Online Harm: Child Protection
John Milne Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kanishka Narayan
I totally agree with the hon. Member’s call for urgency. I assure her that first, the Government will act by the summer in robustly responding to the consultation. Secondly, we have been focused on getting the consultation right, and not just for the wider public; we are ensuring that it is designed for young people’s engagement, which requires particular design features. Thirdly, we are not waiting for the launch of the consultation to have the national conversation. I have been in schools and met parents, as have the Secretary of State and Ministers from across Government, so the conversation has very much started, and I am sure that the consultation is also imminent.
While there is consensus that problems remain, there is not yet consensus on the best way to address them. That is why the Government announced last month that we will be launching our short, sharp consultation and national conversation on further measures. We recognise that while some people support age restrictions on social media for children, there are diverse views on both the “what” and the “how”. Prominent voices in this debate, including the Molly Rose Foundation and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, are concerned that blunt age limits might not be the right approach and risk doing more harm than good. Even among those who support age limits, there are differing views on how to apply them, including which services restrictions should apply to. Those views are worthy of consideration, but we need to consider them properly and responsibly—we owe that to our children.
That is why the consultation approach is the responsible path forward for looking at these issues, considering in a swift and evidence-based way the full range of implications and the most effective way of protecting children and enhancing their lives online. We will consult with parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved families, tech companies and—crucially—children and young people themselves. None of that would be allowed under the motion we are considering today. This consultation, backed by the national conversation, will identify the next steps in our plan to boost and protect children’s wellbeing online. The consultation will include exploring the option of banning social media for children below a certain age, as well as a range of other measures. This will include gathering views and evidence on options such as restricting access to addictive functionalities and understanding what we can do better to support parents in navigating their children’s digital lives. We will also explore whether we should raise the digital age of consent, to give parents more control over how their children’s data is used, and how existing laws on age verification could be better enforced.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Minister is making lots of observations about the consultation that is going to go ahead—what is going to be in it, and how long it is going to take. What we do not know is when he will commit to bringing legislation before this House to act against social media.
Kanishka Narayan
I am happy to repeat to the hon. Member this Government’s commitment, which is that we will act by the summer. That is about as short and sharp as a consultation period gets. The Online Safety Act took seven years; we are simply asking for one quarter to make sure that young people, parents and families across the country are properly heard from.
Kanishka Narayan
I will simply repeat the point I have made, which is that we are going to act by the summer. We have already sought permissive powers to ensure that the Government are able to act on the outcome of the consultation through rapid legislation. I hope the combination of those two commitments gives the hon. Member some assurance.
The engagement and consultation will take place alongside work with counterparts. We will be monitoring developments in Australia on its social media ban for under-16s to share learnings and best practice. We are steadfast in our belief that the right way to deliver the next steps to protect our children online is to be led by the evidence through our short, sharp three-month consultation.
Hospitality Sector
John Milne Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The economic landscape is extremely difficult for many businesses and industries, and hospitality is one of the sectors facing the most acute challenges. Pubs, restaurants, cafés and hotels are dealing with huge pressures—unfair taxes, soaring energy bills, skills shortages, and a broken business rates system. The Labour Government have had more than a year to address these issues, but instead of throwing businesses a lifeline, their policies have only made it harder for businesses to keep their head above water. Changes to employers’ national insurance, the reduction in business rates relief and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices are all factors contributing to job losses, business closures and stagnant economic growth.
Although this Government’s decisions have made things worse, business sentiment certainly was not rosy during the last Parliament. Years of dire economic mismanagement by the previous Government forced business owners to make cuts, hike prices and work longer hours. Even though we Liberal Democrats are supportive of today’s motion, we feel obliged to point out that the Conservative Government’s chaotic approach caused so many of these problems, including soaring energy costs, a staffing crisis, and the vast increase in regulation and red tape brought about by their dismal Brexit negotiations.
According to UKHospitality, the measures in last year’s autumn Budget delivered a hit to the sector worth a cumulative extra £3.4 billion annually. Meanwhile, data from the Office for National Statistics shows that the hospitality sector has shed nearly 70,000 jobs since last October. That works out as an astounding 3.2% of all jobs in the sector, and it is 266% higher than the number of jobs lost in the overall economy. Those figures lay bare the slow dismantling of the hospitality sector as a direct result of this Government’s policies. A recent survey conducted by UKHospitality found that since the autumn Budget, a third of hospitality businesses are now operating at a loss, with 60% cutting jobs, 75% having increased prices, and two thirds reducing staff hours. These cuts are a last-ditch attempt by businesses just to stay afloat as they cry out for support. Small businesses are the beating heart of our economy.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
This morning I received a letter from Kelly Mariner, the manager of an independent coffee shop in my constituency of Horsham. She said:
“Since the last Budget I have been unable to hire new staff and cannot grow my business. I am spending every day doing the job I love in front of the customers, but it means I can’t develop or follow up new ideas. Paperwork is a juggling act and I spend very little time with my family.”
She asked to meet me. Does my hon. Friend agree that meeting those in the hospitality industry is exactly what the Chancellor needs to do before digging her budgetary hole any deeper?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend gives a striking example of exactly what I was saying about the pressures faced by the hospitality sector. He is absolutely right that the Chancellor needs to hear these calls from the hospitality sector as she puts together her Budget, which we now expect at the end of November.
Small businesses are the beating heart of our economy. They are at the centre of our local communities, and they create the jobs we all rely on. We are glad that raising the employment allowance will shield the very smallest employers, but thousands of local businesses, including many in the hospitality sector, will still feel the damaging impact of the national insurance increase. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have voted against the Government’s misguided jobs tax at every opportunity, and I once again urge them to scrap these measures, but I also press the Minister to at least spare our treasured pubs, restaurants, café and hotels by exempting the hospitality sector from this tax rise. Whether they were aware of it or not, the Government’s decision to raise the rate of national insurance contributions while reducing the salary threshold at which it is levied has significantly increased the cost of employing part-time workers, delivering a disproportionately large blow to the hospitality sector.
Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs
John Milne Excerpts(10 months 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
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to speak in this very important debate. Every year, thousands of dogs are subjected to scientific experiments in the UK, often in the name of drug development. For many this raises serious ethical questions about the use of animals for human gain. Is an animal’s suffering worth the benefits to scientific discovery? For others, science and not the animals are paramount; the end justifies the means, as it were. However, animal testing does not deliver robust and useful scientific data. In fact, drug research on dogs tells us very little about whether a drug will work for humans, so campaigners argue that it is time to end animal research.
Dr Jarrod Bailey, a geneticist, put it plainly: different species react differently to diseases and treatments. In other words, what works in dogs might not work in humans. In fact, drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials 92% of the time—a staggering and costly statistic. In toxicity testing, even when dogs show no toxic response it barely improves our confidence that the drug will be safe in humans. It improves it from 70% to just 72%, which is barely noticeable. Is that really a sound basis for human medicine?
Fortunately, science offers us a better path forward. Human-specific technologies such as organ chips are revolutionising drug development. Those miniaturised organs mimic how real human organs react to treatments and can be patient-specific. They have shown 87% accuracy in detecting drug-induced liver toxicity, which is a dramatic improvement over animal models. If adopted widely, these tools could create over $24 billion through research and development in the US. The US Food and Drug Administration has recognised that. Through the FDA Modernisation Act 2.0, the agency has removed the legal requirement for animal testing in drug trials. A third Act is already in the works to accelerate the validation and adoption of human-specific methods such as organ chips.
In the UK we are lagging behind, not because of legal barriers, but perhaps because of entrenched industry habits, financial interests or even cultural resistance in the research community. We can change that—gradually, responsibly and strategically. I am calling for a phased approach to end the use of dogs in UK research. That means increased investment in modern human-relevant alternatives and a national commitment to shifting away from outdated animal models. When the practice of animal testing is scientifically flawed, it is also undeniably ethically indefensible. Animal suffering for unreliable and inapplicable data cannot be justified when we have the tools and knowledge to do better. Let the UK be a leader, not a follower, in creating a more humane and effective future for our scientific research.
Creative Industries
John Milne Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson
Of course. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I will be moving on to that in a moment.
If, against the will of the creative industry, the Government are to proceed with an opt-out approach—I hope they do not—it seems logical that such an approach must come with strong safeguards, which may come in the form of automatic attribution, in order to identify the creative inspiration for any work that has been crawled and reproduced. However, more importantly, we need suitable levels of compensation to be automatically awarded. In short, if the big tech companies want default access to our creators’ work, they must expect the default to be that they pay for it. Tech firms will argue that an opt-in approach, or one that places the burden on them, would place us out of step with other nations, and I accept that that might be the case. However, let us look at it from another perspective. Is the suggestion that we might give our creative industry more respect really such a terrible idea? I do not think so. Given the widespread threat to the UK’s creative industries from this and other economic circumstances, I would suggest not.
Having touched on AI, I will now address a few other subjects more briefly. First, I turn to the unfashionable topic of Brexit. The previous Conservative Government’s disastrous Brexit deal excluded artistic provisions, and the effect of that is reflected in a shocking statistic: between 2017 and 2023, we suffered a 23% drop in the number of British artists touring the EU. The Liberal Democrats backed free and simple short-term travel arrangements for UK artists to perform in the European Union.
Secondly, I turn to education. It is well known that changes to policy in the past decade or so have diminished arts education in state schools, with more than 40% of schools now no longer entering students for GCSE music or drama, and almost 90% not offering GCSE dance. Universities are also scaling back their arts offerings. The Liberal Democrats would restore arts subjects to the core of the curriculum, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to study music, dance, drama and the visual arts.
Finally, I turn to local government. Local councils are historically the single biggest funders of culture in their areas, but their spending powers have been much reduced. There is a risk that as part of the devolution process, and as local government reorganisation happens, additional pressure will be placed on social care and children’s services. Although those things need attention, we must not allow the arts to be forced further to the fringes of public spending debates.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
On the funding of local arts and theatres, my constituency has a wonderful local theatre called The Capitol, which is owned and managed by the district council. However, our council is likely to be merged with some debt-laden neighbouring councils, with some of the responsibilities my hon. Friend has outlined, and that poses a severe threat to the theatre’s long-term survival. Does he agree that the Government need to look at inventive ways to reverse the decline in local funding? One option would be to emulate France’s patronage law, which provides for 60% tax relief on donations to art organisations.
Max Wilkinson
That sounds like a good idea. I think there are some really logical ways we could do this by ringfencing some assets for local value—attaching them to car parks, which are already producing revenue in local areas. There are creative ways that different local areas could do that. However, it is a concern, and I do not think that discussion on this matter has been had as part of the discussion on devolution and local government reorganisation.