
Labour has given up the fight to protect children online
The biggest risk to children online today isn't just the content – it's political complacency. The inertia after the cameras stop rolling is why Britain risks wasting the most powerful child protection framework we've ever had.
The Online Safety Act was never intended to be the final word. It was the legal scaffolding for a safer digital world – the moment Britain declared that childhood should not be collateral damage in the age of algorithms.
As the minister who rewrote and led the Act through Parliament, I knew we weren't solving everything overnight. This was always about laying a foundation that was designed to be layered upon and adapted as technology evolved. The test now isn't whether we passed a law. It's whether we're willing to finish what we started.
Children are just a few clicks away from adulthood and from the worst corners of the internet. That's the digital reality. As a mum, I see the urgency of this every day. We are the first generation of parents dealing with these issues – trying to protect our children from risks that didn't exist when we were growing up.
And yet too often, both tech companies and governments have treated online safety as an optional extra. I was driven to change that and in passing the Act, the UK became a global first-mover, not just on principle but on enforcement power.
Ofcom now holds the regulatory pen. Yes, it's a sprawling regulator with too many hats but when it comes to online safety, it has the money, the mandate, the time, and the tools. Its recently published codes are a massive step forward but they remain cautious and overly corporate-friendly.
It is time for Ofcom to wake up to the fact it needs to be visibly and unapologetically on the side of children, even when that makes the tech giants uncomfortable.
But enforcement alone isn't enough. Legislation without political leadership is scaffolding without structure. And this is where the current Government is failing.
The Act was designed to be layered upon – so why is this Government running away from such an important topic? It's ducking the next phase.
It should be tackling device-level controls, banning smartphones in schools and launching an evidence-based review about the age of digital consent. And that's just for a start. Ministers talk a good game but each day without action is another day our children remain exposed.
This is not about censorship or anti-tech scaremongering – this is about children. Real children – perhaps someone you know, or worse, your own – facing serious harm every single day. We protect them in the real world with seatbelts, safeguarding laws and age limits; yet online, we are still playing catch-up.
The legal framework is in place but now it must be built upon – boldly, urgently and without excuses. Instead, it feels like the topic is constantly being kicked into the long grass – as if simply 'looking at it' counts as action.
Take Labour's refusal to back a private member's Bill proposing a higher age of digital consent. Rather than engage with the principle or contribute constructively, they dodged the debate entirely. For a party that claims to prioritise child safety, their
reluctance to take on the tech giants speaks volumes.
This is not a fringe issue. It's a defining test of modern policymaking: can we create a digital environment that enables connection and creativity without sacrificing the wellbeing of an entire generation?
I remember the final stretch of the Bill. My son was only four days old when I was back in meetings with officials, peers and advisers – making sure the legislation couldn't be watered down and remained workable. I felt the crushing guilt of missing time with him on those first days but I also knew the guilt I'd feel if I didn't do my part to protect the world he was growing up in.
Because this isn't theoretical. Children are still being served suicide content by design. Still being bombarded with anorexia videos. Still being targeted through algorithmic systems optimised not for safety, but for engagement.
We need Labour to recognise that online safety is not a one-off legislative win, but a policy frontier that must be actively governed and continuously reformed.
Just as we don't set national security or public health policy and then walk away, online safety must be treated as a live, evolving challenge – one that demands cross-departmental focus, long-term investment and consistent ministerial ownership.
We created a minimum floor, not a ceiling. The Act was never meant to be the end of the conversation – it was meant to start it. A modern online safety strategy must evolve constantly: reflecting new risks, reviewing age thresholds, investing in digital resilience and delivering on our promises to families.
Anything less isn't just complacency – it's a failure of duty. And families across the UK deserve better.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The National
22 minutes ago
- The National
Starmer's approach to global trade is clearly not ‘pragmatic' at all
The UK Government estimates that annual economic output will be a stunning 0.1% higher by 2040 than it would have been without the India trade deal. In contrast, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) noted in Spring 2023 that Brexit's impact in the long run reduces our overall output by around 4% compared with what we would have had we remained in the EU. The amount gained by the 'landmark' India deal is therefore one-fortieth of the amount lost due to Brexit. READ MORE: UK-India post-Brexit free trade deal agreed after years of negotiation Prime Minister Starmer has described the Indian trade deal as a 'pragmatic' approach to global trade. Such an approach would, however, involve the UK Government restoring frictionless trade with the UK's largest trading partner, the European Union. If the UK Government were looking to deliver a 'pragmatic' approach on the economic front, Sir Keir would be looking to get the UK back into the European single market as soon as possible. This would be far more productive than trying to deliver trade deals with far-off countries and deliver immensely higher economic benefits than the paltry 0.1% generated by the India trade deal. Alex Orr Edinburgh THE world must be having laugh at Starmer as they did with Boris Johnson. Starmer considered he had done well to claim first prize with his Trump deal, being the first in the world to do so. Then along came Joseph Stiglitz, an American Nobel-prize-winning economist, on Laura Kuenssberg's Sunday show stating that Trump's method for changing his business bargaining tariffs is to choose the weakest first, then move on to the other countries, which is indeed what he did with the UK. READ MORE: Scottish care sector chief compares Keir Starmer to Enoch Powell in damning comments Stiglitz was a breath of fresh air in his interview, even stating that Scotland did things differently to Westminster especially where student fees are concerned. Starmer behaved like a school boy bringing an apple for his teacher when he presented Trump with an invitation for tea with King Charles. 'What a pushover', Trump must have thought, 'this guy is gonna be no trouble.' And so it was with Starmer claiming a success story with his 10% tariff in exchange for the 1.8% tariff on UK goods to America. Even more than before Brexit when we were part of the EU market. Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife STARMER'S Trump appeasement and grovelling is reaching the point where we're all reaching for the sick bag. Put aside the smarm-fest that was the 'royal' invitation. Put aside the bizarre trade deal, with oligarch-pal and yacht-botherer Peter Mandelson first lapping it up at Trump's left shoulder before looking like a puppet with cut strings when a real reporter (Scottish) pointed out it was all smoke and mirrors. Put aside all the UK's debasement. READ MORE: Police and fire brigade attend fire at Keir Starmer's house I ask again, when is enough going to be enough? Presidential adviser Stephen Miller, creep of creeps, has just announced a possible end to habeas corpus – the foundation stone of the most basic democracies. This follows the deportation of US citizens by ICE and Trump's befuddlement over whether or not he has to 'follow the constitution'. I just wait to see who Westminster will send along to represent Britain (England) at Trump's birthday military parade. Yes – the military parade for the draft dodger who has mocked veterans and banned transgender people from serving in the US military. Might I nominate Tony Blair as the perfect envoy to watch real heroes march by as slimeballs look down from a gold balcony? Amanda Baker Edinburgh I KNOW that modern journalists are generally illiterate about anything to do with religion these days but I would have thought that a journalist for The National would know a little more about the Scottish Catholic Church than shown in your article of May 9 on the election of Pope Leo XIV. The journalist quotes 'international development charity Cafod' about the Pope, obviously oblivious to the fact that this is the aid and development agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Scotland's equivalent, Sciaf (Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund) is ignored, as is any source from the Scottish Catholic Church. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: Pope Leo can yield power stronger than political force The Vatican is the only state in the world which recognises Scotland as a separate entity from the rest of the UK. The then Pope Leo XXIII restored the Scottish hierarchy in 1878 and the current Scottish Bishops' Conference was born. The current pontiff has taken the name of Leo because he wants to acknowledge Leo XXIII's first modern Catholic Social Teaching encyclical, Reurum Novarum, which protected the rights of workers at the height of the industrial revolution – a sign that he will follow in the footsteps of Pope Francis. By the way, Sciaf, which transforms the lives of the poor, not making them comfortable in their poverty, is at the top of the recipients of funds for projects from the Scottish Government's overseas development fund (which would be much bigger had we been independent, of course). Please note for the future! Dr Duncan MacLaren KCSG Glasgow Former Director of SCIAF and former Secretary General of the Vatican-based Caritas Internationalis I HAD to laugh about the RBS bank notes article in last Monday's National. For the last two years, the ATM inside the Falkirk branch of the RBS only appears to dispense English bank notes (seven out of seven visits). All part of the anglicisation of Scotland, after the Tories changed the name of the parent company from RBS to the NatWest (National Westminster) Group in 2020? A Wilson Stirlingshire


Reuters
38 minutes ago
- Reuters
EUROPE Friday 13th brings explosions in Tehran, race to safe havens
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Rocky Swift It had to be Friday the 13th, right? The morning began with explosions in Tehran that appeared to be much more serious than tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Iran last year. Though a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran's budding nuclear capability had been suspected, the timing and severity still took markets by surprise, with oil prices jumping over 11% at one point. What remains unclear is what role or knowledge the United States had about the offensive and what will Washington do if Iran retaliates. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was not involved, while Israel's state broadcaster said Washington had been notified before the strikes. Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, had been expected to meet Iran's foreign minister in Oman on Sunday. Oil's jump, opens new tab put it on course for the sharpest daily gain in more than five years. Gold and Treasuries surged in Asian trading, while stock futures pointed to roughly 1.5% declines in Europe and U.S. Britain's FTSE was down less than 0.5% in the futures market. With rubber bullets flying in Los Angeles and missiles dropping in Tehran, global economies are clearly prioritising guns over butter. Major defence contractors in Europe such as Britain's BAE Systems, France's Dassault Aviation, and Sweden's Saab AB may be active today. Key developments that could influence markets on Friday: - German, French final CPI readings for May - Euro zone trade balance, industrial production data for April Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here.


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Ministers on resignation 'watch-list' over welfare reforms
A watch-list for potential ministerial resignations over Labour's welfare reforms is in place, Harriet Harman says. Speaking to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Baroness Harman reckons there could be resignations over the matter. While this week's spending review was taking up most of the headlines, the government told their MPs that controversial reforms to disability benefits would go ahead. The measures - headed up by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall - have proved mightily unpopular in Labour circles. More than 100 MPs from government benches are thought to have concerns about the plans to cut nearly £5bn from the welfare bill by restricting personal independence payments (PIP) and the health top-up to Universal Credit. Spiralling welfare costs, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, have been singled out as an area where the government could save money. Sir Keir Starmer has said he wants more people returning to the "dignity" of work. Asked by Beth if resignations could be on the cards, Baroness Harman said: "There might be. But I don't think, not cabinet." She added: "There is people on a watch list at the moment, but not cabinet ministers." A report released by a House of Lords committee earlier this year revealed that around 3.7 million people of working age get health-related benefits, 1.2 million more than before the pandemic. It also found that the government spends more (£65bn as of January) on incapacity and disability benefits than on defence. It added that if 400,000 people out of the workforce were able to find employment, it would save the government around £10bn through tax income and lower spending on benefits.