Children: Social Media Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateViscount Colville of Culross
Main Page: Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)Department Debates - View all Viscount Colville of Culross's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I do not follow that logic at all. People have different views on online content, and trying to balance the potential benefit that children can have from accessing the digital world with trying to protect them from the harms that they can also see is exactly what joins together many around this House and is exactly what we are trying to navigate through the Online Safety Act.
My Lords, the social media ban on under-16s in Australia is well-intentioned but is not the right solution to protect children from harms. Does the Minister agree with the Molly Rose Foundation that the ban risks creating a cliff edge for young people who at 16 will suddenly be exposed to a poorly regulated online space? Does she agree that there should be strengthened regulation on social media platforms so they are safe for children rather than excluding them altogether?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Viscount makes a really good point—one I was trying to make not as eloquently earlier—that there are good reasons for children to be online. Children of all ages can benefit from being online, but appropriate protections need to be in place, protections which do not lead to unintended consequences. I think our approach, which we are putting in step by step and backing Ofcom to enforce, is the right one at this stage. We are looking very carefully at the evidence as it emerges and looking very carefully at other countries’ experience and not taking things off the table if the evidence leads us in that direction.