Platforms For Connection

Pointedly on Twitter, Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham write:

We have both seen devastating incidents in our regions and would never support anything which compromises national security.

An important part of strengthening the country’s defences is establishing the truth at the earliest opportunity when things go wrong and that is why, if drafted correctly, the Hillsborough Law could create a culture in all public services where that is the norm.

As it stands, we believe the government’s amendment in relation to the security services creates too broad an opt-out and risks undermining the spirit of the legislation.

We appreciate that the government has made huge strides in working to deliver the Hillsborough Law and are grateful for their willingness to work with campaigners thus far to make it the strongest law possible.

It is in that spirit that we call on them to withdraw their amendment ahead of Monday’s debate and work with the families and the Hillsborough Law Now campaign to find a solution acceptable to all sides.

As Rotheram’s fellow Hillsborough survivor, Ian Byrne, writes in an open letter to his own fellow Labour MPs:

Colleagues,

I never wanted to have to write this. But with the Government once again moving to weaken the Hillsborough Law, I feel I have no choice.

I was at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. I survived but 97 did not.

The fight that followed for truth, justice and accountability has lasted nearly four decades. What happened afterwards taught us something devastating; when the state fails, it too often closes ranks, hides the truth, and leaves ordinary people to suffer alone.

That is why the Hillsborough families and campaigners fought for a simple but powerful legacy law, one that ends the culture of cover-ups, forces public bodies to tell the truth, and ensures no family ever again faces what they did.

A Hillsborough Law.

Not a half-measure. Not a version with loopholes. The real thing.

This Government promised exactly that. The Prime Minister promised it. We were elected on it.

Yet the Government’s latest amendments partially carve the intelligence services out of the duty of candour.

That would allow the very behaviour exposed by the Manchester Arena Inquiry to happen again where MI5 was able to withhold information and avoid accountability.

The Manchester families have warned us clearly this is not what was promised by the Prime Minister.

I cannot, and will not, support amendments that abandon them. Or the nuclear test veterans. Or the Chinook disaster families. Or any victims of state failure who were told this law would finally change things.

The amendment I have tabled does not weaken national security. Existing safeguards already allow sensitive material to be protected. What it does do is ensure that no arm of the state is above the law when it fails. That is the whole point.

This isn’t about technicalities. It’s about who we are here to serve.

The Labour Party exists to build a state that works for ordinary people, not one that protects itself. If we cannot deliver a law that tells the truth, supports grieving families and ends a culture of cover-ups, then we must ask ourselves a hard question: what is this Government for?

I cannot believe I find myself writing these words. Shame on those vested interests who have put us in this position.

But on Monday, you have a choice that will follow you for the rest of your political life.

You can vote for carve-outs that keep parts of the state beyond the reach of truth and accountability. Or you can vote to end, once and for all, the culture of cover-ups that destroyed lives and denied justice for decades.

This is not just a vote on a Bill. It is a test of whether Labour in government still stands with ordinary people when the state fails.

I, and all the Hillsborough Law Now campaigners, ask you to meet that test. Vote against the Government’s amendments. Support mine. Deliver THE Hillsborough Law we were promised not a diluted version, but the real thing.

The families never walked away from this fight. On Monday, do not walk away from them.

JFT97

Ian Byrne MP

Campaigns such as Hillsborough strengthen, and are strengthened by, the case that is made here, even if it is overly generous in suggesting that these consequences would be unintended:

Joint statement from children’s and online safety organisations, experts and bereaved families on a social media ban for under-16s.

Parents across the country are profoundly concerned by the risks to children’s safety and wellbeing online. As children’s and online safety organisations, experts and bereaved families we share their concerns and, for many years, have been raising the alarm and calling for bold and decisive action. But, collectively, we believe that 'social media bans' are the wrong solution.

We undoubtedly need action to protect children from preventable online harm. Parents are right to demand that the Government stands on the side of children and families, and finally call time on tech giants being able to treat children’s lives and wellbeing as someone else’s concern.

Though well-intentioned, blanket bans on social media would fail to deliver the improvement in children’s safety and wellbeing that they so urgently need. They are a blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner.

Banning children from social media risks an array of unintended consequences. It would create a false sense of safety that would see children – but also the threats to them – migrate to other areas online. Children aged 16 would face a dangerous cliffedge when they start to use high-risk platforms, with girls particularly being exposed to a range of threats from misogyny to sexual abuse.

Social media bans would offer limited protection from the toxic effects of algorithms, but children –including LGBTQ and neurodiverse children – also require platforms for connection, self-identity, peer support and access to trusted sources of advice and help (including Childline).

A social media ban is not the answer. Instead, an approach which is both broader and more targeted is needed. Personalised services like social media (but also games and AI chatbots) should not be accessible to children under 13 – existing law to this end should be robustly enforced.

For over 13s, social media platforms must be required to rigorously enforce risk-based age limits, blocking features and functionalities that are risky for children under a given age. Decisions should be made on the basis of the best available evidence, and it should be a tough prerequisite that, to offer online services to children in the UK, tech companies promote and protect children’s wellbeing.

It is vital that solutions are based on high-quality evidence. Last year the Government commissioned an important review into online harm and we urge them to publish the results to date without delay to inform debate and decisions on next steps.

We agree swift action is required. The Government should urgently introduce new legislation that strengthens the Online Safety Act to give our laws and regulators every possible tool to tackle the harms children are experiencing. We want to see a requirement on platforms to use highly effective age assurance that robustly enforces minimum age limits. Just as films and video games have different ratings reflecting the risk they pose to children, social media platforms have different levels of risk too and their minimum age limits should reflect this. Companies should be required to set minimum age limits based on their functionalities and risk level to deliver age appropriate experiences.

Most of all, it is time for a fundamental reset of our expectations on tech firms. Social media firms should be required to move away from addictive design, but also have strong and unambiguous duties to build and promote responsible, child centred products that once and for all promote and reinforce agency, healthy interaction and exposure to high-quality content.

Regulation should be strengthened and more effectively enforced, but also expanded so that tech firms not only tackle harm but are left in no doubt that the price of doing business in the UK is to comply with a strong and clear set of measures that prioritises the lives and wellbeing of our children and young people.

Signed, 

Molly Rose Foundation 

NSPCC 

5 Rights Foundation 

Nexus NI 

FlippGen / ‘For Us’ campaign 

Centre for Protecting Women Online 

Beyond Breck Foundation 

Internet Matters Full Fact 

Thomas William Parfett Foundation 

Children United

Internet Watch Foundation

Fresh Start Media

Parent Zone

Marie Collins Foundation

Victim Support NI 

Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland 

ASSIST NI - Domestic & Sexual Abuse Advocacy Service

Invisible Traffick

WISE KIDS

SWGfL

UK Safer Internet Centre

Politics in Action

Childnet

Alliance to Counter Crime Online

ProMo Cymru

Women’s Resource & Development Agency

Child Online Harms Policy Think Tank

Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD)

NWG Network

Adele Zeynep Walton

Mariano Janin, Mia’s father 

Ian & Penny Banyard

Tanya & Michael Absalom, parents of Kady Absalom

Ros & Mark Dowey, parents of Murray Dowey

Dr Richard Graham, Consultant Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist

Dr Lizzy Winstone, University of Bristol

V.L.A.D. Outreach CIC

Children’s Law Centre (NI)

Centre of expertise on child sexual abuse

The Children’s Media Foundation