Animal Experiments: Medical Research
Feryal Clark Excerpts(5 days, 20 hours 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 week, 5 days 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(1 month 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(1 month, 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(1 month, 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(2 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(2 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(2 months, 4 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.
Independent Pornography Review: Baroness Bertin Report
Feryal Clark Excerpts(3 months, 3 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)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister for the Future Digital Economy and Online Safety, my noble Friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
In 2023, the previous Government appointed Baroness Bertin as the independent lead reviewer to explore issues surrounding the regulation, legislation and enforcement of online pornography. Throughout the review, she reviewed evidence submitted from the public, academics and civil society, as well as stakeholders in law enforcement, the pornography sector and health service providers. The final report provided to the Government is insightful and timely.
The report has been laid before Parliament today and it will also be available on gov.uk.
Baroness Bertin’s report highlights some of the harms caused by unregulated access to some online pornography. The review finds that online pornography can impact people’s health and mental wellbeing, and is potentially fuelling violence against women and girls offline.
Baroness Bertin’s review makes a case for bringing the regulation of pornography online into parity with offline regulation. In the time she has had to do the review, she has considered the existing evidence on the topic, but she has also highlighted where some issues are still poorly understood and more research is needed to understand the potential harms from pornographic content and how to mitigate those.
The review acknowledges the important protections that the Online Safety Act 2023 will put in place to protect young people from seeing harmful content online, including pornographic content. It also notes that the Act has made it a priority for in-scope services to proactively tackle the most harmful illegal content, which includes intimate image abuse, extreme pornography and child sexual abuse material.
This review has revealed shocking detail about the prevalence of violent and misogynistic pornography online, and the extent to which it is influencing dangerous offline behaviours, including in young relationships. Graphic strangulation pornography is illegal but is not always being treated as such and instead remains widely accessible on mainstream pornography platforms. There is increasing evidence that “choking” is becoming a common part of real-life sexual encounters, despite the significant medical dangers associated with it. The Government will take urgent action to ensure that pornography platforms, law enforcement and prosecutors are taking all necessary steps to tackle this increasingly prevalent harm.
Additionally, the review’s findings have noted that as technologies such as artificial intelligence continue to evolve and become increasingly sophisticated and accessible, they are reshaping the online pornography landscape. Individuals can now create sexual content, consensually and non-consensually, with nudification applications and other forms of software. Baroness Bertin has found that more needs to be done to protect those online from being victimised by non-consensual sexual content.
The Government are delivering our manifesto commitment to ban sexually explicit deepfakes: the Data (Use and Access) Bill introduces a new offence that will criminalise the creation of a purported intimate image, or deepfake, of an adult without their consent. It will also criminalise asking someone to create a purported intimate image, or deepfake, for you, regardless of where that person is based or whether the image is created.
We are introducing a package of offences in the Crime and Policing Bill to tackle the taking of intimate images without consent and the installation of equipment with intent to enable the taking of intimate images without consent. Through the offences at section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the law already captures situations where intimate images, including deepfakes, are shared without consent.
Together these measures will ensure that law enforcement can effectively tackle this abusive behaviour. This demeaning and disgusting form of chauvinism must not become normalised, and as part of our plan for change we are bearing down on violence against women, whatever form it takes. We are putting offenders on notice: they will face the full force of the law.
The review has also made several recommendations related to the education system. This Government consider healthy relationships a key part of RSHE—relationships, sex and health education—and relationships education will support our mission to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. This Government will support schools to tackle misogyny and promote healthy relationships and positive masculinity.
The relationship, sex and health education statutory guidance is currently being reviewed following a public consultation last year. As part of this, we are working with stakeholders and teachers to ensure that the curriculum covers all content that pupils need to keep themselves and others safe and to be respectful in their relationships.
This Government are equipping teachers with the information, resources and training to teach young people about healthy relationships and behaviour, which plays a significant role in preventing harmful sexual behaviours. We have recently published a new guide for teachers on incel culture on the Department’s Education Against Hate website. Teacher training contains the teachers’ standards, including high expectations of behaviour, and we are working with schools on what more we can do to support them to root out misogyny and ensure that young people treat each other with respect.
This Government have set out an unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, and this will require a renewed focus on prevention—including ensuring that online content is not encouraging offline violence and abuse. We will therefore take forward the findings of Baroness Bertin’s review, which will help to inform the cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy to be published in the next few months.
I thank Baroness Bertin for her efforts in bringing this report together and shedding light on a complex yet deeply important topic. The Government will provide a further update on how they are tackling the issues raised in the review as part of their mission to tackle VAWG in due course.
[HCWS479]
Online Safety Act: Implementation
Feryal Clark Excerpts(3 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, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate on the implementation of the Online Safety Act. I know that he has been following the Bill throughout its passage and has been a critic of every Minister, even his Government’s Ministers, whenever the Bill was watered down or delayed, so I expect him to hold all of us to account. I am grateful to him and all the hon. Members who have spoken this morning. The Government share their commitment to keeping users safe online. It is crucial that we continue to have conversations about how best to achieve that goal.
The Online Safety Act lays the foundations for strong protections against evil content and harmful material online. It addresses the complex nature of online harm, recognising that harm is not limited to explicit content and extending to the design and functionality of online services. We know that the legislation is not perfect. I hear that at every such debate, but we are committed to supporting Ofcom to ensure that the Act is implemented quickly, as this is the fastest way to protect people online. 2025 is the year of action for online safety, and the Government have already taken a number of steps to build on Ofcom’s implementation of the Act. In November last year, the Secretary of State published the draft “Statement Of Strategic Priorities for online safety”. That statement is designed to deliver a comprehensive, forward-looking set of online safety priorities for the full term of this Government. It will give Ofcom a backing to be bold on specific areas, such as embedding safety by design, through considering all aspects of a service’s business model, including functionalities and algorithms.
We are also working to build further on the evidence base to inform our next steps on online safety, and I know that this issue was debated earlier this week. In December, we announced a feasibility study to understand the impact of smartphones and social media on children, and in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, we have included provisions to allow the Secretary of State to create a new researcher access regime for online safety data. That regime is working to fix a systemic issue that has historically prevented researchers from understanding how platforms operate, and it will help to identify and mitigate new and preventable harms. We have also made updates to the framework, such as strengthening measures to tackle intimate image abuse under the Online Safety Act, and we are following up on our manifesto commitment to hold perpetrators to account for the creation of explicit, non-consensual deepfake images through amendments to the Data Bill.
We are also building on the measures in the Online Safety Act that allow Ofcom to take information on behalf of coroners. Through the Data Bill, we are bringing in additional powers to allow coroners to request Ofcom to issue a notice requiring platforms to preserve children’s data, which can be crucial for investigations into a child’s tragic death. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) raised Jools’ law, of which I am very aware, and I believe that she is meeting Ministers this week to discuss it further.
Finally, we recently announced that, in the upcoming Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing multiple offences to tackle AI sexual abuse, including a new offence for possessing, creating or supplying AI tools designed to generate child sexual abuse material.
Members have raised the issue of the Act’s implementation being too slow. We are aware of the frustrations over the amount of time that it has taken to implement the Online Safety Act, not least because of the importance of the issues at hand. We are committed to working with Ofcom to ensure that the Online Safety Act is implemented as quickly and effectively as possible.
Lola McEvoy
On implementation, would the Minister give clarity about the watermark for re-consultation and the point of delay of implementing the children’s codes under the Act? Amendments could be made to the children’s codes and I do not think they would trigger an automatic re-consultation with platforms. Could the Minister elaborate on where the delay would come from and how much scope Parliament has to amend those codes, which will be published in April?
Feryal Clark
Ofcom has had to spend a long time consulting on the codes to ensure that they are as proofed against judicial review as possible. Any re-consultation or review of the codes will result in a delay, and the best way to ensure that we can protect children is to implement the Act as soon as possible. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that both Ofcom and the Secretary of State have said that this is not a done deal; it is an iterative process, so of course we expect those codes to be reviewed.
As I said, Ofcom is moving forward with implementation of the Act. In a matter of weeks we will start to see, for the first time, safety duties making a material difference to online experiences for adults and children. Platforms are already duty-bound to assess the risk of illegal content and, with a deadline of 16 March, to complete risk assessments. Once legal harm codes come into effect from 17 March, Ofcom will be able to enforce legal safety duties. Shortly following that in April, Ofcom will publish the child safety codes and associated guidance, starting the clock for services to assess the risk of content harmful to children on their platforms. The child safety duties should be fully in effect by the summer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington also raised the issue of dynamic risk assessment. I understand that she is in conversation with Ofcom and Ministers on that. I will await the outcome of those discussions. The implementation of the Act will bring in long overdue measures, such as preventing children from accessing pornography and legal content encouraging suicide, self-harm or eating disorders.
I have heard concerns raised by hon. Members regarding Ofcom’s approach, particularly to harmful functionalities and safety by design. We understand there is still a lot of work to be done, which is why the Secretary of State’s statement of strategic priorities places a high importance on safety by design. However, it is important not to lose sight of the positive steps we expect to see this year under the Act. For instance, Ofcom’s draft child codes already include specific measures to address harmful algorithms, among other safety recommendations. We expect Ofcom will continue to build on those important measures in the codes.
Questions were asked about whether the Government have plans to water down the Act. I can categorically state that there are no plans to water down the measures. The Secretary of State has made it very clear that any social media company that wants to operate in our society will have to comply with the law of the land. Whatever changes are made in other jurisdictions, the law of the land will remain.
Sir Jeremy Wright
The Minister might be about to come to the point I want to raise with her, which is about proportionality. Will she say something about that? I am keen to understand whether the Government accept Ofcom’s understanding of the term—that proportional measures are those measures that can be evidenced as effective. I gave reasons why I am concerned about that. I want to understand whether the Government believe that that is the correct interpretation of proportionality.
Feryal Clark
I was about to come to the point that the right hon. and learned Member raised about the digital regulation Committee. I have had a brief conversation with him about that, and agree about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of the Online Safety Act. I welcome the expertise that Members of both Houses bring. Select Committees are a matter for the House, as he is aware.
We will continue to work with the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to support their ongoing scrutiny, as well as other parliamentary Committees that may have an interest in the Act. The Act requires the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the regime, two to five years after the legislation comes into force. We will ensure that Parliament is central to that process. I encourage the right hon. and learned Member to continue to raise the matter with the right people.
Most hon. Members raised the issue of apps. Ofcom will have a duty to publish a report on the role of app stores and children’s accessing harmful content on the apps of regulated services. The report is due between January ’26 and January ’27. Once it is published, the Secretary of State may, if appropriate, make regulations to bring app stores into the scope of the Act. The timing will ensure that Ofcom can prioritise the implementation of child safety duties. I will write to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam on the issue of proportionality, as I want to ensure that I give him the full details about how that is being interpreted by Ofcom.
We fully share the concerns of hon. Members over small platforms that host incredibly harmful content, such as hate forums. These dark corners of the internet are often deliberately sought out by individuals who are at risk of being radicalised.
Martin Wrigley
If the Government fully support our concerns about small but harmful sites, will the statutory instrument be reworked to bring them back into category 1, as the Act states?
Feryal Clark
The Government are confident that the duties to tackle illegal content and, where relevant, protect children from harmful content will have a meaningful impact on the small but risky services to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Ofcom has created a dedicated supervision taskforce for small but high-risk services, recognising the need for a bespoke approach to securing compliance. The team will focus on high-priority risks, such as CSAM, suicide and hate offences directed at women and girls. Where services do not engage with Ofcom and where there is evidence of non-compliance, Ofcom will move quickly to enforcement action, starting with illegal harm duties from 17 March, so work is being done on that.
The comprehensive legal safety duties will be applied to all user-to-user forums, and child safety duties will be applied to all user-to-user forums likely to be accessed by children, including the small but high-risk sites. These duties will have the most impact in holding the services to account. Because of the deep concerns about these forums, Ofcom has, as I said, created the small but risky supervision taskforce. For example, Ofcom will be asking an initial set of firms that pose a particular risk, including smaller sites, to disclose their illegal content risk assessment by 31 March.
The Government have been clear that we will act where there is evidence that harm is not being adequately addressed despite the duties being in effect, and we have been clear to Ofcom that it has the Government’s and Parliament’s backing to be bold in the implementation of the Online Safety Act. We are in clear agreement that the Act is not the end of the road, and Ofcom has already committed to iterating on the codes of practice, with the first consultation on further measures being launched this spring. The Government remain open minded as to how we ensure that users are kept safe online, and where we need to act, we will. To do so, we must ensure that the actions we take are carefully considered and rooted in evidence.
Lola McEvoy
Will the consultation this spring for the next iterations of the codes include consultation with parliamentarians, or is it solely with platforms?
Feryal Clark
I expect any consultation will have to go through the Secretary of State, and I am sure it will be debated and will come to the House for discussion, but I will happily provide my hon. Friend with more detail on that.
I am grateful to all Members for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to working with the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, and hopefully he can secure the Committee that he has raised.
Monica Harding
Can the Minister explain what she meant when she said that Ofcom had to ensure that the codes were as judicial review-proofed as possible? Surely Ofcom’s approach should be to ensure that the codes protect vulnerable users, rather than be judicial review-proofed.
Feryal Clark
The point I was trying to make was that Ofcom is spending time ensuring that it gets the codes right and can implement them as soon as possible, without being delayed by any potential challenge. To avoid any challenge, it must ensure that it gets the codes right.