Online Harm: Child Protection

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

What is clear is that there is a motion on the Order Paper on which Members will presumably be asked to divide in due course. That does not give any detail of the proposed Bill, but the motion on the Order Paper is orderly and it will be up to Members to decide how they wish to vote on that.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your indulgence, and I suspect that I will get the same answer as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but I have never, in my seven years in this House, been in a situation where a motion outlines the timetable for Monday 9 March—including the timings of proceedings and questions to be put on Monday 9 March and of consideration of Lords amendments and messages on a subsequent day—for a Bill that this House has not seen. How can Members vote for a motion that allocates separate procedures for a Bill that has not been published? I want my constituents to know what the Liberal Democrats are proposing in this space. The hon. Lady is now elaborating on the Floor of the House on what she wants her policies to be, but she is asking us to vote for a Bill that has not been put before this House. Can I therefore have your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether this debate should be going ahead if the House does not have a substantive Bill relating to this procedural motion?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. The motion on the Order Paper is perfectly orderly, so Members will be invited to vote on that, not on the substance of any Bill that might come on 9 March. I think it is important that the House is clear on that.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can I assess what is orderly for my contribution to the debate given that the substance of the motion is about process? To be frank, I do not want to speak about process; I want to speak about protections for children.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The motion is to give consideration to a Bill on the specific matter which has been outlined clearly on the Order Paper: “Protections for children from online harms”. I reassure the hon. Lady that any contribution she chooses to make on that matter would be in order.

[Munira Wilson]

What I am setting out is what I would want to put forward as suggestions for the Bill. As you have helpfully pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will be dividing on whether there should be a Bill very soon on the broad subject of protecting children from online harms.

The other measure I would want to bring forward in any legislation is a doomscrolling cap, which would end the infinite scroll feature on short-form online platforms for young people, limiting the amount of time for which children are pushed to TikTok-style video content to two hours. I would also want to see health alerts on social media platforms for under-18s. Just like cigarettes and alcohol, these addictive products carry well-documented risks, especially for young people. The evidence is clear that excessive use of these apps exposes children to mental health issues, anxiety and sleep disruption, and causes real harm to attention spans. Do they not deserve to know that? When we pick up a packet of cigarettes, we expect to be told about the harm that product will pose to our health, so why is social media—a key driver of the crisis in our young people’s mental health—any different?

Given that young people themselves say they want a break from the stress of social media at school, and given the impact of phones on children’s concentration and focus, will the Education Secretary finally listen to her own Children’s Minister and put the Government’s guidance on mobile phones in schools into law to give teachers and headteachers the back-up and, crucially, the resources they need to restrict their use? That is also something that could be part of this Bill if the Government refuse to accept the amendment that will be coming from the other place to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

I recognise that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has announced a consultation on children’s online safety and that she will be tabling an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to enable further legislation to come forward on something at some point in the future—all as yet to be determined. Frankly, the Government are kicking the can down the road.

Baroness Kidron in the other place, who is an expert and campaigner on children’s safety online, said the Government’s consultation

“does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research or while they are being investigated. The consultation is entirely focused on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its Back-Benchers might agree to. The consultation’s purpose is to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance; it is about party management. The UK’s children deserve better than that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2026; Vol. 852, c. 318.]

Those are not my words; they are the words of the esteemed Cross-Bench peer Baroness Kidron in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a procedural question. Given that the long title of the Bill is not in the motion, does that mean that the Bill can effectively cover any subject or theme if the Order Paper is seized on that day?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which I anticipated might come at some point. If he checks the Order Paper, he will see that paragraph (1)(d) says very specifically that it has to be a Bill on online services age restrictions that is brought forward on 9 March.

[Dr Spencer]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for that clarification, but my understanding is that that is the short title, not the long title. Is it the case that the long title can be used to tag in any related subjects to expand the scope from the narrow one here?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further point of order. Clarification on that point had best be sought from the Public Bill Office. It is my understanding that any Bill brought forward will have to cover online services age restriction, but I appreciate the distinction that he makes between the long and the short titles.

[Munira Wilson]

I am perplexed, because I think there is support on both sides of the House for restricting online harms and protecting our children, and for the principle of bringing forward legislation, although I understand that people are vexed about the procedural point. I fear that there has been some contorting to find a way to justify voting against this motion. I am sorry that that is the case, because we Liberal Democrats are ready to work in a cross-party manner to create the safer future that our children deserve so that they can flourish and thrive in the online and offline worlds. I hope colleagues across the Chamber will support us.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members might be jaded by my making this point of order, but I am grateful to you for allowing me to do so; as a democrat, I like this Chamber to work properly. Will you clarify the procedural basis of the request by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for the Government to make time for the Bill? I ask this because if the motion is accepted, the Government will not be able to pick a time for the legislation; instead the Liberal Democrats would take over the Order Paper and force the Government to accept their legislation on 9 March, with the procedures that are outlined.

May I also ask your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the motion? It would make a number of amendments to the Order Paper on that day, including that

“No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies...

The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.”,

and that only a “designated Member” would be able to make any decision about the order in which a Bill was to be taken. In subsection 19 that designated Member is

“(a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and

(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party.”

Despite the protestations of the Liberal Democrats that they want this to be a cross-party approach, this is them taking over the Order Paper and giving their leader carte blanche to table what they like on 9 March. It does not give the Government the opportunity to table legislation on a cross-party basis at a timing of their choosing—it has to happen under the jurisdiction of the Liberal Democrat motion, does it not?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his very long point of order—[Interruption.] Yes, he has made the point that he is trying to be helpful. To clarify, first, it is the House’s time not Government time, but the powers given as set out in the motion are as he has outlined them. May I further highlight that it is not without precedent to hold a debate on a motion taking over the Order Paper on a Bill, without the Bill having been published? It last occurred on 6 February 2024 when an Opposition motion was tabled to take over the Order Paper to discuss ministerial severance reform, and that Bill had not yet been published. So it is not without precedent, but the hon. Member is correct in his understanding of what the motion would do were it to be passed by the House.

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I have received contact from hundreds of parents in my constituency and from some young people sharing their huge concern about online harm caused by engagement with social media, so I fully understand the sense of urgency in the Chamber and the desire for quick action. The Government said in January that they would consult. They reiterated that they would consult, and they reiterated that commitment 10 days ago. I understand that the consultation is due to start in March, and the Minister has talked about bringing measures through before the summer. Can he commit to acting with real urgency and bring that consultation forward? What is the delay? Will he commit to bringing legislation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady has repeatedly made very long interventions. It was always open to her to attend the opening of the debate and to speak in it.

[Kanishka Narayan]

I totally agree with the hon. Member’s call for urgency. I assure her that first, the Government will act by the summer in robustly responding to the consultation. Secondly, we have been focused on getting the consultation right, and not just for the wider public; we are ensuring that it is designed for young people’s engagement, which requires particular design features. Thirdly, we are not waiting for the launch of the consultation to have the national conversation. I have been in schools and met parents, as have the Secretary of State and Ministers from across Government, so the conversation has very much started, and I am sure that the consultation is also imminent.

While there is consensus that problems remain, there is not yet consensus on the best way to address them. That is why the Government announced last month that we will be launching our short, sharp consultation and national conversation on further measures. We recognise that while some people support age restrictions on social media for children, there are diverse views on both the “what” and the “how”. Prominent voices in this debate, including the Molly Rose Foundation and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, are concerned that blunt age limits might not be the right approach and risk doing more harm than good. Even among those who support age limits, there are differing views on how to apply them, including which services restrictions should apply to. Those views are worthy of consideration, but we need to consider them properly and responsibly—we owe that to our children.

That is why the consultation approach is the responsible path forward for looking at these issues, considering in a swift and evidence-based way the full range of implications and the most effective way of protecting children and enhancing their lives online. We will consult with parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved families, tech companies and—crucially—children and young people themselves. None of that would be allowed under the motion we are considering today. This consultation, backed by the national conversation, will identify the next steps in our plan to boost and protect children’s wellbeing online. The consultation will include exploring the option of banning social media for children below a certain age, as well as a range of other measures. This will include gathering views and evidence on options such as restricting access to addictive functionalities and understanding what we can do better to support parents in navigating their children’s digital lives. We will also explore whether we should raise the digital age of consent, to give parents more control over how their children’s data is used, and how existing laws on age verification could be better enforced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank the hon. Member for that point, and commit to her that we are going to try to do that as soon as possible. She will be aware that the legislative process is already very tight, so I will come back to her and the House with the wording of the motion as soon as possible.

Last week, as I have mentioned, the Secretary of State confirmed that we will take new legal powers to allow us to act quickly on the outcomes of the consultation, delivering on our promises to parents. We will make sure that the wording is presented to the House at the earliest opportunity. We also recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the expertise that parliamentarians in both Houses provide, and have already committed that when regulations are brought forward, they will be debated on the Floor of the House and there will be a vote in both Houses, ensuring proper scrutiny. We are clear that the question is not whether we will act, but what type of action we will take. We will ensure that we do so effectively, in lockstep with our children and in the interests of British families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

You are talking about the Online Safety Act. Do you think the fact that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Does “she” think.

[Victoria Collins]

Apologies. The hon. Member talks about the Online Safety Act and what happened under the Conservatives. Do you think—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

She.

[Victoria Collins]

Apologies. Does she think that the fact that the Leader of the Opposition tried to water down that Bill and said that we do not legislate for feelings has anything to do with the can being kicked down the road and us not having made the necessary progress?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I am sure the applicability of the legislation in Scotland is something that can be debated when the Bill comes before the House.

To give them credit, many Labour MPs understand the fact that there is an absence of any Government position, and they will not be taking their foot off the pedal. I suspect that many may have the guts to speak out today—although perhaps not. Those MPs recognised immediately that a consultation is a mechanism for a delay that goes beyond the summer and into another parliamentary year before the sniff of legislation. That holding position is now falling apart, as we have seen from the Minister here today. It is the threat of a very large group of Labour MPs backing the Conservatives’ Lords amendment that is pushing this Government into action—it is government by rebellion. We ask the Liberal Democrats not to let us be distracted from the moment of truth that is coming up, when we hope there will be cross-party support for the noble Lord Nash’s amendment.

For too long, the internet has been treated as a space that cannot be governed. It has functioned like a pioneer society, with extraordinary opportunity but minimal rules. However, pioneer societies improvise customs and eventually retrofit themselves with rules to sustain societies, often after hard-won experience and dispute. That is the process through which we are now going, and we are realising that, as the online society was built, we were not vigilant enough when it came to protecting childhood. We did not recognise that this new territory would bleed into the old world. [Interruption.] The Minister is shouting from the Front Bench that I am embarrassing myself. We as a Government brought forward the Online Safety Act, but there are gaps in it, and we have taken a clear position as the Opposition that we think children should not be on social media. He is looking very angry, but what is his view? Can he stand up and tell us what his personal view is? As the Minister with this responsibility, what does he think should be done, having launched his consultation with such earnestness? Come on, tell us! Would he like to tell us?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Could I just be helpful? A lot of help has been needed this afternoon. The Minister has not asked to intervene, and the hon. Lady cannot force him to intervene on her.

[Julia Lopez]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the Minister has no manners, but wishes to shout from a sedentary position. I sat listening to him and waiting to see if I could decipher, in his very long and self-regarding diatribe, whether he actually has any opinions, but it turns out that he does not. He is very comfortable to sit on the Front Bench and chunter away at me. [Interruption.] You see, he again says that I am such an embarrassment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I would not envisage that parents would be responsible for that. There are mechanisms to make sure that platforms would not be permitted to provide accounts to under 16-year-olds and they would have to have highly effective age-assurance techniques. In fact, I have spoken recently to representatives of a major platform who said that they had very effective techniques for testing whether somebody trying to open an account is the age that they say they are. I will not take further interventions for a little while so that I can make progress, as I know other people want to speak.

There are serious arguments against implementing a ban, some of which have been heard, and they deserve to be addressed and not dismissed. We are likely to hear more about those doubts today and they must be listened to respectfully. Indeed, I hold some of those anxieties and reservations myself. The first argument is that a ban would be unworkable and that teenagers would find workarounds through virtual private networks, foreign platforms or fake credentials. They will, of course, because teenagers have always tested boundaries. Fake IDs, sneaky booze and under-age rule-breaking are traditional parenting challenges, but we do not abandon age limits simply because they are imperfect. Instead, we impose them because they change norms, shift behaviours and offer parents reinforcement rather than resistance. Of course, the mandatory age limit will not remove every child overnight, but it will remove a critical mass and that matters.

Some fear that such a ban would require de facto compulsory digital ID, undermining anonymity and civil liberties, and again, that concern must be taken extremely seriously. However, as I have just suggested to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), age verification does not require a single state-mandated digital identification system. Other jurisdictions have explicitly prevented platforms from requiring accredited digital ID and instead mandated multiple verification techniques, with responsibility placed on platforms and not citizens. As I said, I was speaking to a major tech platform recently that set out some of those techniques, which can now be used very accurately to assess a user’s age. However, we must be clear that we do not have a surveillance state simply because 13-year-olds are kept off Facebook.

A third argument, and a point that has been made, is that social media provides vital support and connection for many children, particularly those who feel isolated offline. That can be true, but it is not an argument for leaving the entire system untouched. This is not about banning the internet, messaging, educational platforms, health support or professional development services; those places can and should remain accessible, and that is happening in other jurisdictions. This is about a specific category of platforms whose business models depend on maximising attention and emotional arousal and which are demonstrably harmful at scale. Another concern is the unintended consequence that children may be pushed into darker corners of the internet. That needs to be included in the Government’s consultation when it eventually sees the light of day, particularly whether there needs to be parental consent required for downloading certain apps.

Doing nothing already leaves children exposed, in plain sight, on platforms that we know are optimised against their wellbeing. Protection will never be perfect, but neither is inaction benign. Doing nothing is not neutral. It leaves parents despairing, schools firefighting and children navigating a digital frontier with no one by their side. There is also a broader freedom argument, which is that by keeping children off adult social media platforms we can restore freedom to adults online and will no longer need to contort those digital spaces to be universally child-friendly, which is where some of the challenges have come in.

Finally, this is about leadership. As I said earlier, a consultation without direction is not leadership, and a consultation that pushes real change 18 months down the line is, in truth, a decision to do nothing now. Labour MPs know that, which is why the coming moment will not rest on this rather nutty Lib Dem takeover attempt. Instead, it will rest on the Nash amendment, when this House will have a clear choice: to accept that the pioneer phase is over; to recognise the sanctity of childhood, which deserves clearer rules; and to acknowledge that giving parents support is not the same as the state stripping them of their ultimate responsibilities. Parents will and must always be the first line of defence. When harm is real and growing, leadership requires a decision, even when the answers are not perfect.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

As Members will know, the debate has to conclude by 7 o’clock. There are slightly more than 10 people bobbing. I plan to move to the wind-ups at 6.40 pm, which should leave everyone plenty of time.

Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The last time I was in the Chair for a statement on this issue, we ran out of time. It would be really helpful if colleagues ensured that their questions are short.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation highlight that evidence to support social media bans remains very uncertain and warn that blanket restrictions could unintentionally cause harm by pushing young people towards unregulated platforms, remove trusted online spaces, undermine digital literacy and, indeed, create a cliff edge at the age of 16. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must take a calm, evidence-based approach to this complex issue and ensure that children’s voices are central to the consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Just to help Members, I will be calling this statement to an end at 2 o’clock, because we have a lot of business afterwards.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Anna is a child development doctor in my constituency. Every day, she sees children who have been harmed by excessive screen time. The Secretary of State says that she wishes to come to a clear position before the summer. When we come to that clear position, how urgently will change happen? How long will Anna keep on seeing children damaged by too much screen time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

This is the final question.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I am so happy that the Government are finally waking up to this issue and how serious it is, and that there is a cross-party consensus on the need to ban social media for under-16s. Social media platforms are designed to be addictive; we all know that. Most adults cannot control themselves, so how can we expect our children to? Enforcement will be the key issue, so would the Secretary of State please give her views on what she thinks enforcement could look like and on what she has already learned from our Australian friends, who are leading the charge on this with legislation?

[Sarah Pochin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my perfectly reasonable question, the Secretary of State said I had “got this wrong”. She did not explain in what way exactly I had got it wrong. Does she not agree that all Members in this Chamber—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. When the hon. Lady makes a point of order, she should address it to the Chair, not to the Secretary of State. The issue she has raised is not a point of order and it is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure she can follow it up with the Secretary of State outside the Chamber or in writing.

Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on artificial intelligence, social media and online safety. No woman or child should live in fear of having their image sexually manipulated by technology, yet in recent days the AI tool Grok on the social media platform X has been used to create and share degrading, non-consensual intimate deepfakes.

The content that has circulated on X is vile. It is not just an affront to decent society—it is illegal. The Internet Watch Foundation reports “criminal imagery” of children as young as 11, including girls sexualised and topless. This is child sexual abuse. There have been reports of photos being shared of women in bikinis, tied up and gagged, with bruises and covered in blood, and much, much more. Lives can and have been devastated by this content, which is designed to harass, torment and violate people’s dignity. They are not harmless images; they are weapons of abuse disproportionately aimed at women and girls, and they are illegal.

Last week X limited the image creation function to paid subscribers, but this does not go anywhere near far enough. It is insulting to victims to say that someone can still have this service if they are willing to pay. It is also monetising abuse.

Let me be crystal clear: under the Online Safety Act 2023, sharing or threatening to share intimate images without someone’s consent, including images of people in their underwear, is a criminal offence for both individuals and platforms. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), rightly made this a priority offence, meaning that services have to take proactive action to stop this content appearing in the first place. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 made it a criminal offence to create or request the creation of non-consensual intimate images, and today I can announce to the House that this offence will be brought into force this week and that I will make it a priority offence in the Online Safety Act, too. That means that individuals are committing a criminal offence if they create or seek to create such content, including on X, and anyone who does that should expect to face the full extent of the law. But responsibility does not just lie with individuals for their own behaviour; the platforms that host such material must be held accountable, including X.

This morning, Ofcom confirmed that it has opened a formal investigation into X and will assess its compliance with the Online Safety Act 2023. The Government expect Ofcom to set out a timeline for the investigation as soon as possible. The public and, most importantly, the victims of Grok’s activities expect swift and decisive action, so the investigation must not take months and months, but X does not have to wait for the Ofcom investigation to conclude; it can choose to act sooner to ensure that this abhorrent and illegal material cannot be shared on its platform. If it does not, Ofcom will have this Government’s backing to use the full powers that Parliament has given it. I remind X and all other platforms that those include the power to issue fines of up to 10% of a company’s qualifying worldwide revenue, and in the most serious cases, Ofcom can apply for a court order to stop UK users accessing the site.

This Government will do everything in our power to keep women and especially children safe online. I can confirm that we will build on all the measures that I have outlined and will legislate in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is going through Parliament, to criminalise nudification apps. A new criminal offence will make it illegal for companies to supply tools designed to create non-consensual intimate images, targeting the problem at its source. In addition to our taking all those actions, we expect technology companies to introduce without delay the steps recommended in Ofcom’s guidance on how to make platforms safer for women and girls. If they do not, I am prepared to go further, because this Labour Government believe that tackling violence against women and girls is as important online as it is in the real world.

This is not, as some would claim, about restricting freedom of speech, which is something that I and the whole Government hold very dear. It is about tackling violence against women and girls. It is about upholding basic British values of decency and respect, and ensuring that the standards that we expect offline are upheld online. It is about exercising our sovereign power and responsibility to uphold the laws of this land.

I hope that MPs on both sides of the House will stand up for British laws and values and call out the platforms that allow explicit, degrading and illegal content. It is time to choose a side. Opposition MPs can either support the legislative action that we are taking through the Online Safety Act, or they can ally themselves with those who think that the creation and publication of sexually manipulated images of women and children is acceptable. I say in particular to the one Reform MP in this Chamber that if Reform continues to call for the Online Safety Act to be repealed, it is shamefully supporting scrapping protections that keep women and children safe.

I would briefly like to address the understandable calls from many MPs and others for the Government to end their participation on X. I really do understand why many colleagues have come to this conclusion when X seems unwilling to clean up its act. The Government will keep our participation on X under review. Our job is to protect women and girls from illegal and harmful content, wherever it is found. It is worth bearing in mind that 19 million people in this country are on X, and more than a quarter of them say that they use it as their primary source of news, and our views—and often simply the facts—need to be heard wherever possible.

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I was going to say that I was grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for Ofcom’s action and investigations, and her support for our action on banning nudification apps, and that I hope she and her party will actually vote for the Crime and Policing Bill in its final stages, but she then began her own campaign of misinformation in the House. I merely stated the facts about the Online Safety Act. There is a backstop power in the Act, which I remind her that her party voted for in government. Under that power, in the most serious cases, if Ofcom believes that a company is refusing to comply with the law, Ofcom has the power to apply to a court for serious business disruption measures to stop people accessing a platform. If she disagrees with her own Government’s legislation, she should make that clear to the House.

The legislation is extremely clear that it is a criminal offence to share or attempt to share non-consensual intimate images. It is going to be illegal to create or ask to create those images. The ban on nudification apps will be an important change. As I have said, this is nothing to do with freedom of speech; it is about upholding British values and the British law. I also gently point out to the hon. Lady, who mentioned our allies in the United States, that the President signed the Take it Down Act, which deals precisely with non-consensual intimate images. Maybe she should do a little bit more research, rather than just reading headlines, online or in newspapers.

I think the public will be clear about what change they want, and I genuinely hope that this is something we can work on across the House. It is because I am such a champion of freedom of speech that I do not want women to be bullied or harassed off any platform, and want their views and voices heard. The hon. Lady’s colleagues might wish that she would take the same approach; I see that from their faces.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Chi Onwurah.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Unlike her shadow, the Secretary of State was rightly passionate when calling out these sexually abusive images. The libertarian tech bro lobby has to accept that consent counts online, too. In her letter to me today, the Secretary of State said that the Online Safety Act was designed to deal with this, but she is being overly generous to the previous Government. The Act was designed, or fudged, to give adults some protection from illegal content on certain services, and to protect children from harmful content more generally, but not including generative AI, and without making platforms responsible for content that they share. Will my right hon. Friend now accept my Committee’s recommendations. and do more to explicitly plug the gaps in the Act, particularly regarding generative AI, as well as tackling the social media business models that incentivise the content that we are talking about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

For over a week, Grok has generated illegal sexual abuse material—non-consensual images of women and children—without restraint on X, which took the disgraceful step of putting it behind a paywall. That is abhorrent, and those images are illegal. Unlike the Conservatives, we very much welcome the action being taken and absolutely want to work together to stop this illegal, abhorrent use of AI technology. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called on the National Crime Agency to launch a criminal investigation into X and for Ofcom to restrict access immediately. We also called for Reform MPs to donate their earnings from X to those charities working for those victims of sexual exploitation.

Where there are loopholes around AI creation of these horrific images, we are pleased to hear the Secretary of State announce the establishment of a criminal offence to create, or seek to create, such horrific content and the work to criminalise nudification apps. Regulatory gaps, however, are not the only problem; enforcement is failing, too. While other countries have acted decisively to ban X, Ofcom has taken over a week to start an investigation and lacks the resources to take on these tech giants. What has become clear is that with the pace of technology, the Government must look to future-proof online safety from new harms and harmful features.

The Liberal Democrats have long been raising the alarm. We tabled amendments to raise the age of data consent, proposed a doomscroll cap to curb addiction and called for public health warnings on social media. Protecting women and children from online abuse cannot wait, so will the Government support our calls on these actions? This matters in real life—to my constituent who was harmed by strangulation in a nightclub following online videos, and to the victims of sexual abuse and violence, which often starts online. Given the pace of change, does the Secretary of State have full faith in Ofcom’s ability to enforce the Online Safety Act? Will she meet me because, unlike the Conservatives, I would like us to work together on this important issue and discuss the action needed on AI chatbots and emerging technologies?

This is a moment for the House to act together. Inaction sends the message that abuse online is acceptable, and we must prove otherwise.

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I think I have said to the House before that patience is not my greatest virtue, but that is because the public and, most importantly, victims want to see this happen quickly. I said in my statement that I expect—because the public expects—Ofcom to do this swiftly. We do not want to wait months and months for action. I am of course happy, as is the Online Safety Minister, to meet her to discuss further steps. There are clear responsibilities here in terms of enforcement of the law on individuals and their behaviour, but the Online Safety Act, which I know her party voted for, does place some of those requirements on Ofcom. We have to see action, and I am sure that that message will be heard loud and clear today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Absolutely no options are off the table. As I said to the Opposition spokesperson, the Online Safety Act includes a backstop power: if Ofcom decides that X has repeatedly refused to comply with the law, it can apply to a court for serious business disruption measures. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issues around protecting children. This is the most abhorrent crime. That is why this Government have been so strong on this. I am very happy to meet with her and talk to her Committee about what other steps we need to take. We will make sure that children are protected, no ifs and no buts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has given very clear message on this, and I thank her for that. She is right to say that this is not only about X and Grok; many generative AI platforms are facilitating this illegal and dehumanising behaviour. I gently say to her that although she is absolutely right that AI has enormous potential to reshape our lives, over a year since the Government attempted to sacrifice our world-beating creative industries and individuals’ intellectual property on the altar of AI, we are still waiting for news of the AI Bill. However, I am pleased that she has drawn the line here that she will not sacrifice the safety of women and children.

I agree that there are gaps in the legislation—of course there are—but there is a lot of legislation out there and, since the Online Safety Act came into force in March, Ofcom has taken so very little legal action against illegal content, which is so prolific. How confident is the Secretary of State that Ofcom has not only the resources, but the willpower—the stomach—to take on these big tech companies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Madam Deputy Speaker gave me a look just now that said, “speed up your answers”—I know that is what she did, so I will. Tech can be a force for good or bad. I am so passionate about this because I believe that it can be a force for good, including the proper education of children and young people. On that point I definitely agree with my hon. Friend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am not sure that I did give the Secretary of State a look, but I am going to run this statement for only an hour in total, so Members need to ask much shorter questions. I call Sir Jeremy Wright.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, and the robust encouragement that the Government have given Ofcom to act on this issue. When she considers Ofcom’s capacity to act, not just its willingness to do so, will she also consider whether injunctive-style relief ought to be available, so that it can act urgently when circumstances require? May I also ask about risk assessment? Because of the centrality of risk assessment to the process of the Online Safety Act 2023, it matters hugely whether a platform has assessed a risk, leading to its safety duties to do something about that risk. Will the Secretary of State discuss with Ofcom whether X has done a proper risk assessment and kept it up to date? At the very least we now know that X is on notice that its AI tools can be used for the promulgation of illegal content on its platform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Questions have to be much shorter.

[Liz Kendall]

Non-consensual intimate images of women bloodied and bruised, women in bikinis and child sexual abuse are not freedom of speech—they are abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I think—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. May I suggest to everybody who is yet to ask a question that second parts are not required?

[Liz Kendall]

That was my fault; I did not hear the question.

We will see. I believe that this ban can be enforced. We have comprehensive legislation that is probably stronger than that in almost any other country, and it now needs to be enforced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State responded to another Member on the subject of Northern Ireland. Can she confirm that the Crime and Policing Bill will be modified to include Northern Ireland?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member will know that that is not a point of order. I made it very clear that the statement would run for an hour. The Secretary of State seems to be itching to respond, but perhaps she could do so in writing. It is very unfair on Members who have not had the chance to get in that we should seek to extend the statement via a point of order.

Hospitality Sector

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I agree with the hon. Member on the point about employer national insurance contributions, but in the Press and Journal today—one of the august daily papers in Scotland—there are reports that highland hoteliers are struggling to recruit. The large part of the blame for that is laid at the door of Brexit, and the current immigration policy does nothing to help the highlands and islands in Scotland. There is demand for a rural visa, which is fully backed by the Federation of Small Businesses—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members that there are 45 of you wishing to speak. Interventions must be a lot shorter. I am sure the shadow Minister has got the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Andrew Griffith]

The ability of people to find work in this wonderful sector, which provides those wonderful opportunities is, yes, a function of access to the labour market, but it is also a function of an employer’s ability to take that risk on somebody—to take a chance and give them that opportunity.

I think we would all agree—occasionally we hear positive noises from those on the Government Front Bench before they are reigned into line by their own Back Benchers—that it would be far better for our nation and our out-of-control public finances if the 9 million people of working age could seize the opportunity presented by sectors like hospitality, which offers flexible working and the chance to start a career, and could join the workforce, regardless of which constituency they come from. Almost uniquely, hospitality is a sector whose contribution to our constituencies is something of which each and every one of us—all 45 of us who wish to speak today—is proud. That contribution is why Conservative Members value the sector so strongly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have any advice for those in the hospitality industry listening to the Minister, who is so afraid to deal with the issue at hand that he has to resort to this ad hominem attack on our Front-Bench colleague.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and perhaps encourage all Members to ensure that they stay on topic and in scope this afternoon?

[Chris Bryant]

They don’t like it up ’em, do they, Madam Deputy Speaker?

The shadow Business Secretary then said,

“We think they’re the right plans because those plans make our economy competitive.”

The problem with the argument that he has made today is that he has not learned a single thing since that mini-Budget. He still wants us to tax less and spend more at the same time. Yes, of course he wants to reverse the national insurance increase, but does he point to where the money should come from? No, of course he doesn’t. He likes the additional spending on the NHS, he approves of our spending on prisons, he supports more spending on policing, and he clamours for more spending on defence—and, no doubt, on trains, telecoms, universities and schools—but he does not want to pay for it, which is why it is as plain as a pikestaff that he has not changed a bit. He would re-run the Truss mini-Budget in the twinkling of an eye. It was doolally economics when Truss introduced it and it is doolally economics today. I give you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister for doolally economics. Let me deal with two specific points that he made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law]

Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter). I thank the Minister for highlighting the V&A museums, one of which is in my city of Dundee, which has numerous hospitality businesses. Scotland makes a £9 billion contribution to the UK Exchequer through hospitality, and 200,000 jobs depend on it. There are consequences from the national insurance contribution rises; for example, just this year, one third of venues in Scotland have reduced their staff numbers and almost one fifth have shortened their opening hours, which means fewer jobs, less income tax and less tax from profits.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The interventions are very long. The Minister has now taken longer than the shadow Minister did in opening the debate. I am sure he will bring his remarks to a conclusion very soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Well, I think I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is, of course, absolutely right about the cost of energy and the difficulties that it presents for businesses up and down the country. His point about Scotland in particular is well made. Will the Minister consider the proposals put forward in our plan, which could help to truly ease the burden not just on the hospitality sector, but people across the country?

Finally, I turn to business rates. Today’s motion rightly reflects many of the economic mistakes made by this Government. However, it is important to highlight that it was the last Conservative Government who broke their manifesto promise to reform business rates, leaving small businesses trapped in an outdated and unfair system. Of course, the current Government have also pledged to replace the system, with no action taken thus far. The Liberal Democrats will continue to hold Ministers accountable for their pledge, because there is a need for a fundamental overhaul of the unfair business rates system. It penalises manufacturers when they invest to become more productive and energy efficient; it leaves pubs and restaurants with disproportionally high tax bills; and it puts our high-street businesses at an unfair disadvantage, compared with online retail giants. In too many places, pubs, restaurants and shops are being forced to close, taking with them jobs, opportunities and treasured community spaces.

More broadly, the outdated tax system inhibits business investment, job creation and economic growth, holding back our national economy. These problems have persisted for too long, and it is high time the Government took action. Our proposals for fair reform would cut tax bills, breathe new life into local economies and spur growth. Equally importantly, they would provide long-term certainty for businesses, which in today’s commercial environment is needed more than ever.

The value of our hospitality sector goes beyond economics. Pubs, restaurants and cafés are the beating hearts of our towns; they brighten our high streets and bring our communities together. The economic landscape created by the last Government did so much to damage them, and this Government continue to push many to the brink of collapse. I hope today that Ministers will listen to the Liberal Democrats’ calls and reverse the jobs tax, bring forward plans for business rate reforms, and seriously consider our plans to cut energy bills for people and hospitality firms across the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

There is now a five-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. Members might like to think about the length of interventions, or indeed whether interventions are needed at all, given that plenty of colleagues still wish to speak.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am not making an criticism of any individual Member of the House of Lords. I listened to the debate, and it was clear that people felt passionately and were arguing entirely in good faith. I fully understand that. As I have said, however, this a Bill that was not intended to include elements relating to AI and copyright. In the last Parliament it was supported by the Conservative party and by us on the Opposition Benches, and was referred to by both sides during our general election campaigns. Neither of us said that we were going to include anything about copyright in the Bill, but that is what is now holding up Royal Assent. There are economic benefits that would flow from the Bill, but they will of course be delayed if we further delay Royal Assent.

Let me end by saying that, as I think I have said several times, I fully understand the concerns expressed by people in the creative industries about artificial intelligence. Many use it already, but they are understandably concerned about where it will go, and they fear for their jobs. It is true that, for many, the strikes in the US had an even more cataclysmic effect on their careers, but I would just add one corrective to those fears. There is a moment at the end of “The Winter’s Tale” when Paulina takes Leontes to see a statue of his wife, who he thinks died of grief when he falsely accused of her adultery many years earlier. We all know when we watch it in the theatre that the statue is actually the actress playing Hermione; it is not a statue at all. Yet the moment when Leontes touches the statue and says, “O, she’s warm!”, still shocks us and brings tears to our eyes. Why? Because it is human to human. Yes, of course it is artifice laid upon artifice, but it is humanity face to face that really moves us. The Government have heard the concerns expressed by this House and the other place, and we have set out our plans to address them. I believe the Bill must be allowed to run its course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Lords amendment 49D engages Commons financial privilege. If Lords amendment 49D is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Before Clause 138

Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of copyrighted works used in relation to AI models

2.2 pm

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D.

I want to start by putting on record something that I should perhaps have said a bit more about in this place. I cherish the UK creative industries—their immense contribution to our national and personal lives; their embodiment of the best of human creativity—and I appreciate the sincerity of their concerns about the future. I want to express my genuine gratitude to the whole of the creative sector, from national treasures such as Sir Ian McKellen, Kate Bush and, yes, Sir Elton John, whose performances enrich our lives—having seen all of them perform live, I can say how much that has personally enriched my life—to local artists such as Pauly the painter, whose paintings of Hove enrich my ministerial office in Whitehall. However, this is not a competition about who loves the sector most; it is an argument about how best to champion the interests of creatives, large and small, and to protect and promote them into the future.

The purpose of the Data (Use and Access) Bill is to better harness data for economic growth, to improve public services and to support modern digital government, and I acknowledge the agreements reached in the other place on scientific research and sex data to that end. The Bill before us today is one step closer to completion, and I am grateful to Minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch for her work on these important issues. I am sure the House will unite in wishing her a happy birthday today—it is a significant birthday, but I will not do her the discourtesy of mentioning which one.

This Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. However, the other place has yet again suggested that there be an amendment on this issue, despite hon. Members of this elected House having already removed a similar amendment twice before. Madam Deputy Speaker, I also note your decision that the amendment from the other place still conflicts with the financial privileges of this place. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has stated repeatedly, we absolutely recognise that a workable solution on transparency is a key part of tackling this issue, but we absolutely disagree that this Bill or this amendment is the right way to address it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has spoken for 33 minutes in a debate that is due to last for an hour, and we have yet to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. There will not be time to have a proper debate on this matter, which is of great importance to a number of people. Will the Government please make available more time beyond the 60-minute time limit?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which was not in fact a point of order. He will be aware that the programme motion has already been agreed to by the House.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

As hon. Members know, the substance of this Bill began with the previous Government, in recognition of the need to streamline and harness the use of data to grow the economy and drive improvement in the delivery of public services. As I have said before, when the Bill started its life, most of us had no idea that it would become the vehicle for addressing some of the most important social and technological issues of our time.

Although I welcome the huge benefits that the Bill will bring to the economy and public services when it comes into force, I fear that it will go down on the Government’s record as the Bill of missed opportunities. It is a missed opportunity to fix our flawed public data sets, which present a barrier to tracking and tackling inequalities in areas such as women’s health; a missed opportunity to commit to a review of protections for children in their use of social media platforms, and to taking action to increase those protections where the evidence shows there is good reason to do so; and a missed opportunity to provide much-needed certainty to two of our key growth industries, the creative and AI sectors, on how they can interact to promote their mutual growth and flourishing.

It could be seen as somewhat dispiriting to be back at the Dispatch Box again, having the debate on copyright and AI with the Department’s ministerial team, but I see that there has been an upgrade since our last outing at the Dispatch Box. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his tone and his approach to this debate, particularly his recognition of previous mistakes made. As politicians, we do not say sorry often enough, or recognise mistakes or where we would have wanted things to go better. I appreciate the statements he has made from the Dispatch Box, but the fact that we are here is testament to the determination and sincere concern of Members of both Houses. Whatever Benches they sit on, they are deeply concerned that we must not miss this opportunity to find a solution to such a significant challenge.

Our colleagues in the other place have spoken about their commitment to the primacy of this House, and their reticence to delay the passage of this Bill any further than is absolutely necessary. Their resolve demonstrates the importance of this issue to Members of both Houses and the stakeholders they represent. The Government have spoken repeatedly of their commitment to protecting the creative industries, but their actions are still yet to match their rhetoric. It appears that “reviews” have today been upgraded to “working groups.”

Many excuses have been made for why the Government feel unable to act now. Baroness Kidron and other noble Lords have acted in good faith on the Government’s stated concerns, and have sought to address them in the latest iteration of their transparency amendment on copyright and AI. Lords amendment 49D would provide the Government with flexibility to put in place proportionate regulations on the transparency of AI enterprises by reference to their size. Importantly, it would allow a reasonable timeframe for the Government to complete their review of responses to their consultation, which concluded in February, before the Secretary of State is compelled to lay draft transparency regulations before Parliament.

For the third time, an amendment on this topic received the overwhelming support of Members in the other place, and the debate at the last round showed that the strength of feeling is mirrored in this House. Amendment 49D is a balanced clause that would put in place a much-needed long-stop date to provide the certainty that creatives and the technology industries alike have been calling for. As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) suggested, it is a backstop.

The Government have run out of excuses for failing to act. Today we have an opportunity to achieve something relatively rare in our political climate: creating effective, balanced legislation based on cross-party compromise. It is important to public confidence in Government to show that we can put sound principles above politics when the overwhelming need arises. The Government have another opportunity today; let us make sure that it is not another missed one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 49D. As the Bill returns to this House, I am grateful that the other place continues to fight for creatives, and this amendment focuses on the fundamental principle of transparency while securing the principle of proportionality. I am also grateful for the cross-party work and support in this House and the movement from the Secretary of State today. I know that many Members have signed various amendments standing up for creatives, and I call on colleagues across the House to consider how they vote today on this amendment.

At its very core, the amendment would require AI companies to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant information about how their works are being used for AI development and training. The amendment is clear that it is for the trader or data holder to ensure that the data is accessible to copyright owners upon request. Behind that are real people, real communities and the rich tapestry of a £126 billion creative industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Well, the Clerks may have advised—[Interruption.] I merely suggest that it is very unclear. As many in the House of Lords have suggested, it is very unclear how the amendment can engage financial privilege. The amendment use the word “may”, so it does not contain any requirement on the Government to indulge in financial expenditure. It is a worrying precedent if the Government are going to avoid debate on policy by suggesting that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think it would be helpful if I clarified that that is a matter for the Chair and not for the Government.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker; it just looks very strange to see that the amendment “engages financial privilege” when there is no financial requirement in the amendment.

I will finish on one further point. I understand the Secretary of State’s keenness to attract investment from tech companies. When we have previously debated legislation affecting tech companies, on each occasion we have heard that it may result in their being unwilling to come and invest in this country, but that has never been the case. I hope the Secretary of State will not listen to those who say that if we proceeded to enforce copyright law, it may somehow result in tech companies finding this country unattractive. I do not believe that is the case and I do not believe that it would jeopardise the jobs that the Government are keen to create. But unless we proceed down the route of accepting the Lords amendment, we will jeopardise the jobs of the 2.4 million people in this country who are employed in the creative industries.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to set up a queuing system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Minister is very popular.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that it is popularity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The important point is that we need to look at this in the round, rather than piecemeal. I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now. Indeed, it does not purport to; it instead purports to give something in six, nine or 12 months’ time, or sometime in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Clause 67

Meaning of research and statistical purposes

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B. —(Chris Bryant.)

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I rise to confirm my agreement with new clauses 1 and 12, and I associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). I have had several emails on the protection of copyrighted information and revenue streams for artists, including from Yvonne, who contacted me recently. It is essential that the creative arts and intellectual property are protected and that artists are properly compensated if their output is used in AI.

On new clauses 1 and 12, the case for raising the age of consent for data processing from 13 to 16 has been well made across the House, so I will not repeat the points made, but I will say that it is essential that we give our children their childhoods back. They need to be protected from the toxic content to which they are being exposed by social media and online.

New clauses 3 to 6 and new clause 14 would place transparency requirements on AI companies to report on what information and data they have used, from where, and with what permission. That is essential to holding the AI companies to account and to ensuring that content holders and data owners are informed and have adequate channels of redress for misuse of their information.

I am sure that new clause 7 was spoken about while I was out of the Chamber, but let me say now that the right for our citizens to use non-digital verification is key. My mother—who is in her late 60s, bless her—would not have a clue what to do if she did not have family to help her with her benefits claims, doctors’ prescriptions, appointments and so on. We cannot exclude millions of our citizens who may choose not to have smartphones and not to be exposed to toxic content online, or who are simply not tech-literate. I urge the Government to ensure that we do not exclude millions of our citizens. I also strongly support new clause 11, but I will defer to earlier speakers in that regard.

As for new clause 18, many constituents have written to me or spoken to me, expressing concern about sharing their NHS and other private data with third parties such as Palantir. It is essential for this new Government to adopt a posture of supporting ethical, transparent business practices for all suppliers who provide services in our country. We have already heard about the background of Palantir. I do not know how true this is, but some of my constituents believed, or had read, that during the Prime Minister’s first visit to the US, after meeting Donald Trump he visited Palantir’s headquarters, or one of its offices. I urge the Government to protect—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I rise to speak in strong support of new clauses 1 and 2.

New clause 1 seeks to raise the age of consent for social media data processing from 13 to 16. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the way in which tech platforms engineer addiction, manipulate attention, and shape childhood in ways that parents and even Governments cannot easily counter. This is not hypothetical; it is the reality that our children are living every day. Children aged 13 to 15 are especially vulnerable. Those social media algorithms do not just show content. They shape beliefs, reinforce insecurities and amplify harm. Whether it is body image filters, content promoting self-harm or endless scrolling, these platforms are designed for engagement, not wellbeing.

The new clause would not ban young people from using social media. It simply says that their data should not be exploited for commercial gain without genuine, informed consent. By raising the age to 16 for these specific practices, we align with international best practice and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. With clear exemptions for education and health platforms, this is a targeted and proportionate reform that prioritises children’s mental health.

New clause 2 deals with copyright compliance and AI. As we all know, the AI revolution is here, but just as we would not let a factory operate by stealing its raw materials from others, we should not let AI models train on copyrighted work, such as books, music or journalism, without permission or payment. The new clause makes one clear demand: if an AI system operates in the UK, it must respect UK copyright law, regardless of where the servers are based. We are standing up for our creators—for the authors, musicians, film-makers and developers whose work gives AI its power. In Wales alone, the creative industries turned over £1.5 billion in 2023, employing more than 37,000 people. Let us not wait for lawsuits or damage to our industries. The new clause provides legal clarity, defends creators, and affirms that Parliament, not silicon valley, writes the rules.

These Liberal Democrat new clauses are principled, practical and long overdue, and I urge all Members to support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Spencer]

It has been a pleasure to hear the speeches of Members from across the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who spoke with passion about the protection of copyright in AI. I suspect that my right hon. Friend is looking forward to seeing the back of the Bill, and hoping that it does not return in a future iteration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke of the importance of ensuring that data does not fall victim to hostile states and hostile state actors. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke with knowledge and authority about this important issue, and the challenges and practicalities involved in ensuring that we get it right for our children.

I will return to the three themes that we have put forward. The Minister has repeatedly given assurances on the application of copyright with regard to AI training, but the Secretary of State created uncertainty by saying in the AI copyright consultation:

“At present, the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is disputed.”

When we create that level of uncertainty, we need at least an equal level of clarity to make amends, and that is partly what our new clause 20 calls for: among other things, a formal statement from the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise. I do not see why it is a challenge for the Government to put that forward and deliver.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak]

The Secretary of State keeps asking me questions, but I am not in government. It is for him to answer. It is for him to bring forward a consultation and legislation, and to give certainty to the creative sector. There is no point asking me questions—I am not in government.

What I can tell the Secretary of State is that it is extremely unfortunate that this legislation is passing through Parliament now, while the consultation is still ongoing. Amendments are being tabled by Members from all parts of both Houses, leading to legislative positions being crystalised even though the consultation has not yet closed. If the Government really took seriously the views of the public, the tech sector, the creative industries and other stakeholders, they would not be following this approach or timetable. Therefore, we will table amendments calling on the Government to respond to their own consultation more quickly.

Labour’s consultation provides the worst of all worlds: it does not provide any legal certainty or allow the views of those who have responded to be taken seriously. However, Labour should take the views of parliamentarians seriously, including those of its own Back-Bench MPs, who have voiced concerns at the Government’s approach in this very House. Labour should also take seriously the views of those in the other place. The Secretary of State acknowledged that the Government have already been heavily defeated on several amendments, including the Conservative amendments tabled by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge on sexually explicit deepfake images, which secured wide-ranging support. The Government were also defeated on Conservative amendments tabled by Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot that recognise the importance of accurate data, particularly when it comes to gender and sex. Confusing biological sex and elective gender puts patient safety at risk.

The Bill is lengthy and we will continue to properly scrutinise it as it progresses through the House. Labour’s track record to date on science and technology issues is so bad it needs all the help it can get. In just eight months in office, the Labour Government have already committed eight acts of harm on science and technology issues. They have imposed a national insurance jobs tax, punishing tech workers and businesses; lost a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca, doing away hundreds of jobs; launched an AI plan with no new funding or delivery plan, which creates two new quangos and more red tape; cancelled the UK’s new exascale supercomputer, hampering our scientists while our competitors race ahead; skipped the international AI summit of world leaders, started by the Conservatives but ignored by this Labour Prime Minister; scrapped £500 million of funding for the AI research resource, which funds computer power for AI; abandoned Conservative plans for the national maths academy, harming the next generation of data scientists; and aligned Britain with the EU’s failing approach to AI and copyright.

Labour’s approach is analogue government in the digital age: slow, uninspiring and not good enough for Britain. Labour promised so much, but it has delivered only failure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I can now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 320 and the Noes were 178, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

The shadow DSIT team, including our shadow Secretary of State, have met representatives of industry in general. I have met representatives of the creative industries, and I am fairly sure the shadow Secretary of State has too. That is what the consultation is there for. It would not be appropriate to make a unilateral declaration from the Dispatch Box when a live consultation is looking into that complicated area. That would be not be reasonable opposition or good for anybody.

There are no easy answers to some of the challenges, but we should not shy away from them given the clear gains for the public and the economy that many of the reforms set out in the Bill will deliver. His Majesty’s official Opposition and the shadow DSIT team stand ready to work with the Government, wherever possible, to find solutions on these pressing issues. Effective engagement between Government and Opposition will promote confidence among tech companies and would-be investors that the UK is open for business. The last Government’s vision was to harness the UK’s competitive advantage in tech industries to boost our economy and revolutionise the way we live for the benefit of our population. We remain committed to that goal in opposition.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

Creative Industries

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I do not intend to put a formal time limit on speeches yet, but there are lots of Members standing, so it would be helpful if Members could restrict themselves to between six and seven minutes.