Government Communications: X

Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:09

Asked by

[Lord Pack]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce their reliance on the social media platform X for government communications.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, happy new year. The Government use an audience-first approach, assessing all communication channels against the GCS SAFE framework. Paid advertising on X has been suspended since April 2023; the platform is used only for organic content. We continuously evaluate all channels’ value for money and brand safety and use a wide range of digital platforms to reach all UK audiences.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister has seen the recent reports of X generating on-request sexualised images of people without their consent, including of children, yet the Government repeatedly prioritise the use of X. To give just one example, the Home Office’s public social media policy encourages the use of X by promising to read all messages sent to it via that platform, a promise that is not made about any other social media network. Is it not the time for the Government to stop prioritising and promoting the use of X ahead of other social media network platforms?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I genuinely do not agree that we prioritise the use of X, but 19.2 million British citizens use X. It is incredibly important, in an age of misinformation and disinformation, that facts are available on the platforms people are using, as opposed to the platforms we wish people were using, which is why the Government will continue to post organic content on X.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I take the opportunity to wish my former constituent a happy new year. Following up the observation the Minister has just made on reviewing all forms of communication, would it not have been a good idea to send out one day earlier the suggestion that local authorities postpone their elections, and to refer it to both this Chamber and the other Chamber, rather than on the day after both Houses had gone into recess?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

And there I was, going to wish the noble Lord a happy new year and thank him for taking me on my first tour of this building. This Government prioritise Statements in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord will be aware that that is not a government department I actively engage with, but I shall ensure that my colleagues respond directly to him. I am sure that this will not be the last time we discuss this issue in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

As someone who was formerly responsible for the standby agency—one of our major advertising agencies—and other advertising, I ask whether the Minister realises, as I am sure she does, that while social media is fundamental to anybody who wants to communicate, a significant number of government communications must nevertheless think about coverage in other forms of media. That is fundamental for basic communication.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important issue. The reality is that, when we undertook the emergency alert last year, 92% of people were reached via social media, meaning that 8% of the population were not touched by social media. So, physical paper—I am a very big fan of the traditional political leaflet—which means newspapers as well as other traditional media, remains a key part of our communication strategy, as it should.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in the Government’s welcome recently published strategy to reduce violence against women and children, they promise a whole-of-government approach. Yet, as my noble friend has pointed out, they are prioritising X as a platform in their communications. Is not this the perfect opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that they mean what they say? As my noble friend also says, X is publishing sexualised images without consent on its platform, so why are the Government not responding by reducing their dependence on X?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not spend a penny of government money on advertising on the platform. However, what is always useful when these questions come forward is that it makes you look in more detail at the subject matter. Not only are 19.2 million British citizens registered with X, but 10.8 million families use X as their main news source; that is more than any other social platform, which I find genuinely extraordinary. We would be doing a disservice by removing government communications from X when that is where people are actually accessing them; we are making sure that facts are available.

However, the noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to look at these issues in the round. One thing that is incredibly important on some of these issues is prebuttal, as opposed to rebuttal—a word I had not heard before today. It is about making sure that people have the skills to challenge the data in front of them, which is why it is so important that DSIT is about to launch a campaign to make sure that families have access to the right skills to challenge and interrogate the data. Better and enhanced skills are part of the new media literacy and will be part of the new national curriculum.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, if the Government are not going to review their links with X, I ask that they tread carefully in their links with other companies connected to Elon Musk, particularly Anduril and Palantir, the two defence companies. It will be very interesting if the Government let us know how closely they are involved with those two businesses.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important point about our defence supply chain. As an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, this is of key importance to me. I will have to write to her with the details of any contract.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, there have been reports that the Government’s ongoing assessment of their use of social media platforms is relatively informal, conducted without direct ministerial oversight and triggered only on an ad hoc basis when officials consider that a material change has occurred. Given that the Civil Service Code makes it explicit that officials must ensure they have ministerial authorisation for contact with the media, can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the process is subject to clear ministerial accountability, so that decisions about how the Government communicate with the public are properly overseen by Ministers?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that there is a new Permanent Secretary of the Government Communication Service. All these issues, as ever, are under review, but she will not be surprised to learn that how we engage on social media platforms is constantly under review, given the changing nature of communications. However, to clarify, there is an annual review of the platforms we use which are not social media platforms, such as Mumsnet, as well as ad hoc reviews when something clearly changes, as was the case in the ownership of X.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not time the Government considered developing a UK-based alternative to X? We have an excellent engineering talent pool, an AI research start-up ecosystem and high demand for an alternative to X. This would generate jobs and economic growth. What steps have the Government taken to make an alternative to X a reality?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I was dared to see whether we could get in “Ruth social” as opposed to Truth Social for any new platforms, and my noble friend has given me that opportunity. There are numerous existing platforms with huge reach, and it is about how we use them in the UK and how we make sure they are effective for the British people. WeAre8 is a social interest company that is trying to change the face of the internet; there are many other providers, and we must look at them in the round to make sure that we are using the right ones in the right place.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister’s argument in relation to X appears to be that it may be obnoxious, but other people use it so the Government must too. Is it not sometimes appropriate for the Government to take a position, adopt a principle and do what they think is right?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government do what they think is right every single day. Some Members of your Lordships’ House will be aware of my own experiences on X and what that did to me. I stand here, even with those experiences, and say that I still believe that X is an appropriate platform to use because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. While I do not agree with a great deal of what is written on platforms where there is too much hate and misinformation and, at times, conspiracy theories, it is incredibly important that there is a counter-narrative when people are talking about whether vaccinations are appropriate and whether they should be going to hospital. It is incredibly important that the facts are available not where we wish people would use them, but where they are actually using them.