Digital Safety: Children

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if she will make a statement on the Government’s new policy announcements regarding children’s online safety.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

The Prime Minister has announced that this Government will take decisive action to strengthen children’s online safety, including new expectations on technology companies to introduce crucial safety measures on children’s phones. The Government are clear that children are facing unacceptable levels of sexual harm online, including grooming, sextortion and coercion into sharing intimate images. A single image can trap a child in a cycle of abuse—something I have personally heard about from young people, families and civil society. I hold them in my mind and heart as we take action to stop this harm at source.

To address this issue, we have set out expectations that technology companies introduce device-level protections for children. The protections will prevent children from taking, sharing or viewing nude imagery across all core device functionalities, including camera, messaging apps, search functions and file sharing. The protections are built directly into the operating system.

We recognise that companies have already developed and implemented nudity detection on devices, and we want to work collaboratively with industry to build solutions and call on companies to take action within three months. We have been clear that if industry does not meet our high expectations, we will not hesitate to legislate. Furthermore, the Government’s “Growing up in the online world” consultation closed on 26 May. The Government are reviewing the responses and will provide an update in the coming weeks.

[Munira Wilson]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Today and over the weekend, we have seen a Prime Minister who has spent months completely disengaged from the digital threats facing our young people suddenly experiencing an eleventh-hour damascene conversion. This sudden rush seems to be driven entirely by a looming ballot in Makerfield and a full-scale rebellion on his Back Benches.

We Liberal Democrats will not criticise someone for reaching the correct position, even if it has taken them some time, but unfortunately this Government’s approach remains profoundly weak. It is shameful that the Prime Minister has to beg big tech to stop the proliferation of child sexual abuse imagery. He could and should make these changes anyway, so I appeal to the Minister and, if he is watching, the Prime Minister: just bring forward the legislation. Why is the Prime Minister still asking big tech to co-operate with him when it has constantly shown a total disregard for our children and young people?

Broader proposals regarding a ban on harmful social media for teenagers were briefed to the newspapers over the weekend. The Liberal Democrats welcome these reports, and again urge Ministers to move quickly and decisively. Only through a smart film-style age-rating system can we protect children from harmful online content and algorithms. I am delighted that, in pursuit of a legacy, the Prime Minister seems to be borrowing more Liberal Democrat ideas wholesale—tiered age-rated access, ending infinite scrolling and tackling online gaming, not just social media—despite ordering his MPs and peers to vote repeatedly against many of those proposals during the passage of Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026.

However, today is not about who voted which way. I ask the Minister and, through him, the Prime Minister to remember the children who have lost their lives because of the harms they have encountered online, and those whose mental and physical health and education have been harmed by what they have been exposed to online. It is for those children that we must work together to bring about change. The Prime Minister must stop begging tech companies to protect our children and start acting himself—now.

[Kanishka Narayan]

It is astonishing to hear the Liberal Democrats mention a lack of action. On Grok, this Government stood up to the richest man in the world, stood him down and as a result secured protections for people in this country. We have acted on cyber-flashing and strangulation in pornography, banning nudification tools and criminalising nudification, and putting personal criminal liability on tech bosses if they do not act. I understand that the Liberal Democrats are seeking relevance by doing a strategy review, but their complaint is still too much.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I welcome this announcement, but is it not shocking that these companies have to be told what is unacceptable—that children should not be able to send and receive naked images? I ask the Minister: is this a tech problem or an issue of a lack of understanding and decency at the heart of these companies?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank my hon. Friend for a point well made. We have been consistently robust with tech companies on this question. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her leadership on this question. It is, to me, not a technology problem; we have the technology to act on this, and we will now deliver that in the real world.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I welcome the shadow Minister to the Dispatch Box, but he is supposed to have two minutes. He has now spoken for nearly three minutes, so I am sure that the Minister will have grasped what he had to say.

[Kanishka Narayan]

I first point out that in government, the Conservatives took seven years to pass a Bill and then found that law to be inadequate. That is why they are proposing all the things they are trying to do. This Government are listening to the people of Britain. I have been around listening to thousands of young people and families, and they say that they have a Government who are listening with humility and getting the action right on this central question. They say, on age assurance for adult content, that this Government have listened and acted robustly. They said so on Grok when the Opposition were missing in action. On the shadow Minister’s point about existing devices, I point out to him that a major provider has already applied age assurance at the device level for existing devices as well. We will learn the lessons and ensure that we are acting robustly in protecting young people.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement today. The Education Committee recently took evidence from social media and gaming companies, which left every member of the Committee profoundly concerned. They downplayed the issues, denied the scale of harm and overplayed the magnitude and effectiveness of their own responses, so we have very little confidence that big tech knows what is required and has any motivation to do it. If, as seems likely, legislation is required after three months, can the Minister provide an assurance that the drafting of that legislation is already under way so that we do not lose any more time before our children are safe online?

[Kanishka Narayan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that time is of the essence, and I can confirm that we are working closely with the Home Secretary and the Home Office to make sure that we are ready to go if the companies do not act in the way they need to.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) this urgent question. I am very disappointed that the Minister brought petty party politics into his response, because we have consistently proposed legislation that could have been implemented months ago. I speak on behalf of parents, teachers, carers and the children themselves in asking why the Prime Minister is pleading with tech companies about this. He is the Prime Minister; he should be leading the charge on blocking child sexual abuse material on smartphones. It is absolutely baffling that we have only reached this point now. We saw earlier this year the horrifying effects of Grok and other chatbots that are able to generate and share explicit content containing women and children at the request of online users. Children deserve far more than this dither and delay. The tech companies do not even deserve this three-month ultimatum. The Prime Minister should not be begging; he should be telling the big tech companies, “No to the proliferation of child sexual abuse imagery, and no to putting profit over the safety of children.”

[Kanishka Narayan]

Perhaps the hon. Member did not listen to the questioning about politics from his own party, but let me say two things. First, when I go around the country and speak to parents and young people, they say to me that the fact that 116,000 people have engaged with our consultation shows that this is a question on which the British public have strong views, but also that they have a British Government who are now putting those strong views directly into public policy action. On the question of pace, I simply point out to the hon. Member that we are moving at pace on this issue, and in particular that the Prime Minister has secured changes. When I went to Australia two weeks ago, they said to me, “Why was the UK the first place to secure changes on nudity blurring on operating systems for a major provider?” That is the result of the robust engagement we have had. The House is rightly questioning the pace of legislation. I am interested in the pace of outcome, and that is what we are delivering.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Social media companies have been conducting a social experiment on our children for too long and parents have been left trying to bear the burden. I thank the Minister very much for many meetings over many months. Can he tell us the criteria for deciding which platforms are going to be deemed safe or unsafe when determining what young people should have access to and at what age? In particular, can he reassure the House that this will not be left to parents, as YouTube, for example, is still pushing for?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a remarkable champion for young people and families on this question, and I have deeply valued her input and expertise. On her question about definition, I will not pre-empt the decisions that will result from the consultation, but her representations on harmful functionalities are very much top of mind for me. I assure her that it will not be parents who will bear the burden of enforcement; we will ensure that it is very much the platforms who are responsible for enforcement and for acting.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Rather than trading party political points, can we all agree that these huge companies are rotting our children’s minds with addictive algorithms? While we know that banning things seldom works because people circumvent it and it leads to criminality, will the Minister and the Prime Minister go to these companies and say that they are in the last chance saloon—either they take decisive action, which we know they can do, or we will ban children from going on social media?

[Kanishka Narayan]

In characteristic fashion, the Father of the House has given wise counsel, and I will very much take it to heart in the way that the Government act.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

It is clear that the sociopaths that run these platforms have no concern whatever for the welfare of anyone, but particularly our children, and that they will listen only if legislation is put before this House that makes them act and sends a clear message to them, so when are we going to do that?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I absolutely feel the weight of the point my hon. Friend makes about the inadequacy of what the tech companies have done so far. We are acting to make sure that young people in this country are secured from the harms they are experiencing. We have done that already by engaging robustly with the companies. As I said, we are already world-leading in that a major operating system has been reformed only in the United Kingdom to secure our children from harm. If that does not happen, we are working in parallel to make sure that the force of the law is felt as well.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pity that the Minister has chosen attack as the best form of defence when so many Members across the Chamber have repeatedly raised their concerns about the issue over many years. Nevertheless, I will set aside his bombast in the hope that the implementation of these welcome changes is more thoughtful.

Will part of the planned guidance for parents about screen usage, particularly by very young children, address parents’ screen usage in the presence of their young children? There is growing evidence that what is now called technoference is having a strong impact on the attachments that parents form with their children in the early months and years of life, and that that is being felt, certainly in Andover and elsewhere in my constituency, in primary schools when those children arrive. It would be helpful for parents to understand the impact that screen usage is having on them and on their attachment to their children.

[Kanishka Narayan]

The right hon. Member makes an incredibly thoughtful point about something that I have heard in anecdote when engaging with young families. I am conscious that we are running a large-scale media literacy campaign to support parents in their understanding of social media and its impact on them and their relationships with their kids. I will take his comments and ensure that they are fed into the guidance that is prepared.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned delay on this issue; perhaps she did not enjoy the same level of consultation that I and many of my Labour colleagues enjoyed with our constituents, which would be a shame. When I was in Ysgol Maes Garmon recently consulting with groups of parents, young people and students, I was surprised by how much commonality there was in what they asked for from this consultation, and it was my privilege to present what they said to the Minister last week. Does he agree with me, and indeed them, that it is the Government’s responsibility to call the tech companies to the table, so that there is an opportunity for parents, young people, Government and tech companies to all work together to protect our young people?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her depth of engagement with young people and families in her constituency, which she has shown in her representations to me. I have heard consistently from young people, both here and abroad, that in the way that we have engaged on this question, we have made sure that we are doing politics differently: we are listening to the voices of young people and families and putting them at the heart of our decisions. She has done that in her community and we will do that across the country.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is funny how the thought of the Prime Minister’s legacy has suddenly spurred him on to take action to protect our children, when he has resisted for so long. That being said, it is welcome that the Government are listening to the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for a harms-based approach and are considering restricting different social media sites at different ages, rather than imposing a blanket ban that will have unintended consequences and be unworkable. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will include addictiveness as a factor when determining age restrictions for different sites, platforms, games and features?

[Kanishka Narayan]

In the spirit that has been recommended by the House, I will ignore the political attack in the first part of the hon. Member’s question. Her point about addiction being an important vector of harm is very much on our minds as we think about the appropriate action.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Parents and teachers across North Warwickshire and Bedworth are worried sick that tech companies are wilfully allowing young people to share and access explicit content on their platforms and devices, and they are crying out for help. Does the Minister agree that it is high time the tech giants were held to account and forced into action to keep young people safe, and will the Government legislate without delay?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who has been another remarkable champion: she has engaged with people in her community and represented those voices to me. We will ensure that those voices result in quick as well as deeply robust action.

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

The Minister is aware of my concern about the interaction between whatever the Government choose to ban and the workings of the Online Safety Act 2023 that we already have. I know the Minister recognises that that is an important interaction. Will he reassure me that the Government are fully aware that whether they ban access to social media entirely for children, or ban specific functionalities, we will need to ensure we do not undermine the duty of care that the OSA requires of social media platforms and others?

[Kanishka Narayan]

The right hon. and learned Member, with all his expertise and experience on this theme, makes an incredibly thoughtful point. He has made that point to me before, and I assure him it is on my mind to ensure that whatever we do, there is no levelling down of the force of the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act on the platforms—if anything, there is a levelling up.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

To test Instagram’s claim that its teen accounts provide age-appropriate content, I set up a teen account as a 17-year-old boy called David. Without searching for anything, it took just 11 minutes of scrolling for David to be shown antisemitic conspiracy theories. Does the Minister agree that that is a disgrace? That is just one example of why it is time to stop asking social media companies to make their products safe and instead start requiring them to do so through regulation.

[Kanishka Narayan]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important contribution. I brought together Jewish leaders to ensure that they got time with the companies to tell them about the depth of prejudice they experience online, and I was horrified when I heard a very similar set of anecdotes. I agree with her, and the Government will continue to ensure that we bring the full weight of regulation and policy to bear against the tech companies.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

While we all welcome the fact that the Government are finally acting, I will point out to the Minister that not a single parent of the very many parents in Edinburgh West who have been in contact with me has requested that the Government ask the tech companies to behave differently. Every single one of them is concerned about their child—a child who is not the problem, but the victim of the tech companies. Is it not time to recognise that we made this mistake with the press? We left them to self-regulate over decades, and we ended up with Leveson and all sorts of problems, so why are we doing the same thing with the tech companies? We want change, so we should demand change and legislate for it, not let the people who created the problem decide when and how they will fix it.

[Kanishka Narayan]

I was visiting young people and families in Leith in Scotland just a few weeks ago. The thing I heard about more than anything else was the scale of harm that young people in those families were experiencing and a desire that we focus on doing the thing that stops that harm. That is why we will act robustly on the consultation we have done. In this instance, as I have mentioned before, we have already secured major changes; we will continue to do so and, in parallel, we will prepare legislation. I am interested in ensuring that young people in Edinburgh and across the country are protected from the horrific harms.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s decisive action. There have been the most appalling tragedies across the country, including in my constituency, where parents have lost children due to online harms. I know the Minister and the Prime Minister are working closely with parents, but may I urge the Minister to continue to do that, to carry out the type of engagement he has been carrying out, and to listen to the example from Australia? We look forward to hearing about more decisive action in the near future.

[Kanishka Narayan]

One of the big lessons of the Australian experience and beyond is that policy in this context is about not just short-term impact, but long-term norms. We will achieve that impact only if we bring parents and families with us. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a remarkable champion, particularly for bereaved families in his constituency who have experienced the utmost tragedy and, through it, have shown the most remarkable resilience.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

While I welcome the Government’s belated intention to act in this area, does the Minister agree that there would be no need to wait for legislation if the social media companies actually started to enforce their existing age requirements for participating online? Many children under the age of 13 are able to create accounts and interact, despite the fact that that is completely against the terms of the platforms.

[Kanishka Narayan]

The right hon. Gentleman is totally right. Social media companies are already required to enforce the age assurance thresholds that they face under existing legislation. Where that is not happening, we continue to back Ofcom to ensure that it acts robustly and uses every single power it has. We will continue to review whether more is needed to ensure that that is robust action.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It has been more than 20 years since I was one of half a dozen people who co-wrote the world’s first code of practice to protect minors from age-inappropriate content. One of the biggest challenges we faced then was age verification. Will the Minister assure us that the technology and the devices are now there and in place so that under-18s can verify their age?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kanishka Narayan]

I have been very conscious of my hon. Friend’s expertise in this domain, but I am glad to hear of her pioneering experience on the question of age verification, too. We have taken this action because, through our engagement, we have made sure that the technology is now in a good place to robustly verify the age threshold of 18. That is why we want to see it extended, to make sure young people are secure online.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I have met victims of online sexual exploitation—it is an absolutely devastating crime that needs to be stopped. However, I fear that the Government’s plans are going to make things worse for everyone while taking little action to protect children online. The Australian model has not worked, and I fear that these Government plans will effectively open the door to state-mandated surveillance and digital ID for the entire population. We all want children to be safe online. Brilliant technology exists, such as parental control software and other excellent mechanisms; can we not use that technology more, rather than imposing an authoritarian ID database on the entire population?

[Kanishka Narayan]

That is a remarkable mischaracterisation of what the Government are looking to do, and I think the bulk of the House will feel the weight of what the right hon. and learned Member has just said. There is a straight choice here between backing parents and their families in a context where they are experiencing remarkable difficulties in keeping up with modern technology, and backing platforms. I am astonished that she has said that the Reform party is backing tech billionaires and platforms, not parents.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Unfortunately, I do not believe that the tech giants will do as they say and act in the right way on this issue. What consideration is the Minister giving to legislation, particularly to ensure that all platforms can meet the same standards, but also so that we can future-proof against new platforms?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I share my hon. Friend’s scepticism, so let me say two things. The first is that actions matter more than words, and we have already demonstrated that we can move in a pioneering way through the world-first action that we were able to take regarding a major operating system earlier this year—a move that has been praised by international partners. Turning to my hon. Friend’s point about law, as I mentioned at the outset, the Home Secretary, the Home Office and I are working closely together to prepare law in parallel, to ensure no stone is left unturned when it comes to securing our young people’s future.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s belated move on social media, but can the Minister clarify whether the technology prevents photos from being taken in the first place, or whether it scans people’s devices to prevent them sending photos? There are understandable privacy concerns. The Minister’s Department has also briefed the media that YouTube Kids will be excluded from any such action by the Government. Can he explain why?

[Kanishka Narayan]

On the hon. Member’s first question, while we will continue to look at the most effective ways of making this happen, the existing technology largely uses classifiers that ensure that, even at the point of taking the images, camera rendering can prevent those photos from being taken. On her second point, she will be aware that as a matter of course, I will not comment on briefings.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

I have spoken to many young people in Aylesbury and the villages about this issue. One boy told me about the content he had seen, from terrorist beheadings to sexual abuse. He said to me, “Please don’t stop us communicating with our friends—we want to do that—but please stop us seeing this illegal and traumatising material, and please help us manage our addiction to these social media platforms.” Does the Minister agree that the tech companies cannot be trusted with our children’s safety or their futures, and that the Government have to step in now?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend—she has also been a persistent campaigner on this question, and I have valued her input and the conversations I have had with her. Clearly, the experiment that we have allowed our young people to be a part of has not worked; we must bring it to an end, and we will do so robustly and imminently.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I welcome the proposals announced today, but I am concerned that they appear to be limited to nudity. Children who have been subjected to self-harm content or who have been encouraged to take their own lives, and those who have seen extreme violence, do not appear to be covered. My son George told me that without any attempt to find them, he was fed the images of Charlie Kirk’s murder pretty much as soon as it had happened, and I do not see anything in this change to prevent something like that from happening again. Can the Minister confirm that it will include measures on extreme violence, as well as on those awful sites that are causing children to hurt themselves?

[Kanishka Narayan]

It is valuable that the hon. Member has raised those particular harms. I assure her that extreme violence and self-harm content of the sort she has described are already significant and priority offences under the Online Safety Act. Platforms have liability for making sure that that sort of content is proactively rooted out, and where that is not happening, the regulator has the powers it needs to act against it and will continue to do so. The particular change we are considering is about a very specific classifier of nudity—it is much harder to build classifiers for particular types of violence. However, I will of course continue to work with the hon. Member, and any other Members who are interested, on what more we can do.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s position on this issue. We know that the technology is capable and present. I have spoken to those in the UK developing it, but it is being realised against headwinds, because there is no pull. For every other product area or technology, consumers rightly expect safety, and that is built into our product safety laws, but that is not the case with digital. There is no pull for this technology from the big tech companies. Does the Minister agree that we should move in a direction that creates this pull for innovation, for safety as a value and for technology that delivers safety? Such innovation could be enriching our economy as much as the technology at the moment is threatening people’s health.

[Kanishka Narayan]

Safety by design is an incredibly important principle. I valued its mention in the online safety legislation and in our engagement with companies. It is an attractive and tractable way of driving change, too. My hon. Friend has done extensive work on this issue, and I look forward to engaging with him in depth to make sure that his ideas feed into our decisions.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As long as children are given access to social media I very much doubt that it will be possible to prevent them from seeing harmful content. Given the strong assurances from the Minister that he will certainly be taking action to prevent them from seeing extreme content, can he explain to the House what sanctions will be available effectively to punish those social media companies that defy the legislation?

[Kanishka Narayan]

The existing legislation provides for significant fines. More than 100 investigations have been conducted, and millions of pounds of fines have been levied on companies for inaction, too. Under any prospective new regime, I will make sure that the enforcement levers are as robust as they can be. The clear lesson from elsewhere is that compliance is critical to reshaping norms, and I want the companies and the bosses to feel the weight of that.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the parents, teachers and young people in Dartford who came together with me at the end of last month to discuss how to take action against what social media companies are engaged in, which has been described as the great rewiring of our childhood. I was pleased to be able to provide a report to the Minister’s Department after that engagement. There was near consensus that we want to see age restriction on social media access, a digital age of consent on data access and more guidance for parents and families from trusted sources. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we take steps in all those areas, as well as the welcome announcement today on smartphones?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank my hon. Friend for the engagement he has done and for sharing the lessons from it across the three areas that he talks about: age restrictions, the ability to wield appropriate consent, and guidance for parents. The central theme is that parents and young people feel a loss of agency, and that is exactly the fundamental focus that this Government have: to restore the agency of people over platforms.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

There remain serious concerns about the ability of children to use livestreaming on social media and the risks and harms that may arise. That issue has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) in the past. In addition, Members will be well aware of the risks posed to children by strangers, who are in some cases adults with malevolent and illegal intent. Will the Minister confirm that livestreaming and the protection of children from these predators will fall under the scope of the forthcoming Government response?

[Kanishka Narayan]

The hon. Member raises important points about livestreaming and what is called stranger pairing, which is the ability for strangers to engage with young people online on a series of platforms. Livestreaming and stranger pairing together seem to me to be an important way in which international criminal networks have undertaken child sexual abuse. It is at the top of our minds as we think about regulating functionalities and features that are some of the most challenging aspects of what drives harm for young people.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for answering this urgent question today, and urgent it is. While the tech companies are spending millions of pounds congratulating themselves on how they are going above and beyond, children in Darlington tell me that the parental controls are really easy to work around. Can the Minister outline how these new settings on devices will be safeguarded to make sure that children cannot toggle them on and off to regain access to functionality?

[Kanishka Narayan]

My hon. Friend has been extremely thoughtful before in relation to these issues, and I agree with what she has said. In my experience with young people and families, parental controls have not been easy to engage with, and nor have they been completely effective in driving down the harm in question. As for the effectiveness of what we have announced today, there is clear evidence that age assurance at device level has already been effective in some instances. The technology also appears to be pretty effective in understanding nudity and therefore blocking it. We are looking at that precisely, because we think it is radically more effective than age assurance just at the level of the application. I will continue to bear my hon. Friend’s lessons in mind.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

In my constituency, this issue is of real concern to parents as well as children. Some of the big tech companies seem to resemble the big tobacco companies of the 1960s. We have had a great deal of briefing from the Government, and we have had an announcement that was not made in the House. Will the Minister commit himself to coming to the House when the guidance is ready, to set out exactly and clearly the steps that the Government will continue to take to give real reassurance to the parents in my constituency who are so concerned about this matter?

[Kanishka Narayan]

The Government are already committed to a conversation as well as a vote in the House on the substantive question of the consultation. I will ensure that there is even fuller scope for engagement in the Chamber on the full set of questions that the right hon. Member has raised.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Many Members will have read “Careless People”, a book by Sarah Wynn-Williams. It is a whistleblowing account of her time working inside Facebook, now Meta. She was silenced by Meta, using lawfare, when she sounded the alarm. These companies do not care about the people who use the platforms. They care only about keeping people on their platforms, especially our children. What does the Minister know that we do not? Does he believe that asking them nicely, rather than legislating against them, will achieve the intended results,?

[Kanishka Narayan]

One of the things that I value most in this role is the ability to engage directly with whistleblowers from a range of companies, and to hear about their understanding of what is happening internally but, more than that, the strength of their prescription. I am not relying on any internal, privileged understanding; I am relying on action, not words. The fact that we have already been able to secure a world-leading change in respect of age assurance at device level, protecting millions of young people in this country, is the action on which I am relying, not false promises or privileged information.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The tech companies are big, they are rich, they are clever, and they are playing a very long game. I do not doubt that in the next three months we shall see some degree of compliance or movement towards what the Government are asking for from those tech companies, but I fear that there will then be constant backsliding—that we shall see them endlessly rowing back on, or not quite meeting, what they have agreed to. How can we prevent that from happening by means of any steps short of legislation? Could legislation please be enforced by means of class actions for children who are damaged by this content? I think that that is the only thing that the tech companies might pay attention to.

[Kanishka Narayan]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the issue of concern is not whether there are some incremental changes but whether our children are safe online, and that is at the forefront of my mind. We are looking at the quickest way of achieving such an outcome. We are preparing legislative options alongside the engagement that we are already carrying out, and if we are not able to secure substantive change to deliver that outcome, we will not hesitate to legislate.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

A little while ago I ran a consultation in my constituency with 60 young people and teachers, which the Minister kindly attended. While they would welcome the action taken today, they wanted to see significant regulation of tech companies, because a ban is easily avoided. What further steps are the Government considering to protect young people through regulation?

[Kanishka Narayan]

One of the firm lessons that I learned from my hon. Friend’s engagement—and such depth of engagement—with young people in Staffordshire was the need to ensure that the changes we make online also reflect better opportunities offline. I know that she provides extensive opportunities for young people in her constituency. We will make sure that when we are acting on this issue, we are looking at the full range of their experiences.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I am genuinely pleased that the Government have at least come to the table on preventing harms to children from social media and online content, but it strikes me that it is rather piecemeal. Listening to voices on the Conservative Benches, other parties in opposition and the Government’s own Back Benchers, it seems everything is pointing in the same direction: we need an outright ban on social media for under-16s. This House has proven in the past that when we want to act quickly, we can. Before any more children are harmed, will the Minister bring forward legislation?

[Kanishka Narayan]

With respect to the hon. Member, there are a range of questions, not least about how we make sure that we do not allow harms on gaming and messaging platforms. We need to look at the precise way in which age assurance can be robust enough, so that we do not get young people escaping any changes. There are a range of implementation questions. We want to get this right for our young people and families, not give in to political back and forth.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Health misinformation and disinformation on social media is not harmless; it is a growing and serious threat to public health. We have already seen cases in which harmful online trends have led to severe injury and, tragically, even to the deaths of children. What steps are the Government taking to hold technology companies to account, and to prevent online influencers from being able to spread harmful and misleading health content on their platforms, given the clear risks that they pose to young people?

[Kanishka Narayan]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. One of the things that we have been clear about is that regulated health advice should be provided only by regulated individuals in appropriate ways. The platforms need to ensure that they comply with that, and we will work with the regulator to ensure that any such responsibilities are carried out.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

At a recent roundtable that I held at a high school in Waveney Valley, one young person said:

“Social media is dangerous for young people and the government needs to take more control over social media companies because of the harmful content”.

A senior teacher said:

“The majority of what we are dealing with as safeguarding leads is via social media.”

How will the Minister ensure that the out-of-control corporate tech giants are regulated effectively, so that only age-appropriate content can be accessed?

[Kanishka Narayan]

The central message that the hon. Member should take away is that this Government will make sure that we restore control to the hands of families, rather than tech bosses. That is the outcome that we will deliver imminently.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Parents, teachers and young people in Mid Derbyshire have spoken to me extensively about the harm that young people are receiving from social media and smartphones, but it is worth noting that many young people get their legitimate news content online. They also have a lot of access to educational material on places such as YouTube, and we have to be careful not to push young people towards more harmful places on the internet through legislation. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that young people can still get their legitimate news online? They are not engaging with traditional broadcasters or buying newspapers, and they need to access their educational content. We do not want there to be any unintended consequences.

[Kanishka Narayan]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. On all my travels across the country, I have tried to be active on social media, but the only content that young people report having seen is on “Newsround”. Public broadcasts of appropriate, high-quality news and educational experiences can be delivered in innovative ways in schools, as well as online. This Government will make sure that young people are kept informed and are in receipt of educational experiences.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

This country is in danger of losing a generation of young people to the bad and malign influences of big tech. Big tech can be a force for good, but are this Government not completely embedded with big tech, as the last Government were? Big tech is often more powerful and has bigger budgets than many Governments, and some of the big tech owners do not believe in democracy; they believe that democracy is bust and want to undo it. There is an inherent conflict of interests between the Government’s position and big tech’s influence and embeddedness in all Government Departments. It is incumbent on all of us to take action, because parents feel powerless. They look to us as their Members of Parliament to reflect their views, and today I am reflecting my constituents’ views. As we have heard from Members across the House, guidance is not good enough. It has to be about legislation, class actions and big bucks—that is what these companies listen to.

[Kanishka Narayan]

The right hon. Member makes an incredibly important point. First, of course we will act, including in law, to make sure that we are focused on outcomes for young people and families. Secondly, and critically, the conversations I have had across the country reflect a deep understanding that we need robust action in the short term, but in the long term Britain will shape technology, rather than being shaped by it, if we build British capability. That is what we are focused on. In fact, just this morning we announced a £1 billion hardware plan to make sure that the next generation of fundamental technologies—AI chips in particular—are built here. We are reindustrialising ourselves but, at the heart of it, making sure that we have the discretion to engage with international firms in the way that we want.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his response to the urgent question. I am very grateful that the Government are taking action on this vital issue, but we all know that the pace of change in technology is terrifying. Will he set out how the discussions with technology companies and online safety experts have focused on ensuring that device-level controls are not only effective and easy for families to use, but adaptable to emerging online risks?

[Kanishka Narayan]

My hon. Friend makes the incredibly important point that the speed of technology needs to be reflected in the speed of democracy. That is why we have moved so fast in engaging the country, getting a set of actions ready and acting imminently. On device-level changes, although we were one of the first countries in the world to secure major changes to an operating system earlier this year, she is totally right that we must look not just at where the technology is now but at where the harms may go, and I will continue to bear that in mind.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement about blocking explicit images on children’s phones, but this should really have come much sooner. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that action needs to be taken now, not in three months’ time. What exactly will be measured at the end of that period, and what counts as failure? Are we really relying on the good will of tech companies, bearing in mind their inactivity so far?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank the hon. Member for her question. Let me give a very clear sense of that outcome and how we will measure it. Currently, 91% of the images used in child sexual abuse interactions are self-generated. To me, that is the central focus for what this Government are doing. We have already made a significant difference, as I have said, in ensuring that our robust engagement delivered a pioneering change to a major operating system. If this change is not delivered within weeks, we will ensure that the full force of the law delivers such an outcome.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

There is growing evidence of a link between smartphone overuse and symptoms of depression and anxiety and reduced student performance, and areas such as Blackpool are seeing double the national average of young people self-harming. What steps will my hon. Friend take to ensure that device-level controls are effective and easy to use for parents who may not be tech savvy?

[Kanishka Narayan]

A fundamental principle behind both the changes announced today and those we are considering as a result of the consultation is simplicity. Parents across the country tell me that they are working incredibly hard to try to keep up with the technology, but the technology continues to make it more difficult rather than easier for them to exercise control. That principle will motivate our actions, and we will ensure that this is easy and effective, and that the burden of liability falls on platforms, not parents.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Why is the Minister answering an urgent question rather than bringing forward a Government statement?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I understand that Home Office Ministers made a statement at oral questions. I am happy to answer any further questions from Members of the House.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

The vast majority of Members in this place had the benefit of growing up in a world without social media, and with social media, but today’s young people have not had that benefit. They have grown up with their lives intimately intertwined with the digital world, and in lockdown they were pushed even deeper online without being given a say. Whatever we do next, we must bring young people with us. Beyond the consultation, what will the Department do to meaningfully engage with young people in this area of policy, so that we can build a digital world that is safe for young people with young people?

[Kanishka Narayan]

My hon. Friend has been one of the most vocal Members on this question, particularly on engaging with young people. There are two things on my mind. First, there is the trust that I have felt in engaging with young people in every nation and region of our country on these questions. Whether over basketball, cricket, football or netball—and, indeed, toasting marshmallows with the Cumbria scouts—my trust has only been affirmed. Secondly, he is right to raise an important point about finding a community online, particularly for young people from LGBTQ groups and rural groups. We must bear that in mind and ensure that they have appropriate resources to feel supported in forming such communities.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

At the G7 Digital Ministers meeting, it was reported that the US and the UK watered down stronger protections for children presented by France. My constituents, as evidenced by more than 2,000 emails I have received on online harms, want stronger protections. Will the Minister assure us that on online safety he and the Prime Minister have the interests of children in my constituency at heart, rather than the interests of the US and big tech? If so, why did the UK resist mandatory protection frameworks?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I will not be commenting on leaked briefings, but I will say two things. First, in my engagement, even in Australia, civil society has said that the United Kingdom has been the first country in the world to pioneer the changes to operating systems that are securing young people’s future. On children’s safety, the only thing that matters to this Government is ensuring that British children are kept safe. We will continue to make that the defining principle for all our actions.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Tech giants have had the digital level controls capability to stop children taking, sharing or viewing naked images on their devices, but have failed to do so. I have very little confidence that they will suddenly have an epiphany and do the right thing without the necessary pressure, enforcement and consequences. How will the Minister ensure they comply, and if, or when, they fail, legislate with urgency?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I share my hon. Friend’s starting position of scepticism. Robust action will be achieved by ensuring that the outcome is a significant reduction in child sexual abuse material propagated through the mechanisms described. In the absence of that happening within weeks, we are preparing law in parallel to ensure that such action is not deferred.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Regardless of what has provoked this change of heart, we can all welcome the Government now recognising the harms caused to children and families by social media. The evidence is very clear. I believe that most children will support the legislation. On Friday, I chaired a debate— a lively debate—at Roddensvale special school. All the points about disruption, distraction, bullying, peer pressure and so on were brought up. One thing I would ask of the Minister is that we need action now. He should not be put off by further promises from the big tech companies about self-regulation. If we are to have action, it should be enforceable and there should not be unintended consequences for free speech.

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. When I visited young people in Glengormley in Northern Ireland, they told me that it was the first time they had been engaged on this question so systematically; and yes, they wanted robust action, but action that worked in the real world—they use different apps as well as virtual private networks. On the broader question of social media, the Government are not just listening but acting robustly and in a way that is distinctive. On the specific question of device-level interventions, the fundamental focus will be what delivers the most robust action the quickest. If that is the law, we will pursue the law. If it is engagement and the way that we have already delivered significant changes, we will do that. The future of young people is the critical driver here.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. It really does feel like change is coming and I know that parents in Edinburgh South West will welcome that. On the proposals to restrict social media access for young people, the Minister has rightly been listening to parents, but what work is he doing with campaigning charities such as the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, whose knowledge and expertise is extremely important in this domain? This also cannot be about a Government-led ban: we must engage our young people, schools, parents and charities in communicating the changes we plan. It would be good to hear more on that from the Minister. Lastly, if the industry does not proceed with a voluntary ban, how long does the Minister think it would take to implement a full ban on the ground?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his incredibly important point. One reason we have ensured that we engage young people and families alongside civil society is that there is a depth of experience across the country. If we are to achieve change not just on devices but more broadly on social media norms, those who engage in places that matter with young people and families must be right at the heart of that. I will ensure that civil society charities across the country engage with us not just on the decision but on its communication.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising optometrist. Myopia—shortsightedness—is nearing epidemic levels for UK children. It is a crisis that was sharply increased by covid, when screentime surged and outdoor activity collapsed. Research shows that nearly one in three of our UK children will now be short sighted, and the rate is still rising. Shortsightedness after a certain dioptre level can lead to retinal conditions and sight loss. When developing any digital policies, can consideration be given to the devastating impact of screentime on our children’s eye health?

[Kanishka Narayan]

The hon. Member raises an important point, and I will ensure that it is fully considered in the evidence that we include when making decisions on that question.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question; I have always been a big fan of his style. I echo the points made by the Father of the House on the importance of holding social media companies to account. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I have done extensive consultation with parents, teachers and young people in my constituency of Harlow about the issue. I also echo the comments made by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); I do not think that social media companies are taking their responsibilities seriously. Does the Minister agree that some sort of social media ban—which would be a good idea—will only be effective if we ensure that the technology does not allow people to circumvent the age-verification tools? That is very important.

[Kanishka Narayan]

Not even my mother has complimented me on my style, so I can confirm to my hon. Friend that a visit to Harlow is imminent. He is totally right, and one reason that we have taken time to ensure that we are engaging with families and young people is to understand exactly how age-verification technology works, as that is crucial to whether we look at a platform ban or features and functionalities limitations. We want to get it right and robust so that young people in this country are kept safe.

[Lincoln Jopp]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago, I asked the Minister why he came to the Floor of the House to answer an urgent question rather than bringing forward a Government statement. I believe his answer was that he thought Home Office Ministers had made a statement earlier today. The Minister and I are both new to this House, but given that statements tend to follow oral questions— I sat through Home Office questions—and there has not been one, the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. What opportunities are there for the record to be corrected?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The Minister will know that in the first instance statements should be made to the House. Today we have had an urgent question to address the issue. If there has been any inadvertent misleading of the House from the Minister’s use of language, I am sure that those on the Front Bench have heard that and will want to clarify the matter.

[Kanishka Narayan]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard the Home Secretary deliver a statement at the start of topicals. It may not have been the fullest format, but it was a clear statement of the policy. I am of course happy to keep answering questions for as long as the House likes.

Revised Telecommunications Security Code of Practice

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

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 Digital Economy, Baroness Lloyd of Effra.

The UK telecoms supply chain review 2019 identified the need to establish an enhanced legislative framework for telecoms security. In response, the Government established a stronger telecoms security framework, which consists of:

The Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021—primary legislation that established new duties on public telecoms providers to prevent security compromises within their networks and services.

The Electronic Communications (Security Measures) Regulations 2022—secondary legislation setting out specific cyber-security requirements with which the public telecoms providers must comply.

The Telecommunications Security Code of Practice 2022—technical guidance on how providers can comply with the requirements set out in the regulations.

The UK’s future prosperity rests on the public electronic communications networks and services—PECN and PECS—that provide our telecoms and internet connectivity. It is important therefore that the telecoms security framework keeps pace with the scale of the threat to UK telecoms networks and services, adapting to evolving threats to network security and new innovations in telecoms technology.

The UK National Cyber Security Centre’s annual review 2025 highlights how state actors continue to pose a persistent and escalating cyber-threat to UK critical national infrastructure, including telecoms, leveraging sophisticated cyber-capabilities and working closely with a growing commercial intrusion market. This threat is becoming increasingly diffuse and dangerous, with cyber-attacks a key tool in geopolitical competition. The volume of nationally significant incidents managed by the NCSC continues to grow, and we are seeing high-profile campaigns like Salt Typhoon, targeting over 80 countries worldwide.

At the same time, innovations in technology are redefining both the cyber-security threat and the tools available for cyber-security and resilience. The growing use of AI, for example, delivers significant operational benefits for telecoms, but it also introduces new risks. Adversaries can exploit AI to automate the discovery of network vulnerabilities, and more rapidly identify high-value targets within networks. Maintaining a proactive, adaptive security posture is essential to safeguard the UK’s telecoms networks and services against these evolving and increasingly sophisticated threats.

Within the code of practice, to account for this changing threat landscape, the Government stated their intent to

“review and update the Code of Practice periodically as new threats emerge and technologies evolve.”

Following discussions with the NCSC and Ofcom, and regular feedback from industry, last year the Government consulted on proposals to update some areas of the technical guidance within the code of practice in order to:

Provide some further clarity on specific security measures in the code of practice—some providers suggested the code lacked specific guidance in some areas. The proposed updates intend to give clearer direction to support compliance with legal duties in the legislation. This includes clearer guidance on the use of privileged access workstations, approaches to security testing, and the encryption and protection of data.

Reflect evolving technology—since the code of practice was published, increased use of certain technologies warrants updated technical guidance to support safe adoption. The proposed updates include new security guidance on the secure use of public cloud, automation, and application programming interfaces.

Reflect emerging security threats—recent hostile state-linked attacks underline growing risks. The code of practice must evolve to help ensure providers respond appropriately. The proposed updates ensure the code of practice reflects the need for providers to take appropriate and proportionate steps to protect their networks against such threats.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has considered in detail the feedback received in response to the consultation and has made amendments based on this feedback to the draft revised code of practice where appropriate.

Following the conclusion of this work, the Department is today laying the draft revised telecommunications security code of practice—the revised code of practice—in Parliament for scrutiny under the negative procedure. A copy of the Government response to the consultation on proposals to update the telecommunications security code of practice 2022, which details the changes made in response to feedback, is published on gov.uk.

The revised code of practice represents an important step in ensuring that the UK’s telecoms security framework remains robust and effective in the face of rapidly evolving cyber-threats and technological change. By providing clearer and more up-to-date technical guidance, the revised code of practice will help telecoms providers to comply with their statutory duties, strengthen the security and resilience of the UK’s public electronic communications networks and services, and protect citizens, businesses, and critical services that rely on the networks and services.

[HCWS83]

Online Safety Act 2023 Codes of Practice on Illegal Content

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

Non-consensual intimate image abuse can have devastating and long-lasting impacts on victims and disproportionately affects women and girls. Delivering stronger protections against this harm is a key Government priority. The Prime Minister committed earlier this year to strengthen protections for victims and ensure platforms take a more proactive role tackling this horrendous abuse.

Today marks a further important step in strengthening protections online, as I lay before Parliament an amendment to Ofcom’s codes of practice for the illegal content duties, bringing in hash matching to strengthen protections against non-consensual intimate image abuse.

The Online Safety Act 2023 puts a range of duties on social media companies and search services, making them responsible for their users’ safety on their platforms. These include duties to put in place systems and processes for tackling illegal content and activity. Ofcom, as the independent regulator for this regime, is required to set out steps in codes of practice that providers should take to ensure they fulfil these duties.

Ofcom issued its first codes of practice for the illegal content duties following parliamentary scrutiny. Those codes came into force in March 2025. They introduced a framework of measures, and required services to take a proactive, systems-based approach to tackling illegal harms.

This amendment introduces a targeted additional measure to strengthen protections against non-consensual intimate image abuse. It sets a clear legal expectation that relevant services will use perceptual hash-matching technologies, or demonstrably equivalent tools, to identify and prevent the re-uploading and circulation of known non-consensual intimate images, including intimate image deepfakes. In practice, this will require services at risk of hosting such content to deploy proactive detection systems, capable of preventing repeat uploads at scale, rather than relying on case-by-case takedown, following user reports. This approach meaningfully supports victims, and ensures that once content is identified, it is effectively prevented from reappearing.

Ofcom has now submitted an amendment to its codes of practice for the illegal content duties. I am laying this before Parliament for scrutiny. If neither House objects to the amendment, Ofcom must issue the amended codes, and the updated measures will apply from 21 calendar days after they are issued.

Once in force, these updated measures will further strengthen the existing framework, ensuring that service providers put in place effective systems and processes to prevent the spread of illegal intimate image abuse content, including through the use of proactive technologies.

The amendment represents a further step in implementing the Online Safety Act and strengthening protections for users, particularly in tackling some of the most harmful forms of online abuse against women and girls. Ofcom will continue to build on this framework and keep its codes under review to address emerging harms.

[HCWS70]

Science, Innovation and Technology

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on the UK-India Technology Security Initiative on 28 April 2026.

[Kanishka Narayan]

The TSI will secure supply chains, as my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth highlighted. Through the UK-India critical minerals guild, we are strengthening joint capabilities in critical minerals; I will closely consider its collective feedback and its particular observations on the partnership on critical minerals. Backed by £1.5 million in funding, phase 2 will now extend the scope of our joint observatory, further developing digital data infrastructure on the critical minerals value chain and establishing a new satellite campus at the Indian School of Mines in Dhanbad.

[Official Report, 28 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 304WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan):

[Kanishka Narayan]

The TSI will secure supply chains, as my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth highlighted. Through the UK-India critical minerals guild, we are strengthening joint capabilities in critical minerals; I will closely consider its collective feedback and its particular observations on the partnership on critical minerals. Backed by £1.8 million in funding, phase 2 will now extend the scope of our joint observatory, further developing digital data infrastructure on the critical minerals value chain and establishing a new satellite campus at the Indian School of Mines in Dhanbad.

UK-India Technology Security Initiative

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for so expertly introducing this debate on the UK-India technology security initiative.

Technology and my early upbringing in India have profoundly shaped my life, so it is a particular privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. When my family moved from Bihar to south Wales, we came with a simple aspiration: to take the opportunity to work hard, to contribute and to build a better future. Technology played a pretty key role in it. At school in Cardiff, catching up with a new education system, I depended on the local public library computer. Access to those dusty old public PCs was formative in transforming my education and changing the trajectory of my life. I reflect on that, because the UK-India tech security initiative is not just about geopolitical security. It is about scaling opportunity in communities right across the UK.

Indian investment has already created over 1,800 jobs across the UK. Following the Prime Minister’s visit to Mumbai in October, we have secured a further £1.3 billion in direct investment. Britain’s significant leadership on the world stage is clearly delivering concrete returns for our communities in every part of our country. The UK-India technology security initiative will go further still: it will create good, well-paid jobs in the UK, build our children’s skills for the future and drive investment in every part of our country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and other Members for their contributions to the debate. Their remarks have underlined how the UK-India relationship is not abstract or remote, but is lived every day in constituencies like theirs, through families, through businesses, through schools and through public services. That living bridge is the foundation on which our partnership rests.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is right to challenge the outdated perceptions of India today. India has the highest growth rate in the G20. It has been the second largest source of foreign direct investment in the UK for six years. It is also one of the world’s fastest-growing technology powers, underpinned by a thriving ecosystem of innovation, entrepreneurship and digital transformation.

It is no exaggeration to say that our future prosperity depends on our ability to drive innovation-led growth, to secure the supply chains and technologies on which our economy relies and to build a strong research base and skills future so that British people and businesses can thrive. The UK cannot deliver those objectives alone. The technologies that will define the coming decades are global by nature, and success depends on our trusted partnerships.

The Government agree with my hon. Friend that partnership with India is therefore a strategic necessity. Our bilateral relationship has gone from strength to strength, with technology and innovation firmly at its core. That progress was underscored during the recent visits in both directions by our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi when the UK-India vision for 2035 was agreed. Those visits also saw the signing of the landmark comprehensive economic and trade agreement with India. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth pointed out, it is our most economically significant bilateral trade deal since leaving the European Union. It is expected to increase bilateral trade, which is worth £47.4 billion a year, by £25.5 billion and to increase both Indian and UK GDP by nearly £5 billion a year in the long run.

The UK and India are natural tech partners, with major Indian tech companies like Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services and Wipro already expanding in the UK, supporting jobs, productivity and innovation across our economy. Dozens of Indian firms and entrepreneurs are investing here in Britain, creating the jobs and growth of the future. Linkfields, an AI company based in Hyderabad, is investing £10 million in London, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Mastek, whose representatives I met in India and which is located in Mumbai, is opening an office in Leeds and an AI centre in London, creating 200 skilled jobs including 75 apprenticeships. EdSupreme, which is using AI to help people with physiotherapy, is investing £10 million across England and Wales and creating 100 jobs.

That is why the UK-India technology security initiative exists. It is a landmark partnership, bringing into sharper focus collaboration in frontier technology across telecoms, critical minerals, semiconductors, AI, quantum, biotechnology, healthtech and advanced materials. It is clear that working closely with India allows us not only to open new opportunities for our businesses and make sure that our technologies rely on secure and trustworthy foundations, but to work with a partner that is increasingly setting the global agenda. That was evident this year during my visit to India for the AI summit, which underscored the global role that India is now playing in convening Governments, industry and academia across every part of the world.

Alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and an 18-strong delegation of cutting-edge UK businesses and 13 UK universities, we delivered on investment and talent commitments set in train during the Prime Minister’s earlier visit, with commitments secured from Indian companies such as Hexaware, Nagarro and CoRover to expand their UK footprint.

I also saw at first hand the breadth of commercial interest that the UK has in India. Our partnership is focused on driving that innovation across businesses in our countries. That was evident when I spent time at the British Council with the founder of ElevenLabs, a great British AI company, celebrating students and future founders shaping our two tech ecosystems. That is what the UK-India technology security initiative is designed to achieve.

We have already delivered several joint AI innovation projects together through the UK-India joint centre for AI, working on the development of AI innovations in priority areas such as healthcare, climate, energy, agriculture and finance. The joint centre will also play a cross-cutting role, enabling the safe adoption of AI across other TSI sectors, including telecoms and wider digital infrastructure.

Our co-operation extends to advanced connectivity. Working together to shape future communications networks will help to provide seamless coverage, even in the most remote areas of our countries, and underpin innovations in healthcare, smart city infrastructure and autonomous vehicles. We are delivering on this through the India-UK Connectivity and Innovation Centre, with an initial £24 million in joint funding. The centre will drive innovation in how AI is used in telecoms networks, in non-terrestrial networks such as satellite internet, and in telecoms cybersecurity. I will flag to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, that this will include opportunities for Belfast and for Northern Ireland—an ecosystem of which I have personally seen the strengths, particularly in cyber-security.

The technology security initiative is already delivering in biotechnology and health technology, sectors that matter both for our economic growth and for our resilience. In February, the UK biotech and pharma SME delegation visited Mumbai and Hyderabad to strengthen UK-India collaboration in biomanufacturing and pharmaceutical innovation.

We are also collaborating on innovative technologies in femtech, with a letter of intent between the National Institute for Health and Care Research and India’s Department of Biotechnology. By bringing together expertise from both our countries, this partnership has the potential not only to improve health outcomes for women, but to support economic growth by driving innovation, attracting investment and strengthening our life sciences sector.

The TSI will secure supply chains, as my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth highlighted. Through the UK-India critical minerals guild, we are strengthening joint capabilities in critical minerals; I will closely consider its collective feedback and its particular observations on the partnership on critical minerals. Backed by £1.5 million in funding, phase 2 will now extend the scope of our joint observatory, further developing digital data infrastructure on the critical minerals value chain and establishing a new satellite campus at the Indian School of Mines in Dhanbad.

The TSI is a strategic investment in our future. We are committed to its delivery. Just last week, our National Security Adviser led bilateral discussions in Delhi on the India-UK Technology Security Initiative, agreeing that the next phase of the TSI must prioritise business engagement and growth.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare again for securing this debate and for highlighting something I feel personally, which is that notwithstanding our historic connections, what most ties the UK and India together is that we are two countries chasing the future. We are chasing a future built on the foundations of our people-to-people and business-to-business connections. I look forward to continuing this work as our partnership deepens, so that we can deliver further benefits for the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Telecommunications, Radio Spectrum Management and Postal Services: Strategic Priorities

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

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 Digital Economy, Baroness Lloyd of Effra.

I have today designated the Government’s statement of strategic priorities for

telecommunications, the management of radio spectrum, and postal services for the purposes of section 2A of the Communications Act 2003.

This statement outlines the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes across a number of areas, including: fixed and mobile telecoms, digital inclusion through empowered and confident consumers, telecoms modernisation, the management of radio spectrum, telecoms security and resilience, and the postal services.

The draft statement was laid before Parliament on 11 February 2026 and the statutory period required under section 2C of the Act has now ended.

As the independent regulator, Ofcom must have regard to the priorities set out within the statement when exercising its functions. Within 40 days of the designation of the statement, Ofcom must report on what it proposes to do in consequence of the statement. Ofcom must then publish subsequent annual reports setting out what action it has taken in consequence of the statement.

We are committed to working with Ofcom and industry to drive forward progress against the priorities set out in the statement to build a UK that will have the connectivity it needs, whatever the future holds.

[HCWS1542]

UK-US Arrangement on Pharmaceuticals Pricing and Tariffs

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Vallance of Balham.

Today I can update the House that the UK and US Governments have published the joint text of our arrangement on pharmaceuticals pricing and tariffs. This builds on the general terms for the UK-US economic prosperity deal announced in May 2025 and takes forward joint commitments made when the principles of the partnership were first announced in December 2025. The arrangement will improve the lives of NHS patients, support our life sciences sector and grow the economy.

Central to the partnership are the actions the Government are taking to improve and protect UK patient access to new and important medicines. More NHS patients will get improved access to life-changing new treatments because of the medicines pricing changes we have made, and the associated UK medicines spend targets set out in the arrangement. Investing in medicines helps keep people healthier for longer, reduces pressure on the health service over the longer term, and ensures that we have an NHS that is fit for the future.

The update to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold, made for the first time in two decades, has already made a direct difference for NHS patients. Two medicines have already been recommended by NICE under the new threshold, giving patients immediate access to life-changing medicines—including a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12 and a last-resort treatment for patients with a rare form of stomach cancer who had already exhausted other options. NHS patients in England will be able to access these through the health service, thanks to the new thresholds.

In addition, the arrangement includes clarification of the US commitments on its “most favoured nation” pricing policy and support for UK patient access, including outlining expectations from the US Government that companies will continue to launch new medicines quickly in the UK.

The partnership supports our life sciences sector, which not only saves lives but creates jobs, drives investment and powers innovation across our economy. UK pharmaceuticals exports to the US—worth over £5 billion in 2024—will be subject to no additional US tariffs as a result of section 232 or section 301 investigations for at least three years. This includes avoiding section 232 tariffs on patented pharmaceuticals of up to 100% announced by the US on Thursday 2 April. This makes the UK the first and only country to benefit from a commitment to tariff-free access to the US pharmaceuticals market, providing certainty for UK exporters, and giving the UK sector a significant competitive advantage over other trading partners. This supports economic growth and helps protect our vital pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, which in 2025 added £28.5 billion to the UK economy, employed over 50,000 people in high-skilled jobs across the country, and exported almost £21 billion in pharmaceutical products worldwide.

We have also achieved preferential terms for medical technology exports, which will be subject to no additional tariffs as a result of section 232 or section 301 investigations for at least three years—protecting over 195,000 UK jobs in the med-tech sector. The UK and US have also agreed to work together towards mutual recognition of medical device approvals—cutting red tape and supporting future innovative health technologies to reach patients on both sides of the Atlantic.

The partnership has received widespread support from the life sciences sector and will lead to greater investment in UK life sciences. It has already started generating results, such as £500 million investment in UK research and development and manufacturing in Surrey from the global biopharmaceutical company UCB, which was announced in January.

We will continue to work closely with the life sciences sector to help land investment into the UK, and deliver on our ambition for the UK to become the third most important life sciences economy by 2035, as set out in our life sciences sector plan.

The finalising of this arrangement does not introduce any further costs for HM Government beyond those set out previously. The Government will continue to assess the costs and benefits of this arrangement.

[HCWS1487]

Mobile and Fixed Telecoms Modernisation Charters and Protocols

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Lloyd of Effra, the Minister for Digital Economy.

The Government secured agreement yesterday from the telecoms industry to further protect customers and to prevent disruption to critical national infrastructure services during telecoms modernisation programmes via the 2G switch-off charter and the fixed telecoms modernisation charter. These charters and additional guidance for communication providers, network operators and wholesalers have been developed in response to and in anticipation of essential work led by industry to modernise the UK’s digital infrastructure.

Modernising the UK’s telecommunications infrastructure supports economic growth. Households and businesses will be able to benefit from much faster download and upload speeds, improved network security, greater reliability and resilience, better call quality, and lower latency (faster responsiveness). In addition, some telecoms companies are finding it difficult to source certain spare parts required to maintain or repair connections as the parts are no longer made. Decommissioned parts are being used to maintain the remaining networks.

Modernising mobile networks

All four 3G networks have now been safely switched off, with the last operator switching off in early 2026. Spectrum released from retiring 3G is now being re-purposed to improve 4G and 5G connectivity, which is now widely available across the UK. Mobile network operators are now turning to switching off 2G networks which was first announced in 2021. These 2G networks are used for a number of critical services and support customers who require additional support, including those with older 2G-only mobile phones—of which there are around two million—as well as personal telecare alarms, so it is imperative that their migration to 4G or 5G networks is done safely.

Mobile operators, as signatories of the new 2G switch-off charter, have therefore made significant commitments to ensure a safe and smooth switch-off of 2G migration for everyone. These include contacting affected customers well in advance of switching off a 2G network or service, using multiple and different means of communications, trialling switching-off 2G in different geographic areas before starting a nationwide switch-off, verifying that 4G and-or 5G coverage is present prior to switching off 2G, and maintaining access to all forms of emergency services. Mobile phones that are 2G only ceased to be sold at scale over a decade ago in the mid-2010s. The remaining 2G-only mobile phone users will receive multiple messages asking them to upgrade to a new device in advance of 2G being switched off by each network in 2029, 2030 and by 2033. Government have and continue to engage with local authorities and telecare providers about the closure of mobile networks.

Modernising fixed networks

Fixed networks are also being upgraded. This includes the upgrade of analogue copper landlines, the public switched telephone network, to the digital voice over internet protocol, also known as the PSTN migration. This is an essential upgrade as older networks are ageing and deteriorating, and people are missing out on the benefits of newer, better technologies. There are also expected to be significant closures of telephone exchanges in the coming years, as these will no longer be required for running modernised networks. Similar to the switch-off of the 2G mobile network, there are customers who are reliant on their landlines and old copper-based services, including those who use telecare devices.

In November 2024, the Government secured agreements from the telecoms industry to protect vulnerable people and critical services during the PSTN migration via the non-voluntary migration checklist and critical national infrastructure charter. These have ensured safety is at the forefront of the PSTN migration, protecting customers who require additional support—including during changes to their telecoms services—and critical infrastructure. As of 31 December 2025, only 3.6 million PSTN lines remained operational. This is down from 6.5 million at the end of 2024 and 35.2 million at the network’s peak in 2000.

Industry and Government are committed to learning the lessons from the PSTN migration for future fixed telecoms modernisations. Therefore, the industry commitments that previously only applied to the PSTN migration have been extended to all fixed modernisations. This includes the fixed telecoms modernisation charter, critical national infrastructure charter, and the non-voluntary migration checklist.

Supporting everyone through the migrations

In addition to these updated documents, signatories have agreed to two final engagement protocols. These protocols are a backstop to address situations where a small number of customers do not engage with communication providers despite repeated attempts to contact them in order to modernise their service. Communication providers, and, separately, network operators and wholesalers, have agreed additional safeguards to protect customers, while enabling networks and services to be modernised before they fail. This includes the commitment to contacting customers three times using at least two different channels that are suitable for their needs, using clear language about the proposed change to their service. The protocols provide a minimum time period for customers to respond of at least 30 days. There are also additional communications, time and safeguards for those needing additional support.

During the roundtable that I hosted yesterday, telecoms providers agreed that their first priority was always to protect customers. I also laid out the Government plan to work with industry to ensure the charter commitments are met and engage with sectors that rely on digital connectivity to ensure they upgrade their products and services.

[HCWS1437]

Financial Assistance to Industry

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 General Committees

[The Chair]

It may help if I clarify from the Chair that we will debate for up to 90 minutes the content of the motion in the name of the Secretary of State, which is listed on the future business section of the Order Paper. The House will be asked to pass the motion without debate after the text has been reported from the Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to make payments, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in excess of £30 million to any successful applicant to the Life Sciences Large Investment Portfolio, launched on 15 November 2025, up to a cumulative total of £570 million.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. The life sciences sector is a jewel in the crown of our economy, a national asset that plays a unique role in the health and wealth of the United Kingdom. The sector consistently drives skilled employment, attracts cutting-edge research and stimulates inward investment in communities across every nation and region of our United Kingdom. From pioneering new medical technologies to developing life-saving therapeutics, life sciences generate immense economic value and vital public health benefit.

The Government’s life sciences sector plan sets out a comprehensive, long-term strategy to ensure sustainable growth across all parts of the sector. It outlines our ambition for the UK to secure more life sciences foreign direct investment than any other European economy by 2030, and to position ourselves as the third largest global destination for such investment by 2035, behind only the United States and China. Meeting that ambition requires an internationally leading support package and a clear signal to global investors that Britain is open, competitive and committed to scientific excellence.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Given that the individual grants can exceed £30 million and are monitored for only 10 years, if a company, say, relocates to another country or fails to deliver over that period, is there any mechanism for the Government to claw back some of that money?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I would not make claims about any individual-level investments we have made through the fund at the moment, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the provisions in the fund as a whole.

Central to our ambition is boosting manufacturing through the delivery of up to £520 million to the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, one of six headline commitments in the sector plan. The covid pandemic demonstrated beyond doubt that we cannot take our critical supply chains for granted. The disruption of that period showed the risks of relying too heavily on overseas production for medicines, vaccines and essential medical supplies. Supporting the onshoring and expansion of life sciences manufacturing through the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund is therefore a vital part of strengthening our national resilience, improving preparedness for future health emergencies and ensuring that UK patients benefit quickly from innovation.

In the past six months alone, that Government support through the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund has unlocked more than £600 million in investment in our life sciences sector, which will create and safeguard more than 600 jobs. That includes a £500 million investment by global pharmaceutical company UCB in Surrey, alongside a £23 million investment to expand production of essential medicines at Norgine’s facility in Hengoed, Wales.

Those investments position the UK as a world leader in health and manufacturing innovation and boost regional economic growth. More than that, they restore a proud culture and heritage of innovation in so many of these places. Hengoed, for example, was the place that powered this country’s industrial development across the 20th century with coal from the Penallta colliery. Now, that heritage of coal leads into the future of essential medicine production as well. The life sciences innovative manufacturing fund is unlocking expanded warehouse capacity, expanding production capacity and creating 44 new local jobs. At the heart of it all, it restores that critical heritage of innovation in our communities.

Of course, if we are to maximise the full potential of UK life sciences, we must go further and faster in our support for the largest transformational projects. That is why the life sciences sector plan includes a commitment to develop a new, bespoke approach to supporting major life sciences investments of more than £250 million. Such large-scale and globally mobile investments are particularly critical to the ecosystem here in the UK. They attract further private capital, create clusters of expertise and bring significant economic and health resilience benefits to both the local areas that host them and the UK as a whole.

The life sciences large investment portfolio is designed to meet that need. It offers tailored Government support to attract the world’s largest and most strategically important life sciences investments to the UK. The scheme enables the Government to provide bespoke support for investment portfolios with investments in manufacturing and in research and development totalling at least £250 million over a three-year period. It will give confidence to companies and ensure that the UK remains an internationally competitive destination.

Crucially, the life sciences large investment portfolio brings together regional and devolved delivery partners with UK Government support, so that we can leverage the full UK offer for investors. That means aligning national incentives with place-based strengths in skills, infrastructure, clusters and planning, so that every part of the proposition works together, and the UK is as competitive as possible for the largest and most mobile life sciences investments.

The Government are clear that the life sciences large investment portfolio is a strategic investment in our future. It will strengthen our capabilities, support high-value jobs and reinforce the UK’s global reputation as a science superpower. Most importantly, it is a vital step in delivering the Government’s commitment to support the UK’s life sciences sector, and to ensuring that our country remains at the forefront of global innovation for decades to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank both hon. Members for their contributions. To respond to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, the large investment portfolio part of the fund is of course focused on larger projects that materially move the needle for the sector as a whole. The life sciences innovative manufacturing fund as a whole is much more focused on singular sites, and as a result smaller firms are able to participate in it. That is alongside a series of measures that the Department has been taking to back the best of British start-ups in this space.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, asked what we are doing on longer-term stability to continue to attract large-scale investment into this country. The pharmaceutical agreement we have struck with the United States is a really important location for a series of commitments that support our commercial investment environment and provide the best care for patients within that.

We have committed to investing around 25% more in new medicines, with two key changes at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—an increase to the cost-effectiveness threshold, and the introduction of a new value for assessing health-related quality of life. We have also introduced a 15% cap on repayments made by industry as part of the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth, with greater market predictability for investment as a consequence of that as well. Furthermore, colleagues across Government continue to work closely with industry, patient groups and the devolved Administrations on ideas to support the commercial environment, as well as on medicines pricing in a future voluntary scheme.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point around reforms to the tax system, he will be aware that discussions are ongoing across Government all the time, particularly in support of entrepreneurial investment decisions made in this country. That is true not least for early-stage founders in the life sciences and broader technology as well, where, as a consequence of decisions made by the Treasury, this country now has one of the most attractive regimes for employee equity participation.

The motion will ensure that the UK can compete for the largest and most impactful investments in life sciences manufacturing.

[Dr Spencer]

Will the Minister respond on the point about VAT on medicines and trials?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I am happy to look into the specific case study in the papers, which the hon. Gentleman referenced. I have to say that I have not seen the mention in The Times of the company he talked about, and I am reluctant to speculate on the context. However, if he is looking for an answer, I am happy to write to him about that case.

These investments will make a significant contribution to UK economic growth and outcomes for NHS patients. The life sciences large investment portfolio is a key tool that will support the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth and build an NHS fit for the future. Working together with industry, the Government are delivering better patient outcomes and driving economic growth, and I look forward to continuing that work and building on that momentum. I commend the motion to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to make payments, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in excess of £30 million to any successful applicant to the Life Sciences Large Investment Portfolio, launched on 15 November 2025, up to a cumulative total of £570 million.

Online Harms

Kanishka Narayan Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for bringing this important debate to the House. A number of hon. Members have mentioned bereaved families, and I want to pay tribute to all those families. Ian Russell—with whom I have had a series of meetings, including this morning—Stuart and Amanda Stephens, Ellen Roome and so many others have gone through the most horrific of tragedies, and despite that, they have consistently fought for appropriate action for other families. I carry them in my heart and mind when I think about the prospect of online safety regulation doing justice to future generations of children in this country.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and to the other Members who made contributions on this important topic. In the interest of time, I propose to prioritise responses to them individually before talking about the wider context. First and foremost, I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for doing a stocktake of progress on the child safety and illegal content duties so far. He will be aware that Ofcom is due to report on content harmful to children and progress on that question this year. I understand that will be due by October, and I look forward to its findings to assess where we can go further still.

The only other thing I will flag to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire is that the national consultation we have launched on children’s wellbeing includes the question of functionality limitations. The functionalities that he talked about—algorithmic recommendations and the structural aspects that make parts of social media particularly harmful to children—will be in scope. I would very much welcome his submissions on that as well.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her consistent advocacy on this question, and for the roundtable she held with the Mental Health Foundation and the Molly Rose Foundation, which I was glad to attend. I thank her for not just shining a light and keeping a consistent focus across the House on the scale of the problem, but flagging the diversity of views on how we should tackle it most effectively. I have been in schools pretty much every week since the launch of the consultation. I was with young people just this morning, and I will be in a school next week. She is right to raise the diversity and depth of views held on how we act, not whether we act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett raised concerns about the suicide forum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) also mentioned. I share those concerns, and I have engaged with Ofcom to ensure that it is acting quickly and robustly. I had a meeting with one of the bereaved families just this morning. I will continue to ensure that Ofcom does everything it can with the powers it has, and that we continue to look at any further powers required to ensure we act robustly to prevent any such incidents happening again. I would, of course, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett to continue that conversation.

I have had the privilege of engaging with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on the illegal sale of drugs; I know that she has been, quite rightly, actively advocating on that question. She will be aware that it has been deemed a priority offence. Ofcom is closely monitoring compliance. I know there is more to do; she has made that point very firmly to me. I will also inform her that the National Crime Agency is looking to identify offenders operating online, both nationally and internationally. She made a very important point on covert filming, and we will take what she raised into consideration. Systems that are designed to remove such content will now have to do so within 48 hours of non-consensual intimate images being put up online. I will continue to look at the implementation of that measure once it comes into force.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) raised very important points about the impact of social media usage on brain development, which is one motivating factor for our consultation. We are looking at not just acute harms, but the chronic impact over time of engagement on social media. I am grateful to her for raising the point that there is a suite of options that might be appropriate. I very much share her intent that, at the heart of it, the action we take will make platforms, not young people, responsible for the harms being conducted online.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for advocating on the questions of misinformation and community cohesion, both in her community and nationally. On her point about misinformation and the erosion of public trust, which was also made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), there is a very clear foreign interference offence in the Online Safety Act. I will continue to look at the implementation of that. Alongside that, I serve on the defending democracy taskforce with the Security Minister. This is a priority question that we have been looking at. I will continue to ensure that we do more to press the enforcement of existing law and to look at where we can go further still.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) raised important points about community cohesion, and how we must use online experiences not to divide but to unite our communities. In that context, we have taken a series of initiatives on media literacy to support the ability to sift fact from fiction across our communities. The foreign interference provisions in the Online Safety Act are also a key vector of enforcement against the causes described.

On antisocial behaviour, I would be interested, in the light of the consultation, to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy about where the headteachers and young people she has engaged with think we ought to go. I agree with her on the divisive impacts, and we will continue to look not just at illegal content but at how we empower users in relation to divisive content that, individually, might be legal but, collectively, ends up being deeply harmful to community cohesion, as well as to democratic integrity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) reaffirmed the point that he has made to me in person about this issue. I pay tribute again to Stuart and Amanda Stephens, who have gone through the most horrific tragedy in their family. I am deeply grateful for their grit and resilience through it, and for my hon. Friend’s advocacy alongside them. He asked me for a sense of direction on where the consultation is going. I will not pre-empt its substantive content, but we have had almost 25,000 responses—I hope and expect that this will be the most engaged-with consultation in the history of British national consultations—including thousands of young people. We have designed a dedicated version of the consultation for young people as well as one for parents and carers. I am keen to hear my hon. Friend’s views from his engagement, as well as those of other Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale raised a very important point about the documentary “Inside The Manosphere”, the growing cause of misogyny in this country and this Government’s priority of tackling violence against women and girls. He will be aware that in December, we published our landmark cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy. That was the underpinning force for our making cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse priority offences in this country, banning the creation of nudification apps and banning people from creating and sharing that content, and it is why we are going further still in ensuring that such content is taken down robustly and quickly, within 48 hours. On the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North raised about the growing prevalence of antisemitism and division online, I look forward to an imminent meeting with the Antisemitism Policy Trust to figure out how we can go further not just in law but in terms of awareness of it across our communities.

I turn to the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). I have met the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team to talk about their suggestions on functionalities and age ratings. I would of course be happy to continue the conversation, and I encourage them to contribute to the consultation.

Finally, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, raised a very important point about chatbots. I hope it is very clear that chatbots ought never to replace professional support. We will continue to look at that, and I will update the House when we have decided on specific steps. We announced just yesterday that we are looking at the issues of labelling and personality rights, and I hope to update the House on them soon.