where children who might have mental health problems or be very vulnerable are persuaded into self-harming in front of other children online.
And they're sucked in through TikTok often. So our most vulnerable. I think another group that I highlighted recently in my report on the prevent Duty were children who have been pulled into non-ideological extreme violence, an obsession with violence. It's a small group, but it's an important group, and it's the group that is worrying. Our anti-terrorism police and others the most. And so it's it's where vulnerability intersects with childhood. That's where that's where we need to look.
I still worry about girls. I know we're strong in our language up here on about protecting women and girls, but there isn't a place I go where I don't have a queue of girls talking about dieting material, about comparing themselves online, about the algorithms so that that's not going away. And then the boys who will quietly tell you after, I mean, we looked at the selling of beauty and health products recently. I did a piece of research on this, and I think it was something like 45% of black children had been targeted to, to be sold that we spoke to, targeted with skin whitening products, children being targeted with health products.
That starts with health products, then it's change for girls, change your eyes, get Botox, get fillers, what 15 year old needs that? You know? And with boys, it's it's often health products through to terrorism. And it's completely not allowed illegal to be selling anything to under 16 seconds. You speak to an under 16, they will tell you they're targeted all the time with sales products around this. I've done a piece of work.
It's on my area. So I'm sorry. It's not it's not very pleasant. But so I think really what I'm saying to you is there are vulnerable groups, but it's everyone.
And they're sucked in through TikTok often. So our most vulnerable. I think another group that I highlighted recently in my report on the prevent Duty were children who have been pulled into non-ideological extreme violence, an obsession with violence. It's a small group, but it's an important group, and it's the group that is worrying. Our anti-terrorism police and others the most. And so it's it's where vulnerability intersects with childhood. That's where that's where we need to look.
I still worry about girls. I know we're strong in our language up here on about protecting women and girls, but there isn't a place I go where I don't have a queue of girls talking about dieting material, about comparing themselves online, about the algorithms so that that's not going away. And then the boys who will quietly tell you after, I mean, we looked at the selling of beauty and health products recently. I did a piece of research on this, and I think it was something like 45% of black children had been targeted to, to be sold that we spoke to, targeted with skin whitening products, children being targeted with health products.
That starts with health products, then it's change for girls, change your eyes, get Botox, get fillers, what 15 year old needs that? You know? And with boys, it's it's often health products through to terrorism. And it's completely not allowed illegal to be selling anything to under 16 seconds. You speak to an under 16, they will tell you they're targeted all the time with sales products around this. I've done a piece of work.
It's on my area. So I'm sorry. It's not it's not very pleasant. But so I think really what I'm saying to you is there are vulnerable groups, but it's everyone.
14:50
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
-
-
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
So you already mentioned that Ofcom has teeth and that the government needs to encourage Ofcom to use their teeth more. So how effective has Ofcom's implementation and enforcement of the Online Safety Act been in driving services to make the changes they needed need to protect children? And do you think that services actually fear Ofcom or not?
14:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Okay, so so I think we've got some examples where Ofcom has been very effective after the after the fact. So finally getting involved with new defying apps, the grock issue pornography companies like working on age verification with pornography companies. I'm really pleased they've asked me to provide a group of young people to actually help them as an advisory board. So there's an openness there. And yeah, my, my, I guess I've got a couple of concerns.
One is that we need if, if Ofcom is going to be the vehicle to protect our children and really, you know, through the implementation of that, we need them to be getting ahead of the harms. And I don't think they have. So when I talk around the country to children, they're they're. What's worrying them are things around AI, things around. It was the new defying apps, things around there are new harms and we need Ofcom to be getting ahead of those.
I don't think they are. I think we all had hopes. But then I think when government changed in the States, I think that it felt like, you know, there was almost a kind of pulling back here. I can only say it felt like that, I don't know, and what I need is what what I need for children is for Ofcom to be incredibly robust and not pulled back. Now, I don't just want to criticise them because , frankly, it's ministers who drive and give the air cover for Ofcom to be strong.
So we need our ministers to be really strong in direct, you know, asking Ofcom to protect children. But you know, how effective do I think they've been? Not effective enough.
One is that we need if, if Ofcom is going to be the vehicle to protect our children and really, you know, through the implementation of that, we need them to be getting ahead of the harms. And I don't think they have. So when I talk around the country to children, they're they're. What's worrying them are things around AI, things around. It was the new defying apps, things around there are new harms and we need Ofcom to be getting ahead of those.
I don't think they are. I think we all had hopes. But then I think when government changed in the States, I think that it felt like, you know, there was almost a kind of pulling back here. I can only say it felt like that, I don't know, and what I need is what what I need for children is for Ofcom to be incredibly robust and not pulled back. Now, I don't just want to criticise them because , frankly, it's ministers who drive and give the air cover for Ofcom to be strong.
So we need our ministers to be really strong in direct, you know, asking Ofcom to protect children. But you know, how effective do I think they've been? Not effective enough.
14:52
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
-
-
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
It's interesting you should speak about the States because obviously we're watching with great interest. They take it down, act and how they will use the Federal Trade Commission to implement fines should there be breaches. Do you think that will strengthen Ofcom's hand or encourage them to go further and faster if they start seeing those fines being issued? If you're saying that we're being influenced by.
14:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So I hope so. And I mean, I was over I led a round table at UCLA just last year and was talking to people involved as we are. And I do feel sometimes, you know, where they go, we follow, you know, so I think there I think there is the opportunity. I think they should be fining. I think they should be more robust. It just feels like when I read the children's Code, I was so disappointed.
It felt like it was a technical document written for the companies, not a document written to every child in this country about how Ofcom was going to try and keep them safe. You know, that's what it should have been. So yeah, I want them. I want them to use all their powers. I'd like to see some big fines and I'd like to see them ahead of ahead of the case, ahead of things as well. Because you know, they know, but they will need the air cover of ministers and we know we've had turbulence.
I'm on my seventh Prime Minister, you know, and multiple ministers. And we need now, you know, some really, really focused ministerial energy on this, keeping children safe.
It felt like it was a technical document written for the companies, not a document written to every child in this country about how Ofcom was going to try and keep them safe. You know, that's what it should have been. So yeah, I want them. I want them to use all their powers. I'd like to see some big fines and I'd like to see them ahead of ahead of the case, ahead of things as well. Because you know, they know, but they will need the air cover of ministers and we know we've had turbulence.
I'm on my seventh Prime Minister, you know, and multiple ministers. And we need now, you know, some really, really focused ministerial energy on this, keeping children safe.
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'd like to see I'd like to see the new Prime Minister really commit to keeping children safe. Make sure that the ministerial teams do. I don't whether it sits here, whether it sits there. We just need someone, someone in charge. And to give proper air cover to Ofcom and to demand that Ofcom do their job and get ahead . If if we're going to use Ofcom as our means of implementation and keeping children safe, they've got to do better.
14:55
14:55
Viscount Colville of Culross
-
-
Viscount Colville of Culross
Yes. Such an interest, such such interesting answers. Thank you very much indeed, Dame Rachel, I just want to look at some sort of specifics. I read your I've read your response to the to the codes that have been published, and you've just said that the code seems to concentrate more on the companies and not on the children. And you've said that the that Ofcom seems to be more worried about the cost of business, of enforcing to business, of enforcing the act, and it gives them disproportionate weight.
And you've called for children's voices to be part of the process in the enforcement of the act. How would that work? You obviously yourself have gone around and listened to thousands of children. How would you would like Ofcom to be able to to move the balance in, in favour of children and create this process?
And you've called for children's voices to be part of the process in the enforcement of the act. How would that work? You obviously yourself have gone around and listened to thousands of children. How would you would like Ofcom to be able to to move the balance in, in favour of children and create this process?
14:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There are so many ways, but a simple, straightforward thing that I have offered the last three ministers and have offered Ofcom to do is to write to every child in the country and explain the children's code. I write to children. I speak to the entire. Speak to everyone. Just do it, I said. I'll do it for you. We will. We'll write to them and tell them that the children's code is meant to keep them safe, and then go back every year and ask, do you feel safer? Are you do you feel safer? It's a simple, straightforward thing that Ofcom could ask my office to do or could could do themselves.
I could help them. I don't think we need to overthink it. Get getting them an advisory board was a was a good start. You know, I think what we don't need to do is do everything that children tell us they want, right? I think we do need to listen to them, but we are the adults and we need to try to make good decisions. But it's that listening piece about their genuine experiences. But the children's code, I feel, was a massive lost opportunity at the time.
I said to the minister, the children's code should be for children. Write to them and explain it to them. I can I can get you a letter that will go into every single, every single child's pigeonhole in this country. So that's a simple, straightforward one.
I could help them. I don't think we need to overthink it. Get getting them an advisory board was a was a good start. You know, I think what we don't need to do is do everything that children tell us they want, right? I think we do need to listen to them, but we are the adults and we need to try to make good decisions. But it's that listening piece about their genuine experiences. But the children's code, I feel, was a massive lost opportunity at the time.
I said to the minister, the children's code should be for children. Write to them and explain it to them. I can I can get you a letter that will go into every single, every single child's pigeonhole in this country. So that's a simple, straightforward one.
14:57
Viscount Colville of Culross
-
-
Viscount Colville of Culross
You we've, we've talked already about the, the, the, the American judgment against meta and addictiveness. You in, in your response to the code, said that Ofcom must reconsider its decision not to include persuasive design features to. In order to try and limit the amount of time that children spend online. You obviously do think that from that comment that Ofcom does have the power to be able to to to affect addictiveness and.
And how how do you think that should be enforced?
And how how do you think that should be enforced?
14:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So, so I guess I when, when the Online Safety Act was being drafted or redrafted or redrafted, because it's been through many iterations, I was trying to get some of these things in then, and the response I got was, no, no, this is a bill. This will be a bill that can adapt and grow and change to to what's needed. So I took that in good faith and hence my response. So I do think we could and should be bringing because children's experience is here now, children's experience, negative experiences online, not just the content, it's the features, it's the addictive features.
It's the length of time they're spending on there. It's the algorithms and it's those, those things. Absolutely. Ofcom should have have.
It's the length of time they're spending on there. It's the algorithms and it's those, those things. Absolutely. Ofcom should have have.
14:58
14:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So may I look. I don't they might have some particular legal argument. I don't know, I haven't actually looked at it, but I the the when at the inception of the bill, what the , what we were told was we would go, we could go back for amendments, we can make changes. And that's what I want to see if if they don't have that now. So I think I think it's all to play for, frankly.
And we were promised a bill that could evolve and develop and change to children's needs. And I think that's the important point.
And we were promised a bill that could evolve and develop and change to children's needs. And I think that's the important point.
14:59
Viscount Colville of Culross
-
-
Viscount Colville of Culross
When it comes to categories. There's been a lot of concern that Ofcom has concentrated on the size of the companies and not on the risk that they pose, and we know perfectly well that smaller companies can be just as risky as larger companies. What is is that a problem in the act, or is it a problem in Ofcom's enforcement of the act?
15:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I would say it's Ofcom's enforcement of the act. But I mean, they I'm sure they would have an argument against that. But I think the scope of that bill ought to cover, you know, if we're going to keep children safe, you know, we can't say you've got to be you know, you've got to be a multi-billion pound tech company to be covered by this. I think they will. Their argument was about the burden on the company, wasn't it? But what burden to keep children safe.
15:00
15:00
Lord Tarassenko
-
-
Lord Tarassenko
Thank you very much. So I'm going to declare a conflict of interest. Not a financial one, but relevant especially to my second question, which is that I'm working with the Raspberry Pi Foundation to introduce a level three qualification in schools to teach children about data science and AI. And we start our first pilot of an EPC in about a fortnight's time. So what I want to discuss with you is the pace of change of AI versus the pace of change in legislation.
And you've been quite vocal about this yourself. House of Lords has tried in the Crime and Policing Bill to introduce new offences. Likewise in the Children's Well-Being and Schools Act. The one issue that you highlighted recently in June, AI chatbots, Baroness Kidron had an amendment, unfortunately was defeated. But how do you think it is possible to have this evolution of the legislation, or maybe the children's code? I mean, you must have thought about it because you spoke up about AI chatbots.
So how could we ensure that children are aware of the dangers of AI chatbots in terms of becoming over dependent on them as companions and so on, in a way that they're not being protected at the moment? Can you see a way of doing that?
And you've been quite vocal about this yourself. House of Lords has tried in the Crime and Policing Bill to introduce new offences. Likewise in the Children's Well-Being and Schools Act. The one issue that you highlighted recently in June, AI chatbots, Baroness Kidron had an amendment, unfortunately was defeated. But how do you think it is possible to have this evolution of the legislation, or maybe the children's code? I mean, you must have thought about it because you spoke up about AI chatbots.
So how could we ensure that children are aware of the dangers of AI chatbots in terms of becoming over dependent on them as companions and so on, in a way that they're not being protected at the moment? Can you see a way of doing that?
15:02
15:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I do, I would like to see. If necessary, amendments to the Online Safety Act, but the Online Safety Act, to be able to stretch to cover harms related to this. Just just an interesting. So as I said, I'm out asking every child at the moment, they're doing a survey for me, the big future. And we're asking them about AI. We're actually. So we will have. We've already got 625,000 responses and we'll have more.
We did a bit of polling before we went out. Of all the children who would be of an age to be able to vote in the next election, so 14 to 19 year olds and ask them what their biggest concerns were. And I have to say, AI came down very low. So and I think the kids see that double edge, the double side of this. So most when I'm talking to them around the country, they're all using it.
They're all using it to mark their homework. They can see its efficiency. They think it's going to change their lives. It's exciting. They want to know about it. At the same time they're talking to me about, I applied for 100 jobs and all I got was an AI, AI message back from each of them. And they're also they're seeing it as limiting their experience. And, you know, they talked to me about their friends who think that the AI is their friend and talk to it and all the rest.
Now, I do think there is a role here for a modernised online Safety Act, some amendments that really will help here. There's also a big education piece here and families as well. I think, you know, this is incumbent on all of us to be able to educate our children and help them, help them with this, help them through the difficulties as well, seeing the positives.
We did a bit of polling before we went out. Of all the children who would be of an age to be able to vote in the next election, so 14 to 19 year olds and ask them what their biggest concerns were. And I have to say, AI came down very low. So and I think the kids see that double edge, the double side of this. So most when I'm talking to them around the country, they're all using it.
They're all using it to mark their homework. They can see its efficiency. They think it's going to change their lives. It's exciting. They want to know about it. At the same time they're talking to me about, I applied for 100 jobs and all I got was an AI, AI message back from each of them. And they're also they're seeing it as limiting their experience. And, you know, they talked to me about their friends who think that the AI is their friend and talk to it and all the rest.
Now, I do think there is a role here for a modernised online Safety Act, some amendments that really will help here. There's also a big education piece here and families as well. I think, you know, this is incumbent on all of us to be able to educate our children and help them, help them with this, help them through the difficulties as well, seeing the positives.
15:04
Lord Tarassenko
-
-
Lord Tarassenko
So you sort of mentioned part of the solution that I wanted to follow up on in my second question, which is about education. So what do you think should be, say, the top three priorities for AI literacy in schools? And would you allow schoolchildren to use ChatGPT in school, or if not, what kind of AI tools should they be allowed to use? So
15:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
in February, I'll tell you what a million children in this country think about the answer to that question, because we're asking them. We're asking them that question, which would probably be a more interesting answer than mine. I think the fact is that they are using them. They are using AI in school already. Many of them are using AI in their classrooms, and many of them can see great potential in using AI. There's no question that teaching and learning, both in school and at university level, is going to change.
Examinations are going to change this, and the kids are absolutely aware of the transformation that's afoot and ahead of us on it. And like I say, most of them see that as incredibly positive. But there are problems too. So I think I would like to come back to you with my the responses to what the children of this country think to that.
Examinations are going to change this, and the kids are absolutely aware of the transformation that's afoot and ahead of us on it. And like I say, most of them see that as incredibly positive. But there are problems too. So I think I would like to come back to you with my the responses to what the children of this country think to that.
15:05
15:05
15:05
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
-
-
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
I had the dubious honour of being involved in preparing the GDPR when I was in Brussels, and we knew at the time that legislation and regulations in the field of data. And here we are talking, and I'm following on from Lord Sancho's question that it can never keep up with technological development. And there is a big flaw in the legislative system, both in Europe but also here in this country. I find it very frustrating.
And I wonder, from your point of view, we're looking at all the different elements here which feed in to give you the powers to take action appropriately to protect children. I mean, you've got everything really. You've got various pieces of legislation, you've got the regulator seems to be totally inadequate to deal with this matter or indeed to pursue regulation. What I would ask you is this, and I have been suggesting in other fields, particularly in AI, would would it be help more helpful if we could really concentrate on codifying all these pieces and bits, in other words, bringing them together so that there is, if you like, a menu available that can be used for the circumstances as they develop.
I mean, you've touched on that, Lord. Lord Tarasenko touched on that in his question too. We are moving at such a pace. It's not just children trying to get round something, it's the platforms trying to get round and therefore we cannot, as legislators, be adequate. We don't have a third form of legislation. We've got primary, we've got secondary. We need to have some kind of third element of faster moving legislation.
You mentioned changing. I'm sorry. You said you could stretch the act or you could add some amendments and so on. But that, again, is by the time that's done through our processes, it's out of date. So would you like would you prefer to have this codification that we can actually move faster on to sort out the problems that you envisage?
And I wonder, from your point of view, we're looking at all the different elements here which feed in to give you the powers to take action appropriately to protect children. I mean, you've got everything really. You've got various pieces of legislation, you've got the regulator seems to be totally inadequate to deal with this matter or indeed to pursue regulation. What I would ask you is this, and I have been suggesting in other fields, particularly in AI, would would it be help more helpful if we could really concentrate on codifying all these pieces and bits, in other words, bringing them together so that there is, if you like, a menu available that can be used for the circumstances as they develop.
I mean, you've touched on that, Lord. Lord Tarasenko touched on that in his question too. We are moving at such a pace. It's not just children trying to get round something, it's the platforms trying to get round and therefore we cannot, as legislators, be adequate. We don't have a third form of legislation. We've got primary, we've got secondary. We need to have some kind of third element of faster moving legislation.
You mentioned changing. I'm sorry. You said you could stretch the act or you could add some amendments and so on. But that, again, is by the time that's done through our processes, it's out of date. So would you like would you prefer to have this codification that we can actually move faster on to sort out the problems that you envisage?
15:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, look, I, I. I think we always would have to have to really take the time to think of the unintended consequences of, of any such proposal. I, I think we are, you know, we absolutely can demand more of our regulator. And I think we, you know, any bringing together of an offer is a good idea, but I think it would need some really careful thinking through. And that's not to try to chill, you know, or pour cold water on, on your idea.
But I just, I just think we need to think when we think we know what our, you know, we have some, you know, our legislative process and our, our regulatory processes, we're clear about if we start free forming, you know, I just worry about unintended consequences. So I mean, come up with a great idea, you know, but I think what we can do here today is demand more of those who are meant to be giving more.
But I just, I just think we need to think when we think we know what our, you know, we have some, you know, our legislative process and our, our regulatory processes, we're clear about if we start free forming, you know, I just worry about unintended consequences. So I mean, come up with a great idea, you know, but I think what we can do here today is demand more of those who are meant to be giving more.
15:08
15:08
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
-
-
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
In my enthusiasm to ask my question, I forgot to declare my interest. So I'm now going to do that, that I received pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image based sexual abuse. And I sit on the advisory board of A Rare Ventures, a venture capital company that may invest in AI technology. Thank you.
15:09
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town
-
-
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town
Yes. I was just going to ask a small supplementary about Ofcom, which is the scale of the task is large and grows ever larger. A regulator that previously was dealing with media industry in a small number of companies is now having to deal with multiples, and those multiples will grow. And the areas in which we want them to regulate will grow. So it's an organizational question really. Do you feel it's the right body? Do you feel there needs to be another body slash? If it's one body, do you feel.
And it's a hard question to answer, but do you feel there underpowered? Is it about will or is it about will and power resource?
And it's a hard question to answer, but do you feel there underpowered? Is it about will or is it about will and power resource?
15:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, I, I think about my office. It's a tiny office. We have 30 members of staff and I and the, the now say we have the biggest impact of any small, small. It's amazing what a small group of people can do. It's amazing what a small group of people can do, who are, who are genuinely committed. So I think I go back to my.
It sounds simple, but in my experience of 20 years as an educator connected to Westminster and six years in this role with the right ministerial air cover and the right passion and desire to to get the job done, it can be done. And in no way am I. You know, I do think it's good to have as many children as experts and things like that. On on to Ofcom. I would always support them, you know, if they needed more.
But you know, it's amazing what you can get done.
It sounds simple, but in my experience of 20 years as an educator connected to Westminster and six years in this role with the right ministerial air cover and the right passion and desire to to get the job done, it can be done. And in no way am I. You know, I do think it's good to have as many children as experts and things like that. On on to Ofcom. I would always support them, you know, if they needed more.
But you know, it's amazing what you can get done.
15:11
15:11
Lord Holmes of Richmond
-
-
Lord Holmes of Richmond
Thank you. Thank you, Rachel, for your answers. So far, you've described your frustration and you've said you're cross. And that's all well said and understood in terms of the act itself, are you more frustrated than cross with the act as enacted or in what's happened since in terms of how it's been used and the provisions within it relied upon?
15:11
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Okay. So I actually think, you know, we are really fortunate to have the Online Safety Act. And although it wasn't perfect, and although we went through many years of getting it to where it was, I think as a and I'm just talking about the children's bit now, I think we. It's strong and it's as clear as, you know, we I want amendments, I want it to be able to change. Do the thing that it said on the tin, but I think it's how it's it it is now been you used or not used to hold tech companies and others to account.
That is my frustration.
That is my frustration.
15:12
Lord Holmes of Richmond
-
-
Lord Holmes of Richmond
I think that's incredibly helpful and incredibly insightful point in what we're trying to get at here, because that goes to the heart of what legislation can do and the fact that what you've said, there is a lot in what's enacted, but how it's been used is where your frustration lies. Thank you very much.
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:12
Lord Bishop of Winchester
-
-
Lord Bishop of Winchester
Thank you. Good. Thank you so much for well, for doing your job and in particularly taking such a child centred and child focused approach to, to, to all of this. So the simple question is what would what in your view, would need to change in children's experiences for you to judge the UK's online safety regime to be a success? And I. Supplementary. I'll give you that.
Now. It's the kind of Desert Island Discs question which of the eight would you have if you could make one recommendation to the government, Ofcom Parliament to help achieve that outcome, what would it be?
Now. It's the kind of Desert Island Discs question which of the eight would you have if you could make one recommendation to the government, Ofcom Parliament to help achieve that outcome, what would it be?
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
My, my, some of my biggest worries are when I can think of all the little faces when I'm talking to five and six year olds, seven year olds, I say, what did you do last weekend? And they say, oh, I gamed. And I'd say, all weekend. Yeah, all weekend. What do you enjoy doing? Oh, you know, gaming or whatever. Hours and hours and hours and hours of it.
So not going to the park, not going out to see friends, not going. There's a completely different experience qualitatively to sitting down with a group of pals and playing a competitive game, and then going out and doing something else to like spending hours and hours in this sort of doom, you know, sort of thing of social media and tech. So for me. What would need to what needs to change the most apart from obviously safety first is that we, we need to be giving children equally compelling experiences of this blessed stuff.
Yeah. And so that actually, when they do use it, it's, it can be wonderful. It can be instructive, but it's not their whole life.
So not going to the park, not going out to see friends, not going. There's a completely different experience qualitatively to sitting down with a group of pals and playing a competitive game, and then going out and doing something else to like spending hours and hours in this sort of doom, you know, sort of thing of social media and tech. So for me. What would need to what needs to change the most apart from obviously safety first is that we, we need to be giving children equally compelling experiences of this blessed stuff.
Yeah. And so that actually, when they do use it, it's, it can be wonderful. It can be instructive, but it's not their whole life.
15:15
15:15
Baroness Keeley
-
-
Baroness Keeley
That's excellent. Thank you. That's a really good point for us to end on today. So thank you. And thank you for opening our inquiry in this way that you have done today with such rich experience that you have and working with children across the country. It's it's very worthwhile, the job you and your office do with, as you said, such a small team and so successfully. So thank you, thank you. It's great to be here.
15:15