Draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025
Feryal Clark Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The regulations, which are necessary for the super-complaints regime to take effect, were laid before Parliament on 9 June. They will enable the super-complaints regime by establishing the eligibility criteria that entities must meet to submit a super-complaint, and by setting out procedural matters relating to the assessment of super-complaints.
Super-complaints are an integral part of the complaint handling, reporting and redress mechanisms in the Online Safety Act 2023. They enable eligible entities with expertise in online safety matters, such as civil society groups, to raise systemic issues with Ofcom, which is the Act’s independent regulator. Section 169 of the Act establishes the scope of issues that super-complaints may address, including where the features and/or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm, adversely affecting freedom of expression, or otherwise adversely impacting users, members of the public, or particular groups. We expect super-complaints typically to deal with cross-platform systemic issues, but a complaint may cover a single service if the complaint is particularly important, or it impacts a large number of users or members of the public.
This statutory instrument sets out several eligibility criteria that an entity must meet to submit a complaint to Ofcom. For example, entities must represent the interests of users of regulated services, members of the public, or a particular group of users or members of the public. They must remain independent from regulated services in terms of funding, but representation from the services in entities’ governance is allowed, provided that appropriate mechanisms are in place to maintain independence. They must contribute as experts to public discussions of online safety matters, and be capable of being relied on to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom. These criteria aim to ensure that a wide range of entities are eligible while safeguarding the integrity of the process and reducing the risk of vexatious complaints.
In addition to the eligibility criteria, the SI sets out the process and timeline for the assessment of super-complaints. First, Ofcom must determine whether an entity is eligible within 30 days; it must then inform the entity whether it is eligible and explain why. The time for assessing eligibility decreases to 15 days for entities that have been found to be eligible within the past five years. In those circumstances, entities must submit information to show that they are still experts that contribute significantly to the public discussion of online safety.
The draft regulations also state that eligible entities must present current, objective and relevant evidence to support their view that one of the grounds in section 169 of the Act is met. When assessing the admissibility of the complaint, as well as its substance, Ofcom must typically respond within 90 days of the eligibility determination. That means that, as standard, the entire super-complaint process will conclude within 120 days, or 105 days where there is retained eligibility status. Ofcom may stop the clock in certain circumstances, such as if additional information is required and the complaint cannot be progressed without it, but it may stop the clock only for the amount of time that it takes to receive the requested information.
Where Ofcom has determined that an entity is eligible, it must consider the complaint and evaluate the evidence presented to it. In addition, Ofcom can request further input from the complainant or third parties, as required. At the end of the process, it must publish a response including its determination on the matter, which may include what further action, if any, is anticipated.
In developing these regulations, the Government have consulted Ofcom and conducted a public consultation. We have listened closely to the views of the stakeholders and, where possible, made changes to the policy, which was consulted on under the previous Government. The changes are set out in further detail in the Government’s policy response, which was published in June. Alongside the consultation, the Government held roundtables with civil society organisations, and their views on the policy have been taken into consideration. The changes include lowering the bar for eligibility to enable new expert organisations to make complaints, and removing the requirement to notify Ofcom ahead of submitting a complaint.
The online world is complicated and dynamic, with new harms emerging every day. These regulations have been drafted to ensure that the Act remains agile in addressing emerging technologies and market operators and consequent harms. They mark an important step towards a fully realised online safety regime.
Feryal Clark
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks. This instrument will bring us one step closer to a fully implemented online safety regime, with a functioning super-complaints mechanism that allows relevant organisations to help the regulator to stay abreast of new and emerging harms. As well as the civil society organisations I mentioned, the Molly Rose Foundation was consulted during the creation of the super-complaints regime under the previous Government. The changes that have been made will reduce the burden on Ofcom and improve its ability to manage the complaints. It will also make the process easier by providing a smoother path for the relevant eligible organisations to bring forward complaints.
The shadow Minister asked about resources and expertise of the regulator. The Government have ensured that Ofcom has the funding it needs to deliver the online safety regulation effectively, with £72.6 million allocated for online safety spending in 2025-26, which is an increase on previous years. That decision followed a business case process that included Ofcom submitting its requirements, including on delivering the super-complaints function.
The shadow Minister will be happy to hear that later this month the child safety duties will be in force. We expect that children will see a positive change to their online experience. Services likely to be accessed by children will be required to take measures to prevent children from seeing pornography and content that promotes, encourages or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. The services will also have to protect children from other types of harmful content, including violent, abusive and bullying content. Under Ofcom’s finalised child safety codes, services will need to take certain steps, including introducing robust age checks, such as photo ID matching or facial age estimation, filtering out harmful content from algorithms, and ensuring that reporting mechanisms are accessible and easier to use.
As I said earlier, this is a dynamic, fast-moving and developing world. For that reason, we will continue to keep the harms under review, and constantly evaluate and review evidence of new and emerging harms. As the Secretary of State has said, we will not shy away from introducing further legislation to ensure that our children are safe online. In conclusion, I hope all Members agree on importance of these regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Feryal Clark Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on children’s online safety, my hon. Friend will know that keeping children safe online is a priority for this Government. We are focused on implementing the Online Safety Act 2023 so that children can benefit from its wide reach and protection. The children’s code that is coming in next month will see a step change in the experience of children online in the UK. While we do not pretend that that is job done, and we are working at pace to develop a further online safety package, children will no longer be able to access pornography or other unsuitable content, including content that encourages or promotes self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.
Gregor Poynton
The National Crime Agency and other law enforcement agencies have highlighted the growing prevalence of AI-generated child sexual abuse material as one of the biggest threats to public safety. It is a growing threat to us online. That is why I was astonished last week to see the Tories and Reform vote against the Crime and Policing Bill, which contains world-leading measures to tackle this horrific crime. Does the Minister agree that it is frankly disgusting to see the Tories and Reform using this issue for party politics?
Feryal Clark
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend on that. Child sexual exploitation and abuse is one of the most horrendous harms, and the Government are committed to ensuring that UK law keeps pace with criminal use of technologies including AI. As he says, we have introduced a world-leading offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise AI models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material. This new offence builds on the protections in the Online Safety Act, and I am very clear that nothing is off the table when it comes to keeping our children safe.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
As the Minister says, the Online Safety Act has passed into law and is being implemented, but parents in my Gosport constituency are still desperately worried about the scale of the inappropriate content that very young children can stumble across in the online world. Can she reassure us? When will they begin to practically see the changes that the Online Safety Act promised, and when will the big online providers really start having to do what they say they are doing to keep our children safe online?
Feryal Clark
I absolutely agree that some children are still stumbling upon material and content that they should not be. When the Online Safety Act is fully enacted in July, we will see a step change in what children can see online. Ofcom will monitor this and ensure that where such material is continuing, we take action.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on her well- deserved honour in the King’s birthday honours? I hope the whole House will agree that it is a fitting and well-deserved honour for her expertise and service to the House.
Protecting children online should be a top priority for every Government, and that is why the Conservatives passed the Online Safety Act to give this Government all the sweeping powers they need to act, but when the Minister was asked in Parliament why implementation under Labour was so slow, she said that implementation must be
“as proofed against judicial review as possible.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 405WH.]
Why is she more concerned about protecting herself and the Government than about protecting children?
Feryal Clark
It was the hon. Gentleman’s party that dragged its feet in bringing forward the legislation and that watered it down. We are busy trying to implement the Act as it was set out in the guidance. While the Act is not perfect, we will see a huge step change. Where there are issues and gaps, we are not afraid to act.
Alan Mak
It was my party that passed the Online Safety Act; it is the Minister’s party that is failing our children. Ian Russell, who set up the Molly Rose Foundation following the tragic death of his daughter, says that Britain is now “going backwards” when it comes to protecting our children online. The Government are being timid when they should be bold. Their priorities are wrong, and legal caution is trumping children’s safety. Why is the Minister still defending this Government’s track record of total failure?
Feryal Clark
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. The implementation is happening as set out and against the timeframe that was set out. As I said, we are not only busy implementing the Act, but looking at all the gaps that exist in it because Ministers in his Government watered down the Bill as it went through the House. We will review those gaps in the legislation and come forward with extra measures where they are needed.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
My Department is working closely with the Department for Education and Skills England to ensure that the education system is ready for the opportunities and the challenges that AI poses. We are assessing the AI skills gap and mapping pathways to address it. My officials have been working closely with the DFE on the education content store, for example, which is a pilot project that seeks to help developers to make better AI tools for teachers by providing a store of reliable and relevant UK data. Last week, the DFE produced guidance to support schools with the safe and effective use of AI in education.
Bradley Thomas
Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to reduce academic dishonesty and plagiarism in schools resulting from the use of artificial intelligence tools?
Feryal Clark
AI has demonstrated that it can help the education workforce by reducing some of the administrative burdens and the hard work that teaching staff and school leaders face in their day-to-day role. On the hon. Gentleman’s question, evidence is still emerging on the benefits and risks of pupils and students using generative AI. We will continue to work with the education sector on use cases to develop our understanding of how to use AI safely and effectively. As I have said, the Department has issued guidance to teachers on how to identify and best use AI in schools.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
AI is already prevalent in the workplace and in the education system, and we need to equip the next generation to be able to use AI tools productively and securely while also delivering on their unique potential as human beings. How is the Minister working with the Department for Education to ensure that the AI tools that are used in our education system support this kind of learning? Specifically, what advice has she given to the Department with regard to the procurement of edtech tools, which are widely available? Some are free and some need to be paid for, so how are schools to decide which to use?
Feryal Clark
As I have said, I work very closely with my counterparts in the Department for Education. Earlier this year, we launched safe standards for the sector and provided guidance on how to safely develop AI tools for education. The DFE has also provided guidance to schools on how to safely use AI in schools. That work is ongoing. As I have said, we are working both with the sector and with educators to make sure that we get this right.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
The Government remain committed to ending the use of all animals, including dogs, in scientific procedures, replacing them with modern, human-relevant technologies. Our long-term goal, as set out in our 2024 manifesto commitment, is to phase out animal testing entirely. As my hon. Friend said, we will publish a detailed road map this year alongside convening roundtables with researchers, industry and animal welfare organisations to ensure that we achieve that and hit the target.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Stratford and Bow is a thriving hub of innovation, which is why the Prime Minister chose it for the launch of the AI opportunities action plan earlier this year. One brilliant example is Healthtech-1. Once a kitchen table start-up of doctors and tech experts, it now automates admin for 22% of GP practices, and its new patient registration system has saved the NHS a staggering 183 years of time. What are the Government doing to support home-grown innovation like that to scale up its work?
Feryal Clark
My hon. Friend’s constituency is indeed a hotbed of innovation. She will be delighted to know that Healthtech-1 has benefited from a range of Government support to date, including a recent Innovate UK grant.
Animal Experiments: Medical Research
Feryal Clark Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. We appreciate that the use of animals in medical research stirs the strong emotional instincts of many people across the UK, including many colleagues here. The day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing cannot come soon enough. Sadly, however, that day is not here yet.
Phasing out animal testing has to be done in lockstep with the development of safe, accurate and validated alternatives. The reality is that the technology is not yet advanced enough for alternative methods to completely replace the use of animals. Consequently, the carefully regulated use of animals remains necessary to protect humans and the wider environment. Animal testing continues to be required by international agreements, which all global medicines regulators follow, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
Such testing is regulated through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, known as ASPA. The Act specifies that animals can only be used in science for specific, limited purposes where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to the animals is limited to the absolute minimum. This is known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement.
The system also includes a three-tier system of licensing that licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. New technologies including AI, as referred to by colleagues, do offer potentially revolutionary ways to create alternative technologies. That is why our manifesto commits us to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. As the first step, we will publish a strategy later this year laying out how the Government will support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods, and officials are working on this as we speak. The strategy will set out how we will create a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods wherever possible and that places the UK at the forefront of international efforts to drive this agenda. I am proud to say that the UK is already world-leading in the development of alternative methods, and we are keen to utilise this technology as much as possible.
James Naish
Does the Minister know whether there will be timelines for that strategy? Are there likely to be dates and milestones that we are working towards, or just a generic description of the direction of travel?
Feryal Clark
The road map will set out how we can get to a place where we can phase out animal testing. I cannot set out dates and what the road map will include, but a huge amount of investment is going into many of the projects that have been mentioned—hopefully that will all be included in the road map. As colleagues have said, where other nations are developing new ways to phase out animal testing, we will look into those and see where we can replicate them. We are closely following developments in Europe and the US, and we work closely with both the Food and Drug Administration and our European colleagues on this matter.
Currently, the Government support the development and dissemination of the three Rs through UK Research and Innovation. That is primarily achieved through funding of the NC3Rs, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies and to ensure that advances are reflected in policy, practice and regulation on animal testing. Since its launch in 2004, it has committed over £100 million through its research, innovation and early career awards to provide new three Rs approaches for scientists in academia and industry to use.
That is only part of our support. Many UKRI programmes, including research on organoids, cell behaviour and AI, may eventually lead to the development of non-animal testing methods, but they are not categorised as such because they are basic research at the moment. The Government have also provided more than £6 million of funding for seven centres of excellence for regulatory science and innovation to help drive advancement in healthcare. The in-silico CERSI, led by the University of Manchester, aims to support the use of computational techniques to test and develop medical products.
To be clear, we want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with alternatives where we can, but for now the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains necessary if we are to protect humans and the wider environment. I thank hon. Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate. I look forward to us working together going forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Online Safety: Super Complaints Mechanism
Feryal Clark Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Future Digital Economy and Online Safety, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
Today, I am laying before Parliament the draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025. This important statutory instrument establishes the eligibility criteria and procedural framework for the super-complaints mechanism under the Online Safety Act 2023 and marks an important step forward in fully implementing the Act.
The super-complaints mechanism is a crucial aspect of the Act’s overall complaints handling, reporting and redress mechanisms. A well-functioning super-complaints regime will ensure a transparent and agile approach to online safety. It will perform a vital role in ensuring that eligible entities, such as civil society groups with expertise in online safety matters, can make complaints to Ofcom, the independent regulator for online safety. The regime will allow for complaints about features of regulated services or the conduct of providers, where they are, appear to be or present a material risk of causing significant harm to users or members of the public, significantly adversely affect their freedom of expression, or have other significant adverse impacts on users or members of the public.
This will ensure that Ofcom is aware of the issues users are facing, including issues that it might otherwise not have been made aware of. This process will also help Ofcom to focus priorities, target resources and recognise and eliminate systemic failings. It will also ensure that the voices of users, including vulnerable groups and children, are heard and can be acted upon, if necessary. Ofcom will be obliged to respond to super-complaints submitted by eligible entities within a specified timeframe. This instrument follows an eight-week consultation which ran from 16 November 2023 to 11 January 2024.
Eligibility criteria
The instrument I am laying before Parliament today sets out the criteria which an entity must meet in order to be considered eligible to submit a complaint:
The entity must be a body—such as a civil society group—which represents the interests of users of services regulated by the Act, or members of the public, or a particular group of users or members of the public.
The entity must be independent from the services regulated under the Act, although this does not prevent the entity receiving funding from these services or having representatives from these services involved in their governance, provided suitable mechanisms are in place to maintain independence.
The entity must demonstrate expertise in online safety matters, such as by routinely contributing as an expert to public discussions about online safety matters and media on the subject.
The entity can be relied upon to consider any guidance published by Ofcom.
The super-complaints regime is designed to be voluntary and to impose no significant burden on businesses, charities, or voluntary bodies. These regulations ensure that only eligible bodies, representing the interests of users or members of the public, can submit super-complaints about systemic online safety issues, thereby safeguarding the integrity and focus of the complaints process.
Admissibility
In addition to setting out eligibility criteria, this instrument also outlines the procedural steps required to submit an admissible complaint for consideration by Ofcom, as well as the requirements for how Ofcom must respond to such complaints.
Procedural requirements
Ofcom will determine the eligibility of an entity within 30 days, or 15 days if the entity was deemed eligible within the past five years and its circumstances have not changed.
Eligible entities will be required to ensure that evidence supporting the complaint is current, objective, and relevant. Where a complaint is submitted by an eligible entity, Ofcom is required to consider the complaint, including assessing the admissibility of the complaint itself, within a specified timeframe.
The whole super-complaints process must be typically completed within 120 days, or 105 days where an entity has retained eligibility status. Ofcom can stop the clock during the 90-day period in certain circumstances, or during the eligibility assessment period, such as if additional information is required and the complaint cannot be progressed without it. Entities may only submit one complaint every six months, though they can withdraw a complaint under consideration and submit a new one within six months if necessary. This will maximise the effectiveness of the regime and ensure that Ofcom is able to properly consider any complaints received. Ofcom will also have the power to reject complaints in specific circumstances, for example if the matter is already being considered by another court or regulator, or if a complaint merely repeats the substance of another complaint which has recently been considered.
Changes from consultation
A previous consultation ran from 16 November 2023 until 11 January 2024, and a separate policy response has been published. The responses we received were broadly in support of the proposals; however, we have made some notable changes based on feedback received to simplify the process and expand eligibility criteria— I am grateful to stakeholders for taking the time to share their thoughts and expertise, which have enabled us to make positive changes to the eligibility criteria and procedural matters. A full summary of changes is set out in the policy response, and includes:
Removing the statutory pre-notification period.
Reducing the initial assessment period for determining eligibility from 30 days to 15 days for organisations previously deemed eligible.
Placing restrictions on Ofcom’s ability to pause the timelines for determining eligibility or considering the complaint.
Expanding the eligibility criteria to include newer organisations that are experts in online safety matters, not just “experienced” ones that have a track record of publishing high-quality research and analysis, or collaborating with other organisations.
Altering the restriction on submitting multiple complaints within a six-month period, allowing entities to ask Ofcom to consider a new complaint—complaint B—instead of their initial complaint, complaint A.
Ofcom’s guidance
The regulations will commence on 31 December 2025. Ofcom will produce guidance, which it will consult on later in the year, to support organisations on the process of submitting a super-complaint.
Review and Monitoring
The impact of these regulations will be monitored as part of the broader review of the Act’s regulatory framework. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology will carry out a review between two and five years after the full implementation of part 3 of the Act, ensuring that the regulations remain effective and relevant.
[HCWS685]
UK’s Future Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights Regime Consultation: Government Response
Feryal Clark Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
Our parallel importation laws, which regulate the common practice of importing genuine physical goods that are first sold in other countries into the UK for resale, play an important role in many sectors of the UK’s economy. These laws are governed by the UK’s choice of an exhaustion of intellectual property rights regime—or what is commonly referred to as an IP exhaustion regime.
An exhaustion regime determines the geographical scope of foreign territory in which an importer must seek the permission of the IP rights holders (e.g. a trademark, patent, design or copyright owner) to parallel import a good that is protected by their IP rights into the UK for resale.
Businesses have been waiting for clarity on what the UK’s parallel importation laws will be for too long and are rightly seeking certainty on this matter. I am therefore pleased to announce to the House that the Government have taken a clear decision on this matter. Today, we will publish the Government’s response to the 2021 consultation on the UK’s future exhaustion regime. It confirms that the UK will be maintaining its bespoke exhaustion regime—which we have called the UK+ regime—and sets out the extensive analysis and stakeholder engagement that underpins our decision. This provides the clarity that stakeholders across the UK have been calling for, helping to provide confidence to businesses, investors and consumers that the UK will continue our balanced IP framework.
As part of the Government’s response, we have set out how the UK+ regime reflects and supports the many different parts of our modern, IP-rich economy. This exhaustion regime ensures that our world-leading inventors and creators can invest their time and energy in developing new products and technologies, knowing that our parallel importation laws will help to support them to make a living from their IP assets. In turn, it will support competition in the marketplace and fair access to IP-protected goods.
No legislative changes or adjustment to businesses’ operations are required, as the UK will be maintaining its bespoke exhaustion regime.
If we are to unlock economic growth, we must incentivise innovation and creativity by providing long-term certainty and stability to all who interact with our world-leading IP framework. The UK+ regime achieves this goal by providing balanced, well-designed parallel importation laws.
A copy of the Government’s response to the 2021 consultation on the UK’s future exhaustion regime has been laid in both Houses.
[HCWS642]
Oral Answers to Questions
Feryal Clark Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
DSIT works closely with other Departments, including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to align AI energy demand with future energy planning to ensure long-term sustainability. We understand that AI is an energy-hungry technology, which is why we have set up the AI energy council. Through that council, we are assessing ways to address the growing energy demands of AI and AI sustainability, including by exploring bold clean energy solutions, from next generation renewables to small modular reactors.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
We know that AI has the power to transform civilisation, but its huge drain on the environment is a problem. For example, ChatGPT has an estimated 57 million daily users, but for every five to 50 questions it is asked, 500 ml of water are used to cool down its data centres. The Minister has explained some of the work that is being done and I understand that the AI energy council is looking at energy solutions to align the Government’s AI ambitions with our net zero goals, but with the increased incidence of drought and the overall climate emergency, what steps are the Government taking specifically to manage water consumption and sustainability with their AI ambitions?
Feryal Clark
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that AI development aligns with sustainability goals. We welcome the advances in cooling technologies, such as dry cooling and closed-loop systems, in addition to promoting the use of renewable energy resources. I chair the AI Ministers group, which brings together Ministers from all Departments to co-ordinate cross-cutting challenges, including water consumption.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The astonishingly successful GrowUp vertical agriculture project in Sandwich, in my constituency, is highly dependent on data, which could be hugely assisted by artificial intelligence. I understand that agriculture is not represented on any of the working parties. Will the Minister seek to ensure that agriculture is included and possibly find time to visit the project?
Feryal Clark
As I have set out, we have inter-ministerial meetings that bring Ministers together, including Ministers from DEFRA. The Secretary of State regularly meets representatives from the National Farmers Union and other Secretaries of State to discuss these issues.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs
Feryal Clark Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate. I also thank the thousands of petitioners—some of whom are in the Public Gallery, which indicates the strength of public views on this matter—and all hon. Members here today, who have made powerful contributions.
I do not have a dog, so I will not enter the competition about whose dog is the cutest, but I do have two little children who try to touch every single dog we come across when we go around parks; they at least now know that they have to ask permission before they do that. I feel that I am not too far from having one of those cute dogs, or one like Frank, in our household.
The Government fully appreciate that the use of dogs for scientific and regulatory procedures stirs strong emotional feelings for many people across the UK, including myself as a dog lover. In my previous role in local government, I was responsible for environment, including stray dogs, as part of a service for many authorities around us. In a bid to avoid having to put healthy dogs down, we set up London’s first dog hotel, which Peter Egan opened. We had a system where staff could come and take dogs out for walks. Every role I have had has involved looking after dogs, and I must say that I found the preparation for this debate very difficult.
Along with other Members present, I long for the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research; it cannot come soon enough, but sadly it is not yet here. The UK is world leading in the development of non-animal methods, and the Government are keen to ensure that those are utilised wherever possible. That is why our manifesto commits us to partner with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards phasing out animal testing. Colleagues mentioned the changes that the FDA has brought forward. To be clear, those bring it in line with us regarding the protection of animals, but where there is new learning to be done, we will absolutely look at that.
As part of our commitment to phasing out the use of animals in science, we will publish a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods. It will set out how we can build on our support by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animal testing with alternative methods wherever possible. However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research remains necessary to protect humans and the wider environment.
I will now expand on why, given the current state of science, we are unfortunately not yet ready to ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK. The use of animals in science lies in the intersection of two vital public goods: the benefits to humans, animals and the environment, and the UK’s proud history of support for the highest possible standards of animal welfare.
The balance between these two public goods is reflected in the UK’s robust regulation of the use of animals in science through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, known as ASPA. The Act specifies that animals can be used in science only for specific limited purposes where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit and where the potential harm to animals is limited to the absolute minimum. As has been mentioned, this is known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement.
The use of animals in science is therefore highly regulated, including through a three-tier system of licensing, which licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body that reviews any proposals for the use of animals and promotes the three Rs of animal use.
Our manifesto commitment stands in recognition of the fact that the phasing out of animal testing has to be in lockstep with the development of alternatives. As yet, the reality is that the technology is not advanced enough for alternative methods to completely replace the use of animals. For now, animal testing and research play an important role in supporting the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for humans and animals, and it supports the safety and sustainability of our environment.
Animal research has helped us to make life-changing discoveries, from new vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions. The development of the covid-19 vaccine, as with all vaccines, was made possible only because of the use of animals in research. Animals are used to assess how potential new medicines affect biological systems, ensuring that drugs are safe and effective before human trials. Many products that would be unsafe or ineffective, or that could cause harm to humans, are detected through animal testing, ensuring the safety of the healthy volunteers who take part in clinical trials, as well as of future patients.
Seamus Logan
We have heard from a number of Members today—some of them very learned Members of Parliament who have professional backgrounds in this area—about the serious doubts regarding the efficacy of some of the tests the Minister is referring to. Would she be willing after the debate to share with me the sources she is using to support her claims regarding the value of this testing?
Feryal Clark
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I am happy to share the research and reasons behind my arguments.
For the reasons I have given, animal testing is required by the international agreements followed by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Although the MHRA does not require all medicines to be tested on two species, safety testing in a second species is required for most drugs, with dogs being one of the species that can be used.
The key proposal in the petition is for an immediate ban on the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures. None of us wants dogs to be used in research, despite how carefully animal welfare is regulated. However, I regret to say that forbidding the use of dogs in medical research—without alternatives at the moment—would likely have catastrophic effects on the UK’s medical research system. We would be unable to meet international regulatory requirements for drug safety testing, preventing virtually all first-in-human trials in the UK and vastly reducing the number of subsequent clinical trials. A significant proportion of basic research would cease, preventing new insight into disease and treatments that save lives and improve people’s health. Forbidding the use of animals in medical research would also likely have a negative impact on animal welfare. Animal testing would move overseas, to countries where the regulations on the use of animals in science are less stringent than they are here.
I am proud to say that the UK is world leading in the development of alternative methods, and we are keen to utilise that technology as much as possible. As much as we can, we are striving to partner with regulators to see how advances in technology can phase out animal use where we are able to do that.
Ruth Jones
The Minister is making an interesting speech, because the Labour party manifesto commitment is very clear: we are looking to ban animal testing. We have talked about a road map, which Labour has committed to, so when will that be published and when will the strategy be published? I ask because those are vital things that people in the Public Gallery want to know today.
Feryal Clark
My hon. Friend intervenes at the right time, as I was about to say that in publishing our road map, we will be setting out how we can go even further in supporting alternative methods and working towards a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternatives wherever possible.
Currently, through UKRI, the Government support the development and dissemination of the three Rs. That is achieved primarily through funding for the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies and to ensure that advances are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.
Steve Race
I failed to catch the Minister’s eye on her previous mention of the three Rs. Does she agree that the number of procedures using specially protected species—cats, dogs, horses and non-human primates—has actually increased over recent years, to about 17,000 from about 15,000 in 2022 and that that was driven by a 38.9% rise in procedures using horses? Does she also agree that our hon. Friend the Minister for Security confirmed that in the period from 1 January 2023 to 30 September 2024, no applications for a project licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were refused? Does she see reductions in the number of animals being used in testing or are they actually increasing as part of the strategy?
Feryal Clark
The stats that I have say that in 2023 the use of dogs in procedures reduced by 9%. On overall animal testing, I will have to get back to my hon. Friend. I am sure that my colleagues from the Home Office will be able to explain the stringent licensing process—the procedure that everyone has to go through to be able to obtain a licence.
We want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with alternatives where we can. That is why our current approach is to support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research, and to ensure that the UK has a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards, which will drive their uptake. We have a commitment in our manifesto to do all we can to phase out the use of animals—including dogs—in science, and we will be publishing a road map before the end of the year to lay out how we can give increased impetus to the support and validation of alternative methods.
Colleagues asked about ensuring that we are consulting animal welfare organisations, and there is a roundtable meeting with the Office for Life Sciences and animal welfare organisations to do precisely that. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) requested a meeting to discuss issues around the benefits of testing on animals. I am happy to agree to that and will be in contact with his office to arrange one.
I conclude by again thanking Members for their insightful contributions to today’s debate, and I look forward to working together as we go forward.
Cyber-security and Resilience Policy
Feryal Clark Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
Today the Government have published a policy statement on proposed legislative measures to bolster the UK’s cyber-security and resilience.
Our digital economy and essential services are increasingly being attacked by cyber-criminals and state actors, threatening essential public services and infrastructure. This poses a serious risk not only to UK citizens, with core services like hospitals being targeted, but also to the performance of our economy. UK businesses lost around £87 billion from cyber-attacks between 2015 and 2019—that is £87 billion taken from our economy, much of which went into the hands of cyber-criminals.
Enhanced cyber-security is an essential pillar not only of our national security, but of the UK’s economic growth. We cannot have economic growth without stability, and we cannot have stability without national security.
The UK’s only existing cross-sector cyber legislation—the Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations—was introduced in 2018 when the UK was still an EU member state. The rapidly evolving threat landscape and changing nature of digital services mean that these regulations need to be updated, and we no longer have powers in primary legislation to make the amendments needed.
That is why we committed to introduce a cyber-security and resilience Bill in the King’s Speech in July last year. As set out in the policy statement published today, the Bill will strengthen the UK’s cyber-defences and make sure that the critical infrastructure and digital services UK citizens and business rely on are more secure. This will enhance the UK’s level of cyber-security and resilience at a time when similar steps are being taken by our international counterparts, such as the EU, which has updated the NIS framework through its own updated directive.
The policy statement provides more detail to the Bill’s measures announced in the King’s Speech:
Expanding the scope of regulations to protect more digital services and supply chains. The Bill will bring managed IT service providers that provide digital services into the scope of the regulatory framework. The Bill will allow individual regulators to designate a small number of important suppliers to regulated entities as “critical suppliers”, including those that would otherwise be exempted from regulation as SMEs. This, in addition to embedding supply chain security requirements directly into our regulatory framework, will address supply chain vulnerabilities and reduce the threat of significant disruptions to critical services. This will build a better picture of the threats facing our critical national infrastructure and protect a broader range of services from cyber-attacks.
Empowering regulators and enhancing oversight. Regulators will be better equipped with the tools they need to perform their duties effectively, including enhanced oversight of cyber-incidents affecting regulated entities and improved cost recovery powers. The Information Commissioner’s information gathering powers will be strengthened, to improve its understanding of the landscape of cyber-security threats affecting the expanded portfolio of digital service providers that it will oversee.
Ensuring the regulatory framework can keep pace with the ever-changing cyber-landscape. The Bill will allow the Government to update the regulatory framework in the future via secondary legislation, if necessary. For example, the Government would be able to bring new sectors into scope of the regulations, if necessary to do so. The Bill will enable the Government to update the security requirements for regulated services in line with best practice, improving clarity for service providers in terms of what is expected of them.
In addition to the policy proposals outlined in the King’s Speech for inclusion in the Bill, we have identified a number of additional cyber-security and resilience proposals, as set out in the policy statement. The appropriate legislative vehicle for these has yet to be determined.
The Government propose bringing data infrastructure into the scope of the regulatory framework, recognising their new status as critical national infrastructure and essential role in ensuring the stability and growth of our digital economy. Additionally, to ensure our regulatory framework is implemented with a consistent understanding of the Government’s cyber-security and resilience objectives, we propose enabling the Secretary of State to publish a statement of strategic priorities. This will establish a unified set of objectives and expectations for regulators. Finally, we intend to provide new powers to the Secretary of State to direct a regulator, or regulated entities, to take action when it is necessary for national security. This will be invaluable in responding to the constant evolution of both the cyber-landscape and the changes in tactics used by cyber threat actors.
The Government have listened to the views expressed to the previous Government in the 2022 consultation on cyber-security to develop the Bill’s measures. The measures set out in the policy statement build on what we have learned from our engagement with key international partners, including learnings from the European Union on the implementation of the NIS2 directive (Directive (EU) 2022-2555) and 2023 data infrastructure consultation. We will continue to engage with and learn from the actions taken by other nations to improve cyber-security.
These cyber-security and resilience measures represent a significant step forward in our efforts to protect the UK from the growing threats of cyber-attacks. Cyber-security is a critical enabler of economic growth, and by protecting our digital assets and ensuring the resilience of our critical services we are creating a stable environment that fosters innovation and attracts investment.
My officials and I will engage with parliamentarians, regulators and industry groups to thoroughly test the proposals before the Bill is introduced to Parliament this year.
[HCWS572]
Oral Answers to Questions
Feryal Clark Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
We work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to support research into this terrible disease. UK Research and Innovation invested £10 million in MND research in 2023-24, and it also plays a key role in funding the underpinning research that benefits medical research more generally. Since 2022, the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research have awarded £2.8 million to MND projects led by Scottish research organisations.
Frank McNally
My hon. Friend will know of the important work of MND campaigners, including my constituent Mark Sommerville, who are seeking more Government investment in MND research. I recognise that any further plans for research and development investment would be outlined after the spending review in June, but can my hon. Friend give some reassurance to those with MND and their families, for whom time matters so much, that the Department is giving consideration to boosting investment in MND research, working with key partners to accelerate the development of new treatments?
Feryal Clark
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the work of the Mark Sommerville Foundation in this important area. Government funders are investing in MND research to accelerate progress. Let me give just one example. Through UK Research and Innovation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Government are investing £6 million in the MND translational accelerator, led by Dementias Platform UK. The aim of the funded projects is to accelerate the development of treatment for MND.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It is good to hear that there is continuing investment in the search for therapies and indeed cures to deal with this horrific disease, but even if therapies do emerge, one of the frustrations in getting them to patients may be the inability of scientists to obtain access to clinical trials. In “Life Sciences Vision”, published in 2021, a number of groups combined to look into access to clinical trials in the UK and the possibility of increasing the number of such trials, but acceleration has not been good. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for life sciences, and one of the comments I hear most frequently in the industry is about the need for a more focused effort in this regard. Would the Minister consider establishing a clinical trials taskforce in her Department to drive this important work forward?
Feryal Clark
The Government are doing and have done a great deal. We have continued to support this work through both UKRI and the NIHR, and a large amount of funding has gone into clinical research. However, I should be happy to discuss the issue further with the right hon. Gentleman, and to let him know what more work could be done on clinical trials.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
BioNTech UK: Financial Assistance
Feryal Clark Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
It may help the Committee if I clarify from the Chair what we are debating. The motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is listed in the “Future Business” section of the Order Paper, and the House will be asked to pass the motion without debate after the text has been agreed by this Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I beg to move,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, a grant or grants exceeding £30 million and up to a total of £129 million to BioNTech UK Limited to support their planned expansion of research and development and artificial intelligence activities in the UK over the next 10 years.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
This investment comes at an important time for the UK’s thriving life sciences sector, which forms a key pillar of two of the Government’s missions: to kick-start economic growth; and to build an NHS fit for the future. The sector is responsible for over £100 billion of turnover in the UK, and it supports over 304,000 jobs in 6,850 businesses. In addition to supporting our economy, the sector also delivers for patients by providing the medicines and technologies that people need to live longer, healthier lives.
As we will set out in the life sciences sector plan, we must build on our world-leading R&D ecosystem and double down on rebuilding an internationally competitive business environment so that innovative companies can start, scale and stay here in the UK. To deliver that plan, we will continue to work in partnership with industry, our life sciences ecosystem and the NHS to seize opportunities that will foster innovation across the UK. To that end, through this proposed grant, we have an opportunity for the UK to secure international investment in innovative, cutting-edge R&D in the face of increasing global competition.
As the right hon. and hon. Members present know, BioNTech is an international leader in the biotechnology industry, and the developer of the first licensed mRNA covid-19 vaccine. Building on the vaccine’s success and global impact, BioNTech has applied for a Government grant of £129 million to support its transformation and UK expansion, which will see it invest circa £1 billion over 10 years. Supported by the grant, BioNTech research activities will focus on structural biology, regenerative medicine, oncology and AI-driven drug discovery, spanning three locations and creating about 460 new, directly-employed, highly skilled jobs.
In Cambridge, BioNTech will set up a new centre of excellence to focus on drug discovery and development of new treatments for cancer and other serious diseases. That directly supports the Government’s ambition to boost the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. In London, BioNTech intends to establish a major hub, including a centre of AI expertise to leverage this game-changing technology and to enhance our understanding of diseases, their causes and drug targeting. At a third site—to be announced shortly—BioNTech plans to undertake R&D into vaccines, including for diseases with high pandemic potential.
BioNTech’s decision to invest in the UK and to expand its R&D activities builds on the Government’s existing strategic partnership with the company. That includes BioNTech’s work to provide up to 10,000 NHS patients with personalised immunotherapies by 2030, which is already transforming health outcomes by enabling UK patients to be among the first in the world to benefit from cancer vaccines. That support for BioNTech is further evidence of the Government’s backing of a world-leading life sciences sector. Working together, we are driving growth, creating jobs and fostering innovation that will translate into positive outcomes for patients. Supporting BioNTech’s investment is another signal of our commitment to this crucial sector ahead of launching our ambitious life sciences sector plan in the spring.
I commend the motion to the Committee.
Feryal Clark
I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrat spokespeople. The funding we have discussed today will unlock around £1 billion to further boost the UK’s life sciences sector and, in turn, support the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth and build an NHS fit for the future. It will also build on our significant progress and commitments to date, including the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund of up to £520 million announced by the Chancellor in October 2024, and our landmark partnerships with Oxford Nanopore and Eli Lilly.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) commented on the investment environment. I am sure he did not miss the fact that this Government attracted £63 billion-worth of investment at the last international investment summit. We have done the hard work to make that investment a reality. He may be interested to hear that, according to the latest CEO survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the UK is the second best country in the world in which to invest. However, we are not complacent, and we are fully committed to making the UK the best place to invest. The life sciences are an area of huge UK expertise, and they are key to that commitment. Securing this investment will send a clear message to innovative companies that the UK is open for business.
The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) asked about monitoring. The financial assistance will be monitored through the normal procedures used for any investment made by the Government. I am happy to send her details of that process and the timeline for this investment.
Working together with industry, this Government are delivering better patient outcomes and driving economic growth. I look forward to continuing that work, and to building on that momentum through the publication and rapid delivery of the life sciences sector plan and industrial strategy in the spring.
I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.