Social Media Ban for Under-16s

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

My driving force, and the reason I came into politics, has always been and will always be to give every child, from every background, the best possible start in life, because that is how they and our country succeed. Today, we take a decisive step towards creating a safer, healthier life for our children and future generations. We are giving children their childhood back. I am clear-eyed about all the challenges that social media brings, for adults as well as children, and technology constantly changes. Today’s announcement is not “one and done”, or the end of the story. There is still much more to do, but this is a landmark day—a day when we stand with parents, charities, bereaved families and all those who have campaigned for change. This is your moment. It is a day when we take power away from the tech giants, who have had countless opportunities to keep children safe, and put it in back in parents’ hands. It is a day when we give our children the freedom to be children again, so that they have the best possible start in life. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and indeed for alerting me in advance of the announcement, which was much appreciated. This announcement—although coming, I am afraid, rather later than many noble Lords would have hoped—is extremely welcome on these Benches. I thank in particular my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Barran for their tireless campaigning on this issue. Had they and others not developed their arguments so well and expressed them so compellingly, I do not believe we would have reached this important moment. Needless to say, most of all I thank and offer my respect to the parents of the children who have lost their lives at the hands of social media. They have bravely and wisely directed their unthinkable pain into a legacy that will protect countless children for the future, and their efforts will not be forgotten.

A social media ban for this age group has been something that Conservative parliamentarians, both here and in the other place, have long advocated. We have been joined in support by Labour Back-Benchers, Liberal Democrats, campaigners, parents, schoolteachers and charities in calling for action to be taken to protect children. Yet just months ago, the Prime Minister directed his Members to vote against the same policy he is now so urgently championing. During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, noble Lords were instructed by the Government Whip to vote against the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Nash. Save for a small handful of admirably brave, principled Labour Peers, more than 150 voted against the ban not once but three times.

The Government explained that they did so in order to conduct a consultation, but the evidence and support in favour of a social media ban were already overwhelming. In fact, it had already been adopted by other countries. It is not clear at this point what value this consultation has added. I think it is worth highlighting two opportunity costs of inaction. First, as the bereaved parents have stated, the longer you leave change, the worse it can be for children. Secondly, had the Government acted decisively at the time, the consultation could have been used as a means of refining the detail of the ban. With that in mind, I have several questions for the Minister.

First, are the Government yet ready to set out a detailed timetable of what legislation is coming, and roughly when, to bring this about? Given the extra work that will fall on Ofcom, what additional resources will it be provided with? Will tech companies be obliged to contribute towards the budget, or will the funding come from the taxpayer? When will which platforms fall into scope be published? I thank the Government for listing some platforms that will be banned, but we need a clearer, principles-based explanation as to what platforms and what functionality will be banned or limited for which age group. Can the Minister confirm today that digital ID will not be a mandatory requirement for those wishing to access social media, both children and adults alike? Can the Minister comment on reports today that age verification will be conducted at operating system level rather than by the platforms themselves? Lastly, do the Government feel that new frictions for all users, including adults, of age-gated platforms are unavoidable?

The social media ban is welcome. I was surprised to learn, however, that the Government are also considering overnight curfews and infinite scrolling interventions for those under 18. There may well be a case for this, but I do not see how it is possible to believe simultaneously that 16 year-olds have the wisdom and judgment to vote to elect a Government but not the wisdom and judgment that 18 year-olds might bring to bear on what social media functionality to use. It strikes me as psychologically wildly incoherent.

But, to conclude positively, although we are disappointed by the time it took the Government to arrive at this position, we should not lose sight of the significance of the step being taken today. The protection of children online should never be, and I think is not, an area of disagreement between us. These Benches will of course continue to scrutinise the detail of the proposals and hold the Government to account for their delivery. However, where measures genuinely strengthen protections for children and support families, the Government will find in us a constructive and willing partner. I look forward to working collaboratively with Ministers to ensure that these reforms are implemented effectively and provide the lasting protections that children deserve.

Artificial Intelligence: National Security Implications

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for sovereign AI capability here. But I would welcome a great deal more clarity from the Government on what exactly they mean by sovereign AI. Does it mean a complete sovereign stack of hardware, software and data? Does it mean AI capability being sovereign, as the Tony Blair Institute suggested, or some variation of that? Until there is a clear definition, it will be very difficult to understand the way forward.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Sovereignty is not just about controlling AI models. It is about building leverage over key parts of the value chain and bringing to the table technologies that no one else can live without. It is about looking at where the UK has competitive strengths and where we can support our most promising sectors and start-ups, whether through financial investment, support for R&D or support with visas and so on. We have identified five priority areas: compute efficiency and sovereign architecture; next generation AI labs and model development; AI for health and life sciences; AI for scientific discovery; and AI trust, integrity and assurance. Those are the areas in which we think the UK has a competitive advantage.

Online Hate Speech

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The importance of accurate, trusted news is essential. The noble Baroness touched on many different matters in her question. In respect of young people and their access to social media, as I will be talking about shortly, we have put down proposals that will restrict social media platforms in providing content to under-16s. Providing accurate news is hugely important more generally and, as I mentioned on the previous question, we are looking at the role that algorithms play in social cohesion and the spread of online hate. The noble Baroness raises the very important point of media literacy, and we are working with young people and more generally through our media literacy plan to improve the ability of all people, whether young or old, to discern misinformation and disinformation in this important area.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, online hate speech is not solely created by individual users. It is also generated and amplified by malicious state actors using algorithmic methods to inflame tensions and to undermine our social cohesion. So as the Government prepare to strengthen the Online Safety Act to require platforms to act more quickly during a crisis, can the Minister give us some idea of what might constitute such a crisis? In particular, do the criteria include evidence of co-ordinated algorithmic attacks, increasingly referred to as “cognitive warfare”?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises the importance of being attentive and aware of the potential for foreign states to spread disinformation online, and through the Online Safety Act we have made the foreign interference offence from the National Security Act a priority offence that places clear legal duties on services to proactively assess risks, prevent users encountering foreign interference content and remove it swiftly where it appears. Ofcom set out in its publication last week some of the answers to the specific questions about definitions that the noble Viscount raises, but I am happy to write to him afterwards if that does not fully complete the answer to his question.

Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Employment

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that there may be differential impacts throughout the labour market. ONS analysis suggests that administrative roles may see greater transformation from AI, while our AI adoption research shows that marketing, administration and IT are the most common areas of current or planned use. The AI and the Future of Work Unit is monitoring sectoral and distributional impacts, including on gender and region. We will support those through the commitment to upskill 10 million people by 2030 and, alongside the Women in Tech Taskforce, to champion diversity in the UK tech sector.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. We should be cautious about the assumption that improved AI skills alone will enable job seekers to adapt to a changing labour market. The misapplication of AI in recruitment often generates unmanageable volumes of synthetic job applications, making it impossible to identify genuinely qualified candidates. Without an efficiently functioning recruitment market, the Government’s efforts to boost employment will be even less effective than they currently are, so will the Minister please encourage the future of work unit to look into the matter urgently?

EU Digital Services Act and Regulation

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Our approach is to have regulators who are sector-specific and have the expertise to look at how AI is affecting the companies they regulate and its impact.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, many digital harms such as disinformation and illegal or fraudulent content operate across borders. In that light, can the Minister enlarge on the practical measures the Government are pursuing with the European Union to assure effective cross-border enforcement of our respective digital regulations, particularly with respect to Ofcom’s work with those responsible for enforcing the Digital Services Act?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Ofcom and the EU have an agreement and talk frequently about regulatory co-operation. Ofcom is also a member of a global network of regulators, so it can share best practice and welcome further co-operation.

UK Space Economy

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Absolutely. One of the great pleasures of covering civil space is the enormity of expertise in our universities and companies. Almost everybody you meet is doing something ground-breaking and impressive. I would be very happy to meet the people suggested by my noble friend.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, events in Ukraine and Iran are showing the growing military defence importance of satellite communication, navigation and earth observation systems. Given our strengths here in the UK in satellite manufacture and space data services, does the Minister agree that the UK space sector is particularly well suited to dual-use applications that support both economic growth and defensive capability? If so, is now the moment for the Government to look for further ways to promote investment in our satellite manufacturing sector?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Viscount makes an important point. The two priorities of our space policy are economic growth and national security; they are priorities for the whole of government and are central to our approach to space. I co-chair the Space Ministerial Forum with my colleague from the Ministry of Defence, bringing that whole-of-government approach to this important issue. In the speech I made last week on our four priorities, satellite communication was one of them; it is a real priority for the Government.

Superintelligent AI

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

As I mentioned at the start, there is a lot of debate about the pathway that AI development will take and the pace at which it is developing. The AI Security Institute has reported a sharp rise in AI capabilities over the past 18 months, with continued growth almost certain, and it is looking at the implications of this. For example, one of its research focuses is tracking the development of AI capabilities that would test the limits of human control, which is one of the most pertinent questions for anybody thinking about the implications of superintelligence.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I want to build on the very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Given that AI research and development can be conducted, in effect, anywhere, regulation of the development of superintelligent AI is going to have to be global. Does the Minister feel that the UK is genuinely taking full advantage of our considerable convening power in this space to drive forward the global AI safety agenda? Further, might there be grounds for concern that our convening power may be diminished over time by the emerging political uncertainty that came to the fore over the weekend?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The Government have forged many extremely successful relationships; as evidenced, for example, by the number of trade deals secured over the past 18 months or so. These relationships with the EU, the US, India, France and many other countries include discussions on AI. In addition, the UK is the co-ordinator on related questions for the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, which aims to shape and advance the science of AI evaluations globally. Our engagement is on all levels, and specifically on the technical level. The noble Viscount makes an extremely important point. This is an effort of global development, so it is important that we engage with developers globally and with other countries.

Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Let me conclude by saying this. I believe, and the Government believe, that artificial intelligence is a transformative technology that has the power and potential to bring about extraordinary and welcome change—to create jobs and growth, to diagnose and treat diseases, to help children learn at school, to tackle climate change and so much more besides—but in order to seize those opportunities, people must feel confident that they and their children are safe online, and that AI is not being used for destructive and abusive ends. Many tech companies want to act, and are acting, responsibly, but where they do not, we must and will act. Innovation should serve humanity, not degrade it, so we will leave no stone unturned in our determination to stamp out these demeaning, degrading and illegal images. If that means strengthening existing laws, we are prepared to do that, because this Government stand on the side of decency. We stand on the side of the law. We stand for basic British values, which are supported by the vast majority of people in this country. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, the technological capabilities and their misuse that have prompted this Statement are, needless to say, deeply disturbing and demand our careful attention. The use of AI to generate non-consensual sexual imagery of women and children is both grotesque in itself, but also corrosive of trust in technology more broadly.

We therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that new offences criminalising the creation or solicitation of such material will be brought into force this week. We support the enforcement of these laws. We also welcome Ofcom’s decision to open a formal investigation into the use of Grok on X under the Online Safety Act, an investigation that must proceed swiftly to protect victims and hold platforms to account.

Hard though it is to predict the misuses of emerging technologies, we must collectively find better ways to be ready for them before they strike. I fear there is a pervasive and damaging sense of regulatory, legislative and political uncertainty around AI. As long as that remains the case, we risk remaining a victim of events beyond our control.

From the outset of this Parliament, and indeed in opposition, the Government have pledged to legislate on AI. Reviews and policy documents, including the Clifford AI Opportunities Action Plan, promised a framework to drive adoption and regulatory clarity. However, we still have no clear timeline, nor even a clear account of the Government’s policy on AI.

It is worth noting that the legislative tools the Government are now relying on to implement their proposed new offences, such as the creation and solicitation of non-consensual intimate images, are the product of amendments introduced by this House to the Data (Use and Access) Act. Ministers have repeatedly argued both that binding AI regulation must come, and that the existing multi-regulator framework is sufficient.

Evidence to the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee late last year confirmed that the Secretary of State would not commit to a specific AI Bill, instead speaking of considering targeted interventions rather than an overarching legislative framework. This may indeed be the right approach, but its unclear presentation and communication drive uncertainty that undermines confidence for investors, businesses and regulators, but above all for citizens.

Progress on other AI-related policy commitments seems to have stalled too. I do not underestimate the difficulty of the problem, but work thus far on AI and copyright has been pretty disappointing. I am not seeking to go into that debate now, but only to make the point that it contributes to a widespread sense of uncertainty about tech in general and AI in particular.

Frankly, this uncertainty has been compounded by inconsistent political messaging. Over the weekend, reports emerged that the Government were considering banning X altogether before subsequently softening that position, creating wholly unnecessary confusion. At the same time, the Government have mischaracterised X’s decision to move its nudification tools behind a paywall as a means to boost profits, when the platform argues, reasonably persuasively, that this is a measure to ensure that those misusing the tools cannot do so anonymously.

Nor has there been much effective communication from the Government about their regulatory intentions for AI. This leaves the public and businesses unclear on how AI will be regulated and what standards companies are expected to meet. Political and legislative uncertainty in this case is having real consequences. It weakens our ability to deter misuse of AI technologies; it undermines public confidence, and it leaves regulators and enforcement agencies in a reactive posture rather than being empowered to act with a clear statutory direction.

We of course support efforts to criminalise harmful uses of AI. However, under the Government’s current Sentencing Bill, most individuals convicted of these new AI-related offences against women and girls will be liable for only suspended sentences, meaning that they could leave court free to continue using the technology that enabled their crime. This is concerning. It cannot be right that someone found guilty of producing non-consensual sexual imagery may walk free, unrestrained and with unimpeded access to the tools that facilitated their offending.

As I say, we support Ofcom’s work and the use of existing powers, but law without enforcement backed by a coherent, predictable regulatory regime will offer little real protection. Without proper sentencing, regulatory certainty and clear legislative direction for AI, these laws will not provide the protection that we need.

We urge the Government to publish a clear statement on their intentions on comprehensive AI regulation, perhaps building on the AI White Paper that we produced in government, to provide clarity for both tech companies and the public, and to underpin the safe adoption of AI across the economy and society. We must assume that new ways to abuse AI are being developed as we speak. Either we have principled, strategic approaches to deal with them, or we end up lurching from one crisis to the next.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement, as well as her commitment to bring the new offence of creating or requesting non-consensual intimate images into force and to make it a priority offence. However, why has it taken this specific crisis with Grok and X to spur such urgency? The Government have had the power for months to commence this offence, so why have they waited until women and children were victimised on an industrial scale?

My Commons colleagues have called for the National Crime Agency to launch an urgent criminal investigation into X for facilitating the creation and distribution of this vile and abusive deepfake imagery. The Secretary of State is right to call X’s decision to put the creation of these images behind a paywall insulting; indeed, it is the monetisation of abuse. We welcome Ofcom’s formal investigation into sexualised imagery generated by Grok and shared on X. However, will the Minister confirm that individuals creating and sharing this content will also face criminal investigation by the police? Does the Minister not find it strange that the Prime Minister needs to be reassured that X, which is used by many parliamentarians and government departments, will comply with UK law?

While we welcome the move to criminalise nudification apps in the Crime and Policing Bill, we are still waiting for the substantive AI Bill promised in the manifesto. The Grok incident proves that voluntary agreements are not enough. I had to take a slightly deep breath when I listened to what the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, had to say. Who knew that the Conservative Party was in favour of AI regulation? Will the Government commit to a comprehensive, risk-based regulatory framework, with mandatory safety testing, for high-risk models before they are released to the public, of the kind that we have been calling for on these Benches for some time? We need risk-proportionate, mandatory standards, not voluntary commitments that can be abandoned overnight.

Will the Government mandate the adoption of hashtagging technology that would make the removal of non-consensual images possible, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill—I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, is in his place—and as advocated by StopNCII.org?

The Secretary of State mentioned her commitment to the safety of children, yet she has previously resisted our calls to raise the digital age of consent to 16, in line with European standards. If the Government truly want to stop companies profiteering from children’s attention and data, why will they not adopt this evidence-based intervention?

To be absolutely clear, the creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate images has nothing whatever to do with free speech. These are serious criminal offences. There is no free speech right to sexually abuse women and children, whether offline or online. Any attempt to frame this as an issue of freedom of expression is a cynical distortion designed to shield platforms from their legal responsibilities.

Does the Minister have full confidence that Ofcom has the resources and resolve to take on these global tech giants, especially now that it is beginning to ramp up the use of its investigation and enforcement powers? Will the Government ensure that Ofcom uses the full range of enforcement powers available to it? If X continues to refuse compliance, will Ofcom deploy the business disruption measures under Part 7, Chapter 6 of the Online Safety Act? Will it seek service restriction orders under Sections 144 and 145 to require payment service providers and advertisers to withdraw their services from the non-compliant platform? The public expect swift and decisive action, not a drawn-out investigation while the abuse continues. Ofcom must use every tool Parliament has given it.

Finally, if the Government believe that X is a platform facilitating illegal content at scale, why do they continue to prioritise it for official communications? Is it not time for the Government to lead by example and reduce their dependence on a platform that seems ideologically opposed to the values of decency and even perhaps the UK rule of law, especially now that we know that the Government have withdrawn their claim that 10.8 million families use X as their main news source?

AI technologies are developing at an exponential rate. Clarity on regulation is needed urgently by developers, adopters and, most importantly, the women and children who deserve protection. The tech sector can be a force for enormous good, but only when it operates within comprehensive, risk-proportionate regulatory frameworks that put safety first. We on these Benches will support robust action to ensure that that happens.

Technology Adoption Review

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

In many areas—in fact, the entire industrial strategy and particularly the Technology Adoption Review—that has been done in concert with the private sector. It is an incredibly important part of the approach. To take one example, the skills package in construction takes that approach forward; both the private and public sectors are putting themselves forward together to provide more opportunities for young people. That is the approach that we will take across digital and AI skills, as I mentioned.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I draw noble Lords’ attention to my technology interests, as set out in the register. What assessment have the Government made of the critique of the CBI and others that their technology adoption plans are too fragmented? Does the Minister agree that, without strong co-ordination across different technology adoption initiatives, we will be unable either to assess their collective impacts or to learn their individual lessons?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The technology review and many others have identified that there is no silver bullet in respect of technology adoption. What is needed in the creative industries is perhaps completely different from what is needed in the energy sector, for example. The review’s approach and its adoption into the industrial strategy is to match the needs of a particular sector with a set of technological or digital approaches. Beneath that are some common themes—for example, on skills, connectivity or infrastructure. We have to look at it in that way: measures cut across the economy and specific measures are suited to subsectors.

Children: Social Media

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord cites some important evidence which, along with other evidence about the links between social media use and different cohorts of young people, young adults and so on, is very important. The Government and Ofcom are looking at that carefully. As I said before, we continue to keep open all the issues here to protect children from unsafe content, while allowing them to participate actively in the digital world, which can provide many opportunities to young people and much education.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, screen addiction is a growing problem for all ages, but far more so for children. In July, Peter Kyle, the former Secretary of State for DSIT, committed to bringing forward proposals in the autumn to restrict children’s screen time. Since the reshuffles, we have heard no more about those proposals. Can the Minister clarify this point today? Will the Government be bringing forward a package along the lines set out by the former Secretary of State?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We are focusing on implementation of the Online Safety Act: protecting children from harmful content, backing Ofcom as it goes through the children’s risk assessments of the platform operators, and ensuring that the duties that came in in July are effective. That is the priority for the time being. As I said, we are looking at the evidence and assessing what other measures may be needed. If we need to do so in due course, we will do so.