Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to make a statement on the next steps this Government will take to keep children safe online and give them the childhood they deserve.

Last week, I said in this House that artificial intelligence and technology have huge potential to create jobs and growth, to diagnose and treat disease, to transform our public services, and so much more besides. However, this Government know that we will only seize this potential if the benefits of technology are felt by all, not just a few at the top, and above all, if people know that they and their children are safe online. We have already made significant progress on this crucial issue; the Online Safety Act 2023 introduced one of the most robust systems globally, with groundbreaking steps to tackle illegal content and activity and to protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. We have long known, though, that there is more to do.

My first act as Secretary of State was to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence, so that platforms must take proactive steps to stop users seeing this material in the first place, and swiftly to take it down if it appears. We have also made intimate image abuse and cyber-flashing priority offences. We have introduced an offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise artificial intelligence models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material.

Eight days ago, in response to the abhorrent and illegal spreading of sexualised deepfake images of women and children without their consent by Grok, I said that we would uphold British values and British laws and that we would fast-track legislation, making it an offence to create non-consensual intimate images. I also said that I would make that a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023. Since then, I am pleased to say that X has announced it will ban the generation of intimate images of real people. That will be carefully monitored, but I and the Government have welcomed the announcement.

The story does not end there, though. I know that up and down the country, parents are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, when they should give them a phone, what on earth they are seeing online, and the impact all that is having. Yesterday, I met bereaved families who have suffered the most unimaginable tragedy as a result of what their children have experienced online. It was one of the most devastating discussions I have ever taken part in, and I pay tribute to their courage and dignity.

I know that many parents are deeply worried about a whole range of other impacts on their children, such as the consequences for their mental health, their concentration and sleep, their sense of self-esteem, and their ability to learn and to explore the online world without fear. We are determined to help parents, children and young people to deal with these issues with a lasting solution that gives children the childhood they deserve, enhances their wellbeing and prepares them for the future.

Last year, the Government said in response to the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill—a private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is now the Minister for Children and Families—that there would have to be further action on these issues. Since I was appointed to this role, I have been urgently considering this matter, because keeping children safe online is a top priority for the Government and for me personally.

Today I can tell the House that we will bring forward a swift three-month consultation on further measures to keep children safe online. That will include the option of banning social media for children under 16 and raising the digital age of consent, to stop companies using children’s data without their or their parents’ consent. The consultation will include a range of other options, too, such as: whether there should be curfews overnight or breaks to stop excessive use or doomscrolling; how we ensure more rigorous enforcement of existing laws around age verification; and action to address concerns about the use of virtual private networks to get around important protections.

We will consult parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved parents, technology companies and, crucially, children and young people themselves, because their views and voices must be heard. We will look closely at the experience in Australia, which, as many people know, has just introduced a ban on social media for under-16s. We will make sure that the consultation is evidence-led, with input from independent experts.

We are prepared to act to deal with the serious concerns that parents, teachers, doctors and others have about children’s screen time in schools and at home. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary announced that for the first time ever we are developing screen time guidance for children under five, which will be available from April. Today, I can confirm that we will also develop evidence-based screen time guidance for parents of children aged five to 16. While we have already been clear that mobile phones have no place in our schools, the Government will take further action as part of our determination to safeguard children and support their wellbeing. Today, we have published updated guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools, and we have asked Ofsted to include that in its inspections, because we want there to be no doubt in the minds of school staff, parents and young people that phones should not be used in schools.

I know these issues are important for Members of Parliament, teachers and the medical profession, many children’s organisations, young people themselves and, above all, parents across the country. Many people, including in this House, are strongly in favour of a ban on social media for the under-16s as the best and clearest way forward to protect children and stop acute and chronic online harms. They want action now, but others take a different view, saying that they worry about letting online platforms off the hook and that a ban would simply push harms further underground and, above all, stop children using the positives of social media, such as connecting with like-minded people, finding those who love in the same way and love the same things, and getting peer support and trusted advice. There are clearly risks in all these different approaches, which is why I believe that a proper consultation and promoting a national conversation, especially with the public, is the right and responsible way forward.

I want to make one thing crystal clear: the question is not about whether the Government will take further action—we will act robustly, as we did with Grok. The question now is about the next steps and acting effectively, together with children and families. That is what our consultation will deliver, because we are determined to ensure that technology enriches children’s lives, rather than harms them. We want to give children the childhood they deserve and prepare them for the future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. What does an ailing Prime Minister do to demonstrate firm and decisive leadership? He launches a consultation, with a variety of options. What does he do when the Conservative party, the House of Lords, trade unions and more than 60 of his own Labour MPs line up against him on a tricky issue? Rather than take a clear position on a social media ban for children and getting phones out of schools, as the Conservative leader has done, this Prime Minister finds an unkempt meadow with some lengthy grass in it, and he boots the tricky issue right in. The House does not just need to take my word for it. One senior Labour MP has said that this consultation will “take too long”. Another said, referring to a social media ban,

“The immediate reaction is that this is just a way of kicking it into the long grass.”

There is a straightforward question that Ministers must answer today: is the Government’s apparent change of heart on a social media ban for real? Is this consultation a way of elegantly managing yet another U-turn, or is it simply a device to get the Prime Minister through the parliamentary week, while the position remains unchanged? If it is progress, it can be celebrated, but let us not forget that until very recently, the Prime Minister said that he was personally opposed to a social media ban for children. In December, the Culture Secretary confirmed that she is against one. The Business Secretary is opposed. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said on the media this very morning that the Government do not take a view. In fact, the only senior Labour figure we know who is clearly in favour of a ban is Andy Burnham. That is some leadership.

What is the Secretary of State’s personal view, and what is her message to Labour MPs who would like to vote for a ban this week? Each of those rebel MPs will be asking themselves, “After the Prime Minister has Grand Old Duke of York-ed me up and down so many hills, can I really trust him to see this through?” That is especially so given that this same proposal was tabled previously, and Labour voted it down, just as it voted down our amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on a phone ban in schools. It is just like when they were told not to support their own colleague, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), when he had a private Member’s Bill on this issue. Knowing where the Secretary of State personally stands on a ban—not where she stands on a consultation and not what she thinks about having a variety of options—may help ease the minds of Labour MPs.

What of the timeline? Does a three-month consultation mean that legislation to introduce a social media ban will be ready in time for the King’s Speech? If not, and if MPs do not vote for a ban this week, they will not have another chance to do so for 18 months. The opportunity to change things is now. How many on the Government Benches will take that chance?

The Government must have a great deal of the evidence that they need. The Secretary of State’s predecessor commissioned a University of Cambridge review of children’s wellbeing in relation to smartphone use, messaging and social media, which was due to report in December. Can the Secretary of State tell us what the report said? The urgency is obvious. Everyone, especially parents, can see what social media is doing to children. It is not just exposure to extreme or explicit content, although of course that matters. The Online Safety Act 2023, which we introduced, is already addressing illegal material and age-gating, and that work is ongoing. However, the harm goes wider. Social media has created an anxious generation hooked by products designed to be addictive, displacing real-world activity and undermining attention, emotional regulation and mental health. Schools and families deal daily with the consequences: cyber-bullying, social anxiety and fractured concentration.

China’s version of TikTok, Douyin, limits children to an hour a day and promotes educational content, but western platforms do the opposite: engagement loops are optimised for emotional arousal. We welcome scrutiny of those algorithms and steps to stop children’s data being exploited, but there is a simpler option, which is to keep children off these platforms altogether while allowing adults the freedom that follows. Conservatives believe in parental responsibility: we believe in freedom for adults, but we also believe in protecting children. We believe in policing age, not policing speech. It is not to strip parents of their roles and responsibilities to recognise that the online world can be a discombobulating nightmare to supervise. It is not to be a modern-day Mary Whitehouse to worry deeply about children being exposed to images and topics that they are simply not equipped to deal with.

This consultation also includes a rethink on phones in schools. I see that the Education Secretary is present; for months she told us that it was a gimmick and unnecessary, although most secondary school pupils say that phones are still used extensively. By when will phones be banned in schools, and how quickly will Ofsted enforce that? Will it be enforcing against guidance or against the law, because guidance is simply not enough? We must be up front in saying that the challenges of implementing any social media ban are real. We support the Government as they navigate those challenges because we want this to work, but can the Secretary of State make it clear that digital ID will not be a requirement to pass age verification on social media sites?

The truth is that the internet grew as a pioneer society, with consequences that we are all reckoning with. It now needs to be retrofitted with very clear rules for children. They need to be protected. Other countries are taking the approach of a social media ban; will this Government in the UK do the same?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady has talked about leadership. May I remind the House that last week, when the Prime Minister and I showed strong and firm leadership on X and Grok, she claimed that the issues were a legal grey area—which they are not—and compared our stance to that of the mullahs of Iran, which would be laughable if it were not so offensive.

The hon. Lady asked whether we had published the research by Professor Orben. Yes, we have: we have published it today, and we are going further with some—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the Secretary of State, and this private conversation between the two Front Benches is not helpful.

[Liz Kendall]

If the hon. Lady does not like hearing me repeat her words back to her, she should not say them.

As I have said, we published that research today, and we have gone further with some short, sharp trials in respect of different interventions and the impact that they may have, because I think that that is very important. The evidence is evolving and we need to move faster in that regard, but it will not cause delay in our action.

The hon. Lady mentioned Ofsted. Perhaps she does not understand that the chief inspector of Ofsted welcomed the new guidance today, which is an important step forward.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

He also said, “Ban, ban, ban.”

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want no more of this, and I genuinely mean that, from someone who is meant to be looking after education. I think we all need to set an example.

[Liz Kendall]

You have taken the words right out of my mouth, Mr Speaker.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about my personal position. I believe it is right and responsible to act swiftly, but to do so by carrying out a proper consultation. Let me tell the House what my position is: I will act, I will get results, and I will deliver for the British people.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I welcome the consultation. We know that technology has changed childhood, we believe that it has changed child socialisation and we think that it may have changed brain development, perhaps even motor neurone skills, but there is little concrete evidence beyond the individual terrible stories and, of course, the profits of the big tech platforms. That is why my Committee will soon be launching a digital childhood inquiry to examine these issues, hopefully in time to respond to the consultation.

May I, however, urge the Secretary of State not to assume that a ban will be the answer to the challenges that technology poses? We need to make tech work for all of us now. May I ask her to review her Department’s refusal to accept the recommendations of my Committee’s inquiry into social media and algorithms, particularly with regard to platform responsibility, user control, digital advertising and social media business models?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful and sensible question, and I welcome her Committee’s review, because those are hugely important matters. We should see this as being not only about social media, but about the use of phones and the issues affecting children in the digital world in which we now live. She will know, because I gave evidence to her Committee, that I am constantly reviewing our position on all the important points that she and the Committee raised in its last report, and that, in particular, the Minister for Digital Government and Data, who is also the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, is looking into the impact that advertising, social media and digital platforms can have. That is a firm commitment from the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Last year, I carried out a “safer screens” tour in my constituency, hearing directly from young people, because the Liberal Democrats consider children and young people to be at the heart of this issue. Teenagers shared concerns about extreme content pushed by algorithms, but also about being glued to their screens alongside their younger siblings. One said, “It’s as addictive as a drug, and I feel the negative impacts every day.” Another pleaded, “Help—I just can’t stop.” Last week, more than 1,700 parents emailed me calling for a social media ban. One mother said that the social media used by her two boys “fills me with dread.” Another highlighted the way in which

“anxiety, reduced attention, online bullying, and exposure to harmful content are becoming common topics among families.”

Parents, teachers, experts and young people themselves are crying out for action, which is why the Liberal Democrats have long raised this as a public health issue. We pushed for the digital age of data consent to be raised to 16, and for the tackling of addictive algorithms. We voted to ban phones in schools, and called for health warnings. Now the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the other place to ban harmful social media for under-16s, based on film-style age ratings extending to 18. We would reset the default age for social media to 16 now, with strong age assurance, because enough is enough.

This world-pioneering approach brings age-appropriate standards to online safety. We are learning from Australia, and preparing for today’s reality. Our risk-based approach, supported by more than 40 charities and experts including the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and the Internet Watch Foundation, will stop new platforms slipping through the net while addressing harmful games and AI chatbots, and protecting educational sites such Wikipedia and safe family connections. Crucially, it does not let social media companies off the hook.

We have had age-appropriate safety standards offline, for toys and films, for decades. After 20 years of social media platforms clearly prioritising profit over children, building addictive algorithms that keep children and adults hooked, it is time to take action. We do not need consultation—we need that action now—but at least in this consultation we must look into how, not if, we will implement a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. I urge the Government to consider such a ban, with swift timelines, to address this growing public health crisis, and to act on our proposals now. Our children’s future is not something to be played with.

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady explains very well the views of children, young people and parents who are grappling with these issues. I disagree with her: I think we need a short, sharp consultation because there are different views, but we definitely want to act. I am very interested in the idea of age classification, and I would be more than happy to talk to her about that. We all see how this issue affects our own children, and we need to help them cope at different ages. I am sure that many hon. Members will raise different options, and I am more than happy to discuss those with them.

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

I welcome the launch of the consultation and the Government’s commitment to an evidence-based approach. The evidence is clear that mobile phones have no place in schools. Many schools have managed to implement a ban, but those that have not done so, or which have only implemented a less successful version of a ban, often speak about the challenging nature of the dialogue with parents and children as they seek to implement a ban. They say that having a statutory ban, which would require them to ban phones by law, would help. Why is a statutory ban not being announced today, and can the Secretary of State confirm that it is not off the table?

[Liz Kendall]

My schools say very similar things, and I know the Education Secretary has heard my hon. Friend’s question. Different models are set out in the guidance. For us, the outcome is absolutely clear: there is no place for phones in schools. I am sure that we will hear more views about that, but this is an important next step.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The evidence will never be perfect on this subject, because this is an effect that is happening right around the world at the same time—there is no control group. Countries are now acting—it is not only Australia; other countries are moving in this direction as well—and I welcome today’s announcement. The Secretary of State will need to make definitional decisions, so it is fair enough to have a consultation to get to the definition of “social media” and to work out what counts as an addictive, compulsive design feature, although I am not sure that that was in her statement. It is fine to have a 12-week consultation, but I am troubled by the possibility that the period after the consultation will stretch, as it sometimes does, in an open-ended way and we will not get the action we need. Will she commit to a deadline after the close of the consultation?

[Liz Kendall]

I have said before that patience is not my greatest virtue. I do not intend for the period before we publish the consultation or afterwards to be long in any way, shape or form. I want to have a clear position before the summer.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I welcome the leadership that the Secretary of State is showing on this issue. In Bury North, parental appetite for a ban on mobile phones is real, but so are the practical considerations when parents rightly want to track the location of their children, have a form of emergency contact and be able to reach their children safely. Does she agree that the existence of this anxiety is not about the technology itself, but about the design for use? Social media platforms are shaping our children’s childhoods, with excessive screen time and endless feeds absorbing the equivalent of a full-time job’s worth of hours of our young people’s lives every week. Will the Government’s approach focus on shaping healthier digital environments and rewarding first-mover tech companies that lead on safer design, rather than simply leaving the burden on families?

[Liz Kendall]

We absolutely want to focus on children’s health and wellbeing online, and it is really important that we see more competition in this sector, with different options being available for children and young people. I hope that by having a consultation, we will get the debate going and get that action going, because it is extremely difficult for parents to manage this situation. We all share their worries as Members of Parliament, but also as parents ourselves, and we are determined to get this right and to act swiftly.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

These arguments are very well rehearsed, and this announcement is long overdue. Last year we did a survey in my Gosport constituency, and 80% of parents agreed that social media is making bullying worse for their children. Last week the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from child psychologists about children’s TV and video content. Among the many things they told us, they explained the learning from Australia: it is critical to plan for whatever gap is created. If we reduce screen time for young people, there must be safe places for them to go and activities on which they can spend their time. What is the Secretary of State doing on a cross-Government basis to make sure that these issues are tackled as well?

[Liz Kendall]

I will read that evidence—I am sorry that I have not yet done so, but I absolutely will. The hon. Lady is right: if children are going to spend less time online, what will they do in the real world? That is why our new youth strategy involved the biggest ever consultation of young people. They said that they wanted something to do, somewhere to go and someone to care. That is why we are backing a new generation of youth clubs and youth workers, to ensure that young people have the chance for dance, drama, music and sport, both in and out of school, in order find their spark. This is about providing a better future for our children. We can only do that across Government, and that is the action we are taking.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

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

[Liz Kendall]

I agree 100%.

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

I say this not just as a constituency MP with correspondence from hundreds of parents in my inbox, but as a mum: a review, however short, kicks the can down the road, even though we have the legislative vehicle for change in the other place right now. Will the Secretary of State please talk to our Lords counterparts and ask them to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which takes a harms-based approach?

[Liz Kendall]

I have no intention of kicking any can down the road, but I do think that listening to different views is the right and responsible approach. It is perhaps old-fashioned in politics these days to try to find common ground and to listen respectfully to what people have to say. That does not mean that we will not lead and act, but I do think it is vital that those views are heard. I have no intention of dragging this out; I want swift action and next steps. We will have to disagree on the consultation, but I am more than happy to discuss with the hon. Lady and her colleagues any views that they have about the way forward.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. When I trained as a physics teacher, I saw both the enrichment that tech can provide, with easy access to calculators and apps to enhance learning, and the disruption, with endless notifications, distractions and cyber-bullying incidents. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation harnesses the opportunities that tech provides while protecting kids at risk?

[Liz Kendall]

It is partly about having the consultation, in conjunction with the wider action that we are taking. Next week will be the anniversary of the AI opportunities action plan, and we will set out how much we have already achieved, but the next step is to seize the benefits of those technologies. This country is and should continue to be a world leader in AI and science, and hon. Members will hear more from me about this next week.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

Families in my constituency are deeply concerned about the impact of social media on their children’s wellbeing. Just last week a headteacher told me that schools need the Government to act, and young people themselves describe the real damage that social media is doing to their mental health. The Conservative party has shown leadership by calling for clear age limits, because we recognise that protecting childhood is about setting responsible boundaries. Parents are asking for action now, so why are the Government not making a clear commitment today?

[Liz Kendall]

We have given clear support through all the steps we have taken on making the encouragement of self-harm and suicide a priority offence, as is cyber-flashing. We have taken action on nudification apps, updated the guidance for school and made sure that Ofsted will carry out inspections on that. I understand that the hon. Lady is strongly of the opinion that we should act now. I believe that a short, sharp consultation is the right way forward, because families and children really need that support. At the weekend, over 40 organisations signed a letter saying why they think a ban is the wrong approach. I think it is right to listen to them, because we have to lead, but we also have to listen and try to bring people with you.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As one of the Back Benchers pushing the Government in this direction, I feel that the Secretary of State is taking the right approach in looking at the evidence and having a broad consultation to make sure that we get this right. However, what we can do to ensure that the voices of children and young people and parents in Bishop Auckland are included in the consultation?

[Liz Kendall]

What I will certainly be doing in my Leicester West constituency is holding events in schools with parents and organisations that represent children and families, and we can get cracking on that now and during the consultation. I want to hear Members’ views, so that we can make sure we get the questions in the consultation right and then take that out into the country. About 10 years ago, when I was in opposition and a member of the Science and Technology Committee, we had an inquiry into keeping kids safe online. I did a big thing with my local schools, and it was really interesting because at that time young people said they wanted to be online for some of the benefits, but already saw the problems—the bullying, the harassment and what was happening to younger children. Children are savvy, and this issue has been going on for a long time. We are determined to set the right path for the future, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be helping us get that right.

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

We should not underestimate the complexity of this issue or the potential for unintended consequences from a complete ban. There is early evidence that some unintended consequences are already occurring in Australia. Parents are rightly worried and they are demanding action. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to listen to those parents, young people themselves and the many organisations and individual experts in the field, many of whom oppose a full ban, to reach not only a considered position, but a robust and enforceable one? Does she also agree that enforcement of the Online Safety Act has not been remotely strong enough, and that, notwithstanding this consultation, existing enforcement must be better funded and ramped up?

[Liz Kendall]

We certainly intend to learn from Australia’s experience and evidence of the ban there—I hope that I and the Minister for online safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), will be visiting soon. I do listen to the concerns raised by organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Internet Watch Foundation and the Molly Rose Foundation about the unintended consequences of a ban, and I intend to look at all those points of view seriously. However, as I have said to the House earlier, the question is not whether we act, but how. On age verification, I am extremely interested in what more we can do to enforce the existing law, and we will be gathering evidence on those points.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for this statement, acknowledging the real harm that social media is causing for children. As a former Schools Minister, I know how welcome these announcements will be for teachers and parents, who are contacting us in droves. However, as she knows, time is of the essence. All the time we spend contemplating is time that children still remain vulnerable to those algorithms and this addiction. Will she give the reassurance today that not only will this consultation be swift, but the delivery of its outcomes will be swift, and—she has just said this—that there will be real action to enforce the regulations already in place that should be protecting children today?

[Liz Kendall]

I have no desire to hang about, because this is happening to children and young people now—and because my hon. Friend would have my guts for garters if I did not act swiftly.

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

I realise that the Secretary of State has been sent out to manage a growing political problem—[Interruption]—honestly. She is speaking in stentorian terms to try to inspire some kind of confidence, but if colleagues look at the statement, they will see that there is nothing of substance in it at all. That is disappointing, given that in a private Member’s Bill only last year—I was a sponsor of the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is now on the Government Front Bench—promises were made that are not even delivered by this statement.

In particular on schools—since I have to ask a question—could the Secretary of State acknowledge an inherent conflict? She says that the Government are clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but she is going to update the guidance on how they should be used in schools. Could she at the very least confirm that that guidance is going to tighten their use in school, and that there is no possibility of any loosening of the current situation?

[Liz Kendall]

If the right hon. Member had read the guidance that has been published, he would know that this is about how schools can introduce such a ban effectively. I would say that the statement goes further than the private Member’s Bill he recommends. Last but by no means least, I have been focused on and working on this issue since 2016, as I have said, so if he does not mind, I will diplomatically reject that comment.

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

I really welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership and commitment. I run a work experience programme, “Your Voice, Your Future”, which encourages young people to get involved in politics and government. Some of the participants produced a powerful campaign called “Rise above the rumours”, which was all about how the rapid spread of misinformation online is harming young people’s mental health and fuelling division. Can the Secretary of State say how young people in my constituency and across the country can get involved?

[Liz Kendall]

“Rise above the rumours” is quite a good tagline. My hon. Friend will probably hold events with her schools—primaries and secondaries—and get children to have a full debate, put forward their views and maybe even vote on what they want, and if she does so, I will definitely look at the results.

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

I have had almost 1,800 emails from constituents urging for something to be done about this. I declare an interest as the mother of four young adults and teenagers. Local headteachers and campaigners tell us repeatedly about the mental health issues and harmful algorithms, but the tech companies must be held to account. If the Secretary of State is serious about urgency and prioritisation, speed is of the essence. Today, the Online Safety Act Network, supported by 42 civil society groups, has asked for urgent amendments to the Online Safety Act 2023. Has she looked at that?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I have, and I am determined to act swiftly, but there are different views on this issue. The hon. Member will feel very strongly, as do those in her constituency who have contacted her, but the truth is that there are different views that must be heard and listened to, but we will act swiftly.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the action on mobile phones in schools. Harmful interactions can take place in online games and on instant messaging platforms, and we need to be alive to the risk of driving use to less well-regulated spaces and into virtual private networks. I am also concerned that opaque feed algorithms, which reinforce our worst prejudices and recommend harmful content, can have mental health impacts on adults as well as children. Can she assure me that her review will look at this broader issue, and will she ensure that young people’s voices are at the heart of the consultation?

[Liz Kendall]

I will absolutely look at those issues and make sure that young people’s views and voices are at the heart of this. It is interesting that, when we look at the Australians’ experience, we see that they had to define what social media is and what it covers. That has not been as straightforward as some might have thought, and I think it is really important that we look at it closely. The OSA does not have a definition of social media, so that is one thing we need to consider.

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

The Secretary of State has made reference to the interaction of whatever she may consult on with the operation of the current law. Following on from the comments of the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), will the Secretary of State confirm that even if the Government pursue a ban on social media for the under-16s, they will not seek to dilute the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act?

[Liz Kendall]

I think it is really important that those duties are upheld and implemented. As I have said, I am very interested in highly effective age assurance measures, which are already required for some of the most serious issues, including pornography, and whether they should be extended to other areas.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I recently met Youthline, a fantastic mental health charity for young people in my constituency, and Berkshire Women’s Aid to talk about the effects of social media on young people’s mental health and their ability to form healthy relationships. Will my right hon. Friend commit to listening to the views of such organisations, as well as to Bracknell parents and children, as she looks at the results of the consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, and I urge my hon. Friend to send us details of those opinions so that we can ensure they are heard loud and clear.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Government have no intention of introducing criminal sanctions against parents or guardians of children who access social media through parental accounts?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady has got this wrong, but her party wants to scrap the Online Safety Act 2023, and that says everything about Reform.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The Children’s Commissioner spoke to a group of 15 and 16-year-olds in 2024 and found that three quarters of them had been sent a beheading video. It is possible that a great number of children are protecting us from what they see online, instead of us protecting them. Can I emphasise strongly the importance of speaking to a large range of children from different backgrounds about this? Sadly, they do not always feel able to make us aware of everything that they are exposed to online.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, which is making sure that young people trust us and feel confident in raising these matters. It is our job to make sure that nobody is frightened to say what is happening to them. We will not get this right unless we talk to people of all ages and from all backgrounds, in all parts of the country. Hon. Members know that they have a vital job to play in their constituency. As Secretary of State, I am responsible for the entire United Kingdom, so I urge hon. Members, for all the politics and show in this House, to engage locally, because then we will get this right.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is quite clear that social media is causing a health and wellbeing crisis among young people. Parents are absolutely terrified about the content that their children are viewing and the amount of time that they are spending online. Just a couple of months ago, 14 and 15-year-olds in my constituency told me about the profound pressure that they feel to be on social media. They feel a compulsion to use it, but they do not want to. Will the Government get off the pot and announce a ban? Perfection really is the enemy of the good here. The evidence is plain to see. We need action, not words.

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman knows what I think about why we have to do a consultation, so I disagree with him on that, but he is right to say that we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a point about the evidence. I discovered 10 years ago, before so much had changed online, that young people know that some of this stuff is bad; they do not want to do it, but they cannot help themselves. If we were all honest with our ourselves, we would know that we behave like that sometimes, too.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Earlier this month, I hosted in Parliament a performance by students from Kent of “Generation FOMO”, a powerful verbatim play that looks at young people’s real experiences of using social media. It highlighted the impact that social media use can have on mental health, and how it leads to an increase in anxiety and depression. I therefore welcome the consultation. Can it also look into the ability of tech firms to develop loopholes that would destroy the impact of any ban?

[Liz Kendall]

I want to hear the views and the voices of the good people of Kent on this, whether that means having a separate meeting with my hon. Friend, or his sending me that information, which I am more than happy to look at.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I recently visited the Fulham boys school, which, 18 months ago, introduced a complete ban on smartphones in school. That school and Kingsbridge community college in my constituency both talk about the transformative effect that a ban has had. The most compelling evidence for me is this: where a secondary school completely bans smartphones, children at the feeder primary schools are under less peer pressure to buy phones, so the age at which those children get a phone is rising to 12, 13 or 14. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that she has not dismissed the idea of supporting headteachers by banning, through legislation, smartphones in secondary schools in England and Wales?

[Liz Kendall]

I have set out the Government’s position on this. I know that the hon. Lady wants us to go further, and I hear what she says. This is a really important point. Several friends have told me that their children feel totally left out at school if they do not have a phone, and the peer pressure to have one seeps down to younger siblings and other children, so the hon. Lady is right to talk about the route through. We want to make things as simple as possible for schools, teachers, parents and young people, and to make it clear that there is no place for phones in school.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I have recently been asking my constituents what they think about a ban on phones in schools, as well as for their thoughts about social media for under-16s. It was clear that, regardless of their politics, they all wanted to have their views heard. They were so grateful to be asked, instead of having something imposed on them. Will the Secretary of State join me in South Derbyshire for the consultation meetings that I hope to have, so that my constituents feel that they are being heard by the decision maker right at the top?

[Liz Kendall]

How can I resist?

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

Last week, as the Secretary of State will recall, some of us were loudly heckled for suggesting that X was beginning to give way on Grok. Now we know that that was true, so events are moving fast. Can the Secretary of State at least assure us that she will immediately—during the consultation and anything that follows on from it—instruct the civil servants who would have to prepare for a practical ban to get on with the task provisionally, so that no time is wasted?

[Liz Kendall]

Deeds, not words—I have always believed that. I want to prepare for all options, because when we make a decision, we want to implement it as soon as possible.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s consultation on smartphone use and social media. Raising the minimum age is the right step towards protecting our children, as we know that social media has led to devastating consequences. We also know that excessive screen time is linked to myopia and dry eye disease. When the Secretary of State brings forward guidance, will it take account of the risks for sight loss?

[Liz Kendall]

My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is leading on the guidance on screen time. I will definitely raise that issue with her. My primary schools are extremely worried about screen time. For children under 5, there are also implications for language development, fine motor skills and communication confidence. All those issues are important, but I will definitely raise the point about the impact on people’s eyes with my right hon. Friend.

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

Over the past year, I have spoken to hundreds of children in schools across my constituency as part of my safer screens tour. It has been very distressing to hear from them about the material that they have been exposed to, and to hear that social media companies have not come back to them when they have reported this harmful content. If the Secretary of State agrees that there should be a ban on children accessing harmful social media platforms, will the default age for accessing them be 16?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have set out that we will consult on the age of 16, but I remind the House that the Online Safety Act has very strong provisions against illegal content for people of all ages and harmful content for children. We need to make sure that it is effectively enforced now, whatever decision is made through the consultation.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of this consultation. Parents and carers, families, schools and children themselves are looking for help and leadership on the issue of keeping children safe in the digital world. Will she assure me that the consultation will cover two things? First, will it cover the concept of misinformation? Claims about misinformation are levelled at social media providers. Secondly, will it consider all options for dealing with the addictive nature of social media, and algorithmically personalised feeds?

[Liz Kendall]

This is very much about keeping children safe online. I have said that we will look at raising the digital age of consent, the positive impact that could have on how companies use algorithms, and the many related issues. I am of course happy to discuss matters further with my hon. Friend, but the consultation is absolutely focused on children.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many young people watching us will be thinking that issues of addiction and online harm are not simply age-related. This debate reflects, I fear, many parents’ and carers’ lack of confidence in the ability of the Online Safety Act and Ofcom to deal with rapid technological change. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with Ofcom about the powers and further action that it could take now, in particular on artificial intelligence chatbots?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend will know that I have already said that I have looked seriously at the issue of AI chatbots. Those that use live search and those that share user-to-user content are covered by the Online Safety Act, but where the chatbot has an interaction with an individual without live search or user-to-user content, that is not covered by the Act, and I am considering how we fill those gaps. I have said that if further action is needed, we will take it. Ofcom will understand that the expectation—from not just Members but the public—that there will be swift and effective enforcement is paramount.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and place on record my thanks and gratitude to Rosalind McClean and Charlotte Carson from a local campaign group on smartphone-free childhoods. She is right to bring forward a consultation and engage with young people, but my parliamentary colleagues in the other place will tomorrow, if proceedings allow, support an amendment that would lead to a ban for under-16s. In the consultation, is she proposing a social media ban for under-16s, simply asking for views on the age at which a ban should be set, or giving options?

[Liz Kendall]

We are including the option of a ban for those under 16; that will be clear. We will propose raising the digital age of consent and we will look at the other issues I listed in my statement. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s party’s approach in the other place. We want the consultation to happen. His party will have strong opinions, but we think that this is the right and responsible way forward. We will do this as swiftly as possible.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

I place on record my appreciation of the Secretary of State for standing up to the richest man in the world. Whether it is standing up and acting, or the statement on online harm made weeks ago by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), this Government are taking the protection of children seriously. In Bolton South and Walkden, parents see the effect of social media on children. Will the Secretary of State stick to her intention to consult fully, especially with children under the age of 16?

[Liz Kendall]

The Government as a whole are determined to stick up for British values and British law. I am proud that we did that last week, and we will continue to do so. I absolutely commit to ensuring that the views of children and young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as well as across the country, are heard loud and clear.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has demonstrated her commitment and interest in this issue at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, and we thank her for that. However, with the greatest respect, if social media had just arrived in our sitting rooms two weeks ago, a consultation might be necessary, but the canon of evidence about the demonstrable harms being done to our young is now very clear; that is what we have all read in our inboxes in recent days. The consultation will not throw up anything that we do not already know. Still less will it find a unanimity of view. There will always be differences of view on whether to ban. To govern is to choose. Can I urge the Government to choose to act swiftly, and to use the legislative vehicle in the other place to act now, because too many of our young people are on a precipice?

[Liz Kendall]

To govern is indeed to choose, and we showed our determination to do so last week. We will choose on this issue, but I want people’s views to be heard. Sometimes, we need to try to bring people together. The hon. Gentleman is right that we will never get everyone to agree on anything, but making sure that people are heard is really important. Maybe that is old fashioned, but I believe that it is right. Then we will act, lead and decide.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I welcome the steps to protect our children on social media platforms. It is very difficult to see how that can be achieved effectively without further detailed checks and balances on users and, essentially, the tech companies themselves. Social media governance is like the wild west; it is like cyber-anarchy at this moment in time, with bots, fake accounts and goodness knows whatever undermining our fantastic society. What will my right hon. Friend do to tackle the problem of digital lawlessness?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have taken steps; the Online Safety Act is a really important step forward. Ever since that became law we have taken further action on cyber-flashing, nudification apps, and sites that promote self-harm and suicide. I am very interested in looking at highly effective age-assurance measures. They are already in use for most of the serious harms for children, whether pornography, suicide or self-harm. It will be part of the consultation to see what more we can do, because we want to ensure that the laws of this land are upheld.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

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

[Liz Kendall]

We will act as swiftly as possible. I am extremely keen to hear from medical professionals—I received a letter from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges on this issue—and we will be engaging with them deeply to ensure we get this right and act as swiftly as possible.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

I am one of few Members here today, and potentially the only woman, who had social media as a part of their childhood under the age of 16. That is why I am so shocked that the Conservatives can come here today and demand such urgency, when they left my generation to view harmful content for a decade. Social media has defined my life and being literate in it has shaped my career for the good at times, but it also meant that there was a language barrier between me and trusted adults—a language barrier that I fear will only worsen and widen under a blanket ban. I urge colleagues across the House, when talking about an entire generation, to bring them with us and not to send a message that it is simply easier to remove young people from social media than it is to remove the harmful content on it. Will the Secretary of State assure me that my generation and the generation that followed will be at the heart of this consultation?

[Liz Kendall]

Once again, my hon. Friend shows the courage of her convictions and the experience she brings to this House. I know her life in fashion has been crucially shaped by the online world, which does provide opportunities for young people, so maybe I will ask her whether she can ensure that the Government hear from people like her in her generation, so that we can take their views deeply into account. We want to prevent harms and we will take action to do that, but we need to hear from young people for whom social media has given them a chance and a future.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I have heard from literally hundreds of parents and teachers in the Scottish Borders who want social media to be banned for under-16s. We all know that these apps are addictive and are causing serious mental health challenges for our young people. I am now getting messages from parents who have heard what the Secretary of State has said and fear that she is simply kicking the issue into the long grass. Why will the Government not take action now?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is taking exactly the right approach. This place is littered with legislation that turns out not to be as good as it should have been, and then it does not get amended—and late amendments are not a good thing either. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) highlighted some of the important health impacts. Will the Secretary of State proactively seek information from health specialists, including psychologists such as Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, who is very expert in the teenage brain?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, we absolutely want independent experts to feed in their views. My career started out in the world of public health at the King’s Fund, and thinking about this issue in a public health framework is extremely important.

As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) just said, people want action. I know that and have said loudly and clearly that I want to hear the views of all parents and families. I will listen to those views, but I also want to take evidence, including from—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters that I do not care. I do not think that my actions over the past 10 years have ever shown that that is the case. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member’s actual question was.

As I was saying, I want to hear from all those involved, including from—[Interruption.] There are many chuntering from the Conservative Benches. I have already said that I want every single MP in this House to feed through to us the views of their constituents. I want to hear from those in the medical and other professions, because it is important that we do this properly and get this right.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I know that parents, grandparents and, indeed, young people across Ceredigion Preseli will welcome action to tackle the harms of social media and mobile phone use. Given that education, which will be so important in implementing these measures, is a devolved responsibility in Wales, will the Secretary of State seek early discussions with the Welsh Government to ensure that any outcomes of the consultation are implemented equally across the United Kingdom?

[Liz Kendall]

I recognise those points and want to work closely with the Welsh Government on all these issues.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is clear that social media harms our children. I am firmly of the belief that when a child is being harmed, it is the Government’s duty to act. I support a ban, but even the most cursory engagement with Hartlepool residents shows me very clearly that there is a range of views among parents on this issue. Can the Secretary of State fathom what possibly could be the objection to listening to parents?

[Liz Kendall]

Not really.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

We have censorship for films, which is not necessarily for violent or sexual content and sometimes for psychological content. Policing such things could be difficult. Following the consultation, it will take time to put together a report. What concerns us is when and how action could be taken, because the King’s Speech will have passed. If the right hon. Lady concludes that there has to be a social media ban for under-16s, what mechanism could be put in place in such a short time?

[Liz Kendall]

The right hon. Member knows that the mechanism will depend on the policy that we put forward. I want to do this properly and thoroughly so that when we take a decision, it will work and not have unintended consequences. I want us to have thought through all of that so that we have a policy that lasts. It is really important that we get this right. There are strong, different views across the House. It is good that many hon. Members have their own strong opinions; it is what this place is all about. I am trying to take the country forward and build consensus, but we will never get everybody to agree. Leadership is required, and that is what we will deliver.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s launching of a national conversation about the impact of screens and tech on our children. As part of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into children’s TV and video content, we have heard evidence that not all screen time is equal. Content that is meant for engagement can be beneficial for a child’s development, but content that is designed for attention, such as fast-paced images bombarding children, can be harmful. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation looks at the quality and purpose of the content that our children are consuming on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube and at what more can be done to ensure that platforms support the right type of content for our kids?

[Liz Kendall]

Absolutely. I was at Braunstone community primary school in my constituency not long ago, where I was shown the incredible power of AI to help teachers with lesson planning. One teacher told me that using it meant that he could free up 30 days a year to be present for his kids in school and his family at home. Teachers were also using AI tutors to help narrow the disadvantage gap between rich and poor kids. We need to look at the quality of screen time, so my hon. Friend’s point is very well made.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

After more than a year of raising the issue in this House, illegal drugs including spice are still being brazenly sold to children online. If that is not harm, I do not know what is. What are the Government doing to ensure that all powers under the Online Safety Act are being used by Ofcom to stop this appalling harm to children? If the legislation we have cannot deal with it, will the Secretary of State consider including in her consultation how we might stop this pernicious trade?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Member raises an extremely important issue. I have put on record my determination for Ofcom to use the powers it has to act swiftly; I have made that very clear in private and publicly. I am more than happy to hear what more the hon. Lady thinks could be done.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

As a signatory to a letter calling for an Australia-style model that places responsibilities on tech firms to block under-16s from social media, I welcome the Government’s consultation. Families in Bedford and Kempston are very clear that platforms are harming our children now. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is committed to a rapid consultation, but will she also commit to a clear timetable for bold action before more young lives are damaged?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have said repeatedly in this House that we need to do the right and responsible thing, which is to consult. I do not want to hang around. I want to work out the very best and effective way forward, and I want proposals that will hold and last.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

In meaningful consultations, the Government set out what they are minded to do and set out a model. This consultation does not define social media or set out an enforcement model. It does not say anything about how age verification should be done. If they do not set out their model and what they intend to do, how at the end of the consultation will they have a practical guide or model to implement? They will not. If we are to follow this up with another consultation, I fear that parents and grandparents in Beverley and Holderness will be deeply disappointed with the dithering and delay displayed by the Secretary of State today.

[Liz Kendall]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is a statement, not the publication of the consultation. I very much look forward to his views when it is published.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Leading doctors have warned that social media has become a public health emergency that casts long shadows over our children’s minds. From self-harm to sleepless nights, distorted self-images and sexualised images, and the addictive nature of social media, the damage runs deep. Does my right hon. Friend agree that protecting young people’s wellbeing must come before digital profit and convenience? Will she commission research into the long-term side effects of social media, including on cognitive and motor development, in order to shape policy not just now but in 10 years’ time?

[Liz Kendall]

I think I mentioned earlier the letter I received from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which I believe is taking forward further work on this issue. Clinicians gave personal testimony about the horrific cases that they have treated in primary, secondary and community settings. I know that they will want to work closely with us on this. I thank my hon. Friend for her question.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I really welcome this statement. It coincides with the early-day motion published today in my name calling for children under 16 to be banned from social media that is deliberately designed to be addictive and is driven by profit. We have heard from Members across the House about the harms, which I will not repeat. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that any future consultation and subsequent legislation is based on the foundations of health and safety by design, and when can we expect the legislation to come into force?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Member is right; we want to ensure that this is about not only safety but enhancing the wellbeing of children, looking particularly at issues of mental health and anxiety. That will absolutely be at the heart of the consultation and any future proposals.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is 20 years since I co-authored the first code of practice on new forms of content on mobile. In the intervening 20 years, we have seen the proliferation of over-the-top services that bypass the network-level filters that we introduced as part of that code of practice. However, social media does not neatly fall into a categorisation of either age-inappropriate or harmful, so will the Secretary of State please commit to working with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which is working already to gather evidence on the harm to ensure that our conclusions from this consultation are evidence led?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

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

[Liz Kendall]

I hope that the action we took last week on Grok shows that the enforcement of existing laws is absolutely paramount. We will definitely be learning from the experience in Australia, not just about how the policy was developed and the definition of social media there, but about enforcement. I am more than happy to report back to the House on that.

Many colleagues have been unable to get on this statement, and I am sure that there are others who want to feed in their views. I really do want to hear from colleagues. We will certainly be organising events in the House for colleagues to come together, and they can also contact the Department to put forward the views of their constituents. That is my job: I am a member of this Labour Government but also the Secretary of State for the country. I believe that, when we get this right, it will be a legacy of which we can be proud.

[Sarah Pochin]

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

Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Written Statements

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

I will be updating the House via an oral statement later today.

[HCWS1262]

Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me conclude by saying this. I believe, and the Government believe, that artificial intelligence is a transformative technology that has the power and potential to bring about extraordinary and welcome change—to create jobs and growth, to diagnose and treat diseases, to help children learn at school, to tackle climate change and so much more besides—but in order to seize those opportunities, people must feel confident that they and their children are safe online, and that AI is not being used for destructive and abusive ends. Many tech companies want to act, and are acting, responsibly, but where they do not, we must and will act. Innovation should serve humanity, not degrade it, so we will leave no stone unturned in our determination to stamp out these demeaning, degrading and illegal images. If that means strengthening existing laws, we are prepared to do that, because this Government stand on the side of decency. We stand on the side of the law. We stand for basic British values, which are supported by the vast majority of people in this country. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. Last week, public outrage was rightly expressed about the use of artificial intelligence to undress women and children in photographs by X’s AI assistant Grok. The use of AI in that way without consent is wrong. It is disturbing, and in many cases it is illegal. We support Ofcom in taking enforcement action where an AI tool is used to generate illegal content, especially of children. We support the Government’s stance on nudification tools.

X itself has warned of consequences for anyone prompting Grok to make illegal content. The tools in question have been put behind a paywall, for the easy identification via name and bank details of anyone misusing them. Beyond the platform, however, the Internet Watch Foundation has identified cases where perpetrators have used Grok in tandem with other AI tools to generate category A material. As the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), has rightly said, such mainstream AI tools must not become an enabling step in the child abuse production pipeline.

Law already exists to deal with much of this, including the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—in which the Government voted against tougher amendments tabled by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge—and the Online Safety Act 2023. Those laws should be enforced. We await Ofcom, the independent regular, setting out its next steps.

Regardless of the law, it is right to expect AI companies to anticipate and prevent misuse of products before their deployment through rigorous red teaming. I accept that for a law to deter, the enforcement threat must be credible, but its use must also be proportionate.

Notwithstanding the soft back-pedalling of the Secretary of State today, the Government’s appendage swinging over the weekend was extremely serious. Ministers mooted as an urgent remedy the banning of a site with 21 million monthly users in this country, despite another Minister guffawing that banning X was “conspiracy theory No. 3,627.”

Since their invention, the internet and social media have been misused—often criminally—by people traffickers, paedophiles and fraudsters: the gutter dwellers of our society. Nobody is on their side, but Government have never before proposed blocking TikTok, Google or Facebook wholesale for the frequent and often flagrant misuse of their sites. That would be an extraordinarily serious move against a platform that can be used for good—for uncovering scandals, sparking democratic revolution, and allowing the free exchange of ideas, day to day, including those that we do not like. It is that very power for good that makes Iran’s mullahs reach to block the internet in the face of courageous protesters.

This episode poses legitimate questions about who holds power in the internet age. Many worry about the accrued influence of big tech titans—me included—but they worry, too, about the power of Government to divert, hide and duck accountability. They worry about this Government.

The uncomfortable truth for all of us is that some of this imagery sits in a legal grey area. What Grok has produced at scale in 2026 is a modern-day iteration of an old problem, from crude drawings to photoshop. Grok is not the only tool capable of generating false or offensive imagery, and not all of this content will cross the threshold into illegality. Plenty of it is sick, degrading and morally repugnant but does not cross the criminal threshold. What, then, is the Secretary of State proposing to do about the difficult enforcement choices that a regulator or police force must make? The risk is that, with finite resource, and in a highly politically sensitive environment, regulators could be diverted from pursuing the most abhorrent and dangerous crimes.

If we wish to mitigate the risk to children, one simple intervention may help stop them sharing their own image too freely: raising the digital age of consent for social media to 16. The cross-party consensus is growing. The Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, agrees with that idea; does the Secretary of State? She knows that there are geopolitical consequences to her rhetoric. Figures close to President Trump have already threatened sanctions. Has the Secretary of State engaged with the US Government? Has she been advised on the nature of any retaliation, were the UK Government to block X? The US-UK tech deal has already been paused. We need clarity on what else is at stake.

To conclude, the Tech Secretary has said:

“We are as determined to ensure women and girls are safe online as we are to ensure they are safe in the real world”,

so will she ensure that the Government enforce against themselves for their failure to advance the rape gang inquiry, their failure to stop puberty-blocking trials, their failure to implement guidance on single-sex spaces, and their inability to deport illegal migrants who have committed sex offences? This Government rightly worry about the online sphere, and we support them on that, but there is plenty to be getting on with in the real world.

[Liz Kendall]

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

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

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

[Liz Kendall]

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she and her Committee have done on this issue. I have read its work in detail since coming into post. She will know that I have already said on the issue of AI chatbots, for example, that some are covered by the Act—if they do live searches or share user-to-user content—but I have asked my officials to see where there are gaps. They have said that there are gaps, and I have said that I want to plug them, including by legislating, if that is necessary.

This is a fast-moving area. With the Online Safety Act, plus the additional measures we have taken in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and that we will take in the Crime and Policing Bill, we have quite a comprehensive suite of powers here, but I know this is developing quickly, particularly around generative AI. I am always prepared to look to the facts and the evidence and go where that leads me, and if I need to take further action, I will.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

[Liz Kendall]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the additional steps she has announced today. It is important that action keeps pace with the speed of the technology that it seeks to influence, so can I press her on the timescale for the Ofcom investigation and any subsequent action that may be needed? Can also I press her on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that children, whose abuse is being enabled by the creation of images by Grok, are safeguarded and protected, and that those responsible face the full force of the law? Can she confirm that, if X continues to take the attitude and approach to these issues that we have seen so far, no options are off the table?

[Liz Kendall]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

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

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

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, for her letter to me—I hope that she has received the reply; I tried to get that done as quicky as possible—and for her passionate campaigning on this issue. She knows that I and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport have been engaging deeply with colleagues on the issue of AI and copyright. We will update the House on next steps on that by 18 March. The hon. Lady knows that I want to find a way that backs our world-beating creatives, but also enables us to ensure that our world-leading AI developers and academics can use the technology too. That is no easy task, but I am determined to find a way forward. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. This is a real test case. People want to see action. They want to see the laws of this land upheld. I am sure that Ofcom knows, and will hear once again from Members in this House, that that is what it needs to do to gain people’s trust and their belief that this will work.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am very glad to hear that the Secretary of State is going to take swift action on this matter and that she is open-minded and prepared to do whatever it takes. It would be great if she could act as swiftly against the bot farms abroad that target our democracy with lies and mischief. Of course, I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to prove unless one is a social media company. This weekend, the uprising in Iran resulted in the internet going down, just as it did in the summer, and guess what happened? One thousand three hundred bot accounts that support the Scottish nationalists went down. Either there are a lot of Scottish nationalists in Iran, which I suspect there are not, or there was a deliberate attempt to undermine our democracy and stir mischief. This is very serious. That is just one example that can be proved. What is going to happen as a result of that?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her important point about the impact on facts, democracy and rule of law. I know that she takes this extremely seriously, and so do the Government. The Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology has written about misinformation, and I recently gave evidence about that to the Committee. I want to reassure my right hon. Friend that we are considering all those issues because, as I said, we want to uphold British values and the law, as well as the facts—that is a crucial issue in this whole debate, because there can be significant consequences if that does not happen.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that, in responding to a threat of this magnitude, a graduated response is required, and is she tentatively encouraged by the fact that X has decided to say that users cannot be anonymous in doing that sort of mischief? [Interruption.] Wait for it. I do not think X is taking that step out of the goodness of its heart. [Interruption.] Please do not shout me down. I think that X is taking that step because it is afraid of the sanctions that will come next. Should the Minister not be encouraging Ofcom to impose the appropriate level of sanctions, and to threaten to move to the next stage, so the big tech companies know that if they persist, they will be fined again and again and, ultimately, stopped from broadcasting? In taking that action, X has blinked, but the pressure must be ramped up in a graduated way.

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I set out in my statement the steps that can be taken. A formal investigation has been launched, as the public would expect—I want to see that report ASAP—and there are clear powers in legislation to fine such companies up to 10% of their worldwide qualifying revenue, alongside the backstop power. The right hon. Gentleman will know that other countries are taking a range of actions. Indonesia and Malaysia have introduced temporary bans, while other countries are amending their legislation to give them similar powers to us. People are making it very clear that they want to put pressure on. All that will send a clear, single message. I just hope that MPs on both sides of the House agree with it, so that we might protect all women and girls.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her absolutely clear message that what X is doing, through the use of Grok, is illegal. That is as much the platform’s responsibility as it is the user’s. I am afraid that there is less confidence in Ofcom’s ability to enforce the Online Safety Act as it stands, or in the improvements being made. Does she agree with the many people across the country who believe that we need to see real action from Ofcom by the end of this week, or we will judge Ofcom’s leadership as failing the British public?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is a powerful champion on this issue. I am a feminist; I believe in deeds, not words. The deeds and the action will provide the proof that the very tough legislation already in place must be implemented—British rule of law. Ofcom needs to act, and swiftly.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements. She rightly set out the abhorrent and criminal nature of the content being created through Grok. As well as being subjected to that abuse, our children are being exposed to harmful content not just on X, but on many social media platforms—together with AI chatbots that never sleep, doomscrolling and addictive gaming. Children and young people, and their parents, are crying out for further action. I implore the Secretary of State to finally consider raising the digital age of data consent to stop big tech companies profiteering from our children’s attention. She opposed that when we proposed it last year for the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, but next week we will have another chance in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the other place.

[Liz Kendall]

Opposition Members, and many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, have called for a ban on social media for the under-16s. That is not currently the Government’s policy, but I will always be driven by the evidence. I am closely monitoring the evidence, including where similar action has been taken in other countries. We are very concerned about screen time, and today we have announced that for the first time ever we will have new guidelines for screen use for the under-fives. We are very worried, including from recent evidence, that children under two who have the highest levels of screen time are struggling more with language. We are determined to take action, but I will always be driven by the evidence.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Last week I met the brilliant Cindy Gallop, founder of MakeLoveNotPorn, and the MakeLoveNotPorn Academy who, like me and many across the House, believes in empowering people to talk openly and responsibly about sex, free from shame. Given how quickly tech is evolving, regulation, bans and blocks alone cannot shift the behaviour of people such as those using the Grok tool to make non-consensual sexual deepfakes, and a shared cross-party commitment to lifelong age-appropriate sex and relationships education is vital to changing culture, promoting consent, and preventing harm. Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the horror stories we are currently seeing, tech is not an enemy, people are—including some tech bros like Musk—and that tech could be used for good by good people to aid lifelong sex education instead of exploitation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

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

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

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I will. I know that X replied to Ofcom on Friday about what action it had taken. I have not seen that, but I will ask to see it. Of course I want to see whether it is making the proper risk assessments as quickly as possible.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her action on this issue. What role does she think is being played by the tens of thousands of pounds taken by some, particularly on the right, from Musk’s disinformation and child porn generator, in spouting false claims that this welcome Government action is about free speech?

[Liz Kendall]

This is all about upholding British values and British law, not restricting freedom of speech. It is about enabling women not to feel bullied and threatened, so that they can participate. Reform wants the Online Safety Act 2023 to be scrapped. Its leader has said that the way forward is just to talk to the platforms and tell them that this is not the way forward. So much for strong leadership. I wonder why that is its position.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I welcome and wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State’s statement, and I am ashamed and disgusted by the statement from the shadow Minister. Elon Musk is a so-called free speech absolutist who has decried Ministers as “fascists” and says that the UK must stop censorship. We now have American politicians threatening future trade deals if we tackle non-consensual content and deepfake child pornography being shared online. Does the Secretary of State agree that free speech should never extend to creating and sharing sexual abuse material of children or women? Does she agree that it is the responsibility of platforms that provide the tools, alongside Apple and Google, which permit those tools, and their app stores—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Questions have to be much shorter.

[Liz Kendall]

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

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

While X as a platform, and indeed some parties in this place, seem content to profit from the proliferation of illegal sexually abusive content, this Government are meant to practise what we preach on online safety and violence against women and girls. The public, like me, are baffled by hearing tough words from a Government who continue to not just use but prioritise X for their communications. If non-consensual deepfake pornography and child sex abuse imagery is not the red line for the Government to take their communications elsewhere, I ask the Secretary of State, what is?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend and I discussed this matter just last week. I completely agree with her that we need to get our views and voices out on a whole range of other platforms. I and many Ministers make that point regularly, and I think there is much more that we could do. We will keep the issue under review. As I spelled out in my statement, there is an argument, which the director general of the BBC made, about keeping a voice on a platform that is used by so many people, but I understand her concerns and we will keep this under review.

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

If Ofcom does not act decisively and swiftly to protect people in the UK, it risks sending a deeply damaging signal that even the most serious forms of online abuse will be accepted when they are carried out by powerful platforms that are owned by powerful men. Does the Secretary of State have full faith that Ofcom will enforce the Online Safety Act in light of this slow and inadequate response to child sexual abuse material being produced by Grok?

[Liz Kendall]

I am sure that Ofcom will hear loud and clear my comments and the comments of the hon. Lady and others that we expect the law of this land to be upheld and enforced, and done swiftly.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the strength and passion with which she has responded to this issue. Elon Musk is ideologically opposed to the kind of ethical guardrails and safeguarding that the British public want to see online. The update to Grok that facilitated these images was put in place in August, so where has Ofcom been in that time? Does that not reveal that the way that we legislate and regulate in this place is not fit for purpose with the challenges that AI presents day by day? Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to consider a far more flexible principles-based, responsive approach to the way that we regulate?

[Liz Kendall]

My right hon. Friend raises a really important issue. Everybody in the House knows how long it took to pass the Online Safety Act, and by the time it was implemented, things had moved on very quickly. The question of how we move as quickly as the technology is moving is critical, and I am considering that issue deeply.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State consider adding AI responses to prompts by users to the definition of user-generated content, so that that is included in the scope of the Online Safety Act? Will she or one of her Ministers meet me to discuss my concerns about the risks posed to children of children being able to livestream?

[Liz Kendall]

I will definitely meet anyone who has evidence about that and what we need to do.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

Having campaigned for a ban on nudification apps, I hugely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today. We have all seen how AI has been used to humiliate and sexualise women, with bullet holes, blood, gagging, bruising, and even the horror of a Jewish woman being stripped of her clothes and placed at Auschwitz. Like a number of colleagues, over the weekend I have also had my own treatment and been stripped into a bikini by AI on X—much less than many victims have suffered but a reminder of what many thousands of women face daily. Will my right hon. Friend look at how the Government can work with industry to introduce AI watermarking, alongside ways of enabling users to mark that their pictures or videos should not be digitally manipulated without their consent?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is a formidable campaigner on all these issues. The Minister for Online Safety and I are happy to meet with her to discuss all those ideas further.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State. When she talks about a ban, one thing I am slightly concerned about, whether it is limited, short-term or long-term, is how it would be enforced. Is she confident that Ofcom could do so in response to X and what we have seen? How do we ensure that if we end up with a ban, temporary or otherwise, we do not allow people to circumvent it via the use of VPNs? What are her thoughts on that?

[Liz Kendall]

I hope that we do not get to that stage; I hope that X abides by the law and that Ofcom uses the powers that it has. That is extremely important, and we want to see that as quickly as possible. I am so sorry, but could the hon. Gentleman say the second part of the question again?

[Tom Gordon]

It was about ensuring that the ban is enforceable.

[Liz Kendall]

I think—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

[Liz Kendall]

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

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

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I very much welcome what the Secretary of State is doing in proving that none of this is inevitable with the development of technology? She has just said that there is a concern that our legislation is behind, rather than ahead of, the curve. She knows that this issue is not just about Grok; it is about AI chatbots. I know that Baroness Kidron in the other place has brought forward legislation on that. Will the Secretary of State defend all those talking about content moderation and how we get this right in the future, including by standing up to Governments who are not free speech advocates if they bar those people from their shores?

[Liz Kendall]

Let me just keep to the point about AI chatbots. We are confident that some are covered by the legislation, but officials have told me that they believe some are not. I am currently working this issue through. I want to move swiftly, but I want this work to be effective, for all the reasons we have said. I am happy to meet with my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Given the devastating harm caused by non-consensual sexual deepfakes and the reality that the Online Safety Act is ineffective against international social media platforms, how will the Secretary of State ensure the immediate removal of this material? How will she deliver practical support to women and girls from the moment that they become victims?

[Liz Kendall]

By backing the law, not calling for it to be scrapped, which is what the hon. Lady’s party wants.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

The South West Grid for Learning is based in my constituency, and it does some really important work in keeping people safe online as part of the UK Safer Internet Centre. It also runs a programme called “Stop Non-Consensual Intimate Image Abuse”, which people can access to stop these images from being uploaded to platforms through a technological solution called hashing. Some platforms use that, but not all. Will my right hon. Friend encourage all platforms to take up this technology and promote this service to people?

[Liz Kendall]

That sounds like a very interesting and practical solution to many of the challenges we are discussing. I hope that my hon. Friend will send me more details.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I cannot pretend to understand the complexities of AI bots or the stuff that we have talked about this afternoon, but I do understand the impact that sexual abuse has on children and girls in my constituency. On Saturday, I was talking to a grandmother, who told me that her granddaughter had been groomed; as a consequence, she had become suicidal, was locked in her room and was unrecognisable from the young woman that she had been just three months ago. I live in a very rural part of the country. May I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that she will put as much money and as many facilities into rural parts of the country to prevent this disgusting habit as she will put into other parts?

[Liz Kendall]

I will do whatever it takes, and I know that is what the whole Government think. In particular, this is a personal priority for the Prime Minister. The people who abuse children find a way to do it, in every century and any different form. Our job is to find that and stop it, and that is what we will do.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the Secretary of State. The production of these disgusting images amounts not to freedom of speech but to freedom to abuse, harass and commit crime. Will she condemn what seems to be an organised campaign of intimidation against female staff at Ofcom? After all, they are just carrying out the responsibilities that they were given by this House.

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, absolutely. We all worry about what happens to our constituents, our family, our friends and the people who work with us if they have the temerity to speak out. We will not be bullied, we will not be cowed, and I know for sure that my right hon. Friend will not.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Many women and girls will be shocked to hear some colleagues in this House suggest that AI deepfakes is a question of free speech. Plaid Cymru is clear: digital abuse is not free speech. Does the Secretary of State agree that protecting women and girls must never be conditional, and will she outline what the Government will do not only to criminalise the creation of deepfakes, but to stop these platforms creating this technology in the first place?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, and I refer the hon. Lady to my statement, which I think spelled out in detail all the action we are taking.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I cannot accept that it is okay for the Government to stay on X now, but I do welcome the strong action they are taking on online violence against women and girls. This is part of a wider problem of violent pornography that normalises and encourages violent sexual fantasies, so does the Secretary of State agree that Ofcom has a duty to act swiftly and firmly?

[Liz Kendall]

One hundred per cent.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarity about these disgusting and illegal images on X. I have chosen my side—I deleted X from my phone on Saturday. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that Ofcom will have the powers, the teeth and the funding it needs to keep up with the tech bros as they invent new and innovative ways to degrade women?

[Liz Kendall]

I believe Ofcom does have the powers and funding to do that, but this technology is developing rapidly, which is why I have said to the House that I will keep monitoring it. Where we see gaps, we will plug them; doing so is so important for the country.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her comments this afternoon, and agree with her that anyone saying that this activity is free speech is totally incorrect. We must continue to redouble our efforts to protect women and girls. Part of this abuse happens on social media. As the Secretary of State knows, there is a big conversation about banning social media for under-16s. More teaching unions, teachers and parents are coming out in favour of doing so, and a large majority of the public are also in favour. The Secretary of State said that she is prepared to go further; will she ensure that the Government review what has been done in Australia and ban social media for under-16s?

[Liz Kendall]

We are closely monitoring what is happening in Australia. Banning social media for under-16s is not currently our policy, but of course we are looking at the evidence. I am particularly concerned about the addictiveness of social media and its impact on mental health. However, we also need to talk to young people themselves; some are acutely aware of the problems, but do not want it banned. I also hear organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation and the NSPCC, which worry that a ban would push things deeper underground and that there would be a cliff edge when young people reach 16. We need to take all these issues into account, and I will always be driven by the evidence.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and share her outrage and horror at the use of AI to create these abusive sexual deepfakes. Can I press her on implementation? Our legislation is only as good as its enforcement. She talked about acting swiftly, so will she set a hard deadline for Ofcom to complete its investigation? Will she also set a hard deadline for X to act, and if it does not, impose the fullest fines possible?

[Liz Kendall]

The legislation that we in this House voted for, the Online Safety Act, gives Ofcom those powers. I would expect a swift timeline and for any investigation to be done as soon as possible; people in this country, including victims, do not want to wait months. The legislation gives Ofcom the power to apply to a court for serious business disruption measures, and it is really important that that happens. Let us also not forget that X does not need to wait for any of this in order to act—it needs to do so immediately.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

May I add my voice to those expressing shock at those somehow equating the holding to account of people who enable and profiteer from the production of sexual abuse images of children with the undermining of free speech? It is disingenuous and it does a disservice to everyone. I encourage the Secretary of State to continue to put pressure on Ofcom to make sure that it acts decisively and effectively against companies that break the Online Safety Act 2023.

[Liz Kendall]

I am sure that Ofcom knows only too well the expectation not only of this House, but more importantly of the country and victims, that action must be taken. We will continue to make that point.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Having read accounts of women who have had their image manipulated by Grok AI, I am dismayed by attempts by some to try to twist this into an argument about suppressing free speech. It is abuse and it is illegal. I welcome the news that the Government will criminalise nudification apps, but does the Minister agree that—as Elon Musk has so far refused to take any responsibility or to recognise the severity of online harms, and is unlikely to be bothered by the threat of fines—the only way to stop this abuse is to block access to X in the UK now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I hope I have made clear my position on that, on the legislation and on my expectations, but I am more than happy to discuss it further with the hon. Lady.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for standing up for women and children with conviction and dedication, and with no ifs, no buts. I share that dedication. As a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, I supported our inquiry into non-consensual intimate image abuse. Witnesses told us that one of the most damaging aspects of that form of abuse was the length of time the images remained on those platforms. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that all these images and deepfakes are removed from the internet as quickly as possible?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is another amazing campaigner on these issues. She is right to raise the issue of speed. I think I am correct in saying that the legislation expects platforms, when they know that this material is there, to take it down swiftly. It is interesting to note that the Take it Down Act that has been passed in the United States has a 48-hour time limit on non-consensual intimate image abuse. I always look at what is happening in other countries to see what more we can learn.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I welcome the actions outlined by the Secretary of State today. Nearly 10 years ago, Molly Rose Russell died as a result of suicide from content she had seen online. In Northern Ireland, one of the world’s most prolific paedophiles operated with ease online. We already know the risks here. Will the Secretary of State make sure that devolved regions are not left behind in our attempts to tackle this global scourge?

[Liz Kendall]

I will do anything I can to ensure that this is sorted in every part of our proud United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady has further ideas, I hope she will write to me about them, because I am keen to see them.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s swift action—all power to her. Long before this Grok app was invented, I met a father whose daughter had taken her own life after an overly sexualised fake image was circulated of her at school. That is the impact of these unregulated actions by anonymous people. Will the Secretary of State please use this opportunity to highlight the fact that creating, facilitating, hosting and sharing such images is against the law, and that no VPN or amount of money will prevent people from facing the full force of the law in this country?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The legislation is clear: it is illegal to share or attempt to share. It will be illegal to create or attempt to create. The nudification apps will be banned, too. We are crystal clear: VPNs or not, the platforms have to make sure that their duties under the law are fulfilled. That is what this issue is about, and we are determined to ensure that the full force of the law is felt.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I have been contacted by a significant number of constituents, who are appalled that Grok and X are being used to create and then disseminate child sexual abuse. One issue that they have raised is the length of time it has taken us to act, as opposed to other countries. Malaysia and Indonesia have already banned these platforms. Is the Secretary of State not concerned about the fact that it took Ofcom a week to launch an investigation?

[Liz Kendall]

Patience is not my greatest virtue. I want us to act faster and more firmly, and I am sure that that message will be heard loud and clear by Ofcom and by X, which has the power to sort this out now.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s serious and rapid action to tackle non-consensual sexual deepfakes on social media, which we know have generated child sexual abuse images and have been weaponised to abuse and silence women, including many in the House. We also know that AI’s capabilities are growing and it is becoming more widespread. How are the Government monitoring these evolving AI models to prevent them from causing harm in the future?

[Liz Kendall]

I pay tribute to the last Government for establishing the AI Security Institute, because, as my hon. Friend will know, it is a world leader. Its job is to monitor in depth, working in partnership with those companies, the harms that are there. I am in regular contact with the institute, which I think is very important, because I believe that the potential of AI can be used for great good—but only if it is safe.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I welcome the statement, but an idea has been advanced by some that X moving Grok to a premium service somehow means that those at X are blinking, and I think that is for the birds. I think it was a deliberate strategy on the part of those at X to create a content generation tool that is disgusting but that drove up demand, to wait until the demand reached a critical mass, and then to make it a premium product so that it could make money from it. X is continuing to make money from violence against women and girls, which is what this is: it cannot be denied.

The violence against women and girls strategy, released just before Christmas, stated that the work would

“ensure that the UK has one of the most robust responses to perpetrators of VAWG in the world.”

May I gently ask, given that other countries have already banned Grok, whether this is really the most robust response that we could have?

[Liz Kendall]

Other countries have different legislative systems. I believe that our Online Safety Act 2023, along with the other measures that I have mentioned, is one of the most comprehensive ways of addressing this issue. The hon. Lady is right to speak of the need for speedy and swift action, and that point has been made time and again in the House, but the Government’s determination to tackle violence against women and girls comes from the top down and goes right across every Department.

I should have said earlier that the Minister for Digital Government and Data, who is a joint Minister in DSIT and in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is looking at the issue of advertising, including the monetisation of some of these behaviours. “Follow the money” is a really important issue, and we want to address it.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse imagery produced online is still, very sadly, produced by children themselves, who have been groomed by adults in order to do so. What steps will the Government take to ensure that there are device-level protections to prevent children from taking and sharing nude images of themselves?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend has raised a really important issue, which I am happy to discuss with her further. What she says is exactly what is happening in this country.

I know that many Members have not had a chance to ask a question, but I will find a way to enable them to ask that question, and I will secure a response through the Department—including my parliamentary private secretaries—because I know how passionately all Members care about this issue, and I want to continue the debate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Written Statements

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

I will be updating the House via an oral statement later today.

[HCWS1235]

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Written Statements

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

Today I am laying before Parliament an Act paper updating Parliament on the Government’s progress on copyright and artificial intelligence, fulfilling the commitment under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Our approach to copyright and AI must support prosperity for all UK citizens, and drive innovation and growth for sectors across the economy, including the creative industries. This means keeping the UK at the cutting edge of science and technology, so that UK citizens can benefit from major breakthroughs, transformative innovation and greater prosperity. It also means continuing to support our creative industries, which make a huge economic contribution, shape our national identity and give us a unique position on the world stage.

It is important that we take the time to get this right. This is an issue that many countries around the world are grappling with, and on which there is no clear consensus. My Department, alongside the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has focused on seeking a broad range of input—through the consultation, Parliamentary working groups, and our engagement with stakeholders—to ensure that we hear as many expert views and experiences as possible as we seek to find a solution.

Our consultation received over 11,500 responses from individual creators, rights holders, AI developers, academics and many others. We have analysed each of these responses individually. We have brought together representatives from media, creative industries, AI developers and academia in a series of roundtables to facilitate open discussion. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I chaired the most recent roundtable in September. We have also convened cross-party parliamentary working groups, meeting with MPs in October and peers in November.

We have established four expert technical working groups, covering control and technical standards, information and transparency, licensing, and wider support for creatives. These groups are bringing together expertise from across the creative industries, the AI sector and academia to explore practical solutions io complex questions.

Work is also in progress to prepare the economic impact assessment and report required under the Act, which we will publish by 18 March 2026. The wide range of input and analysis described above will shape this report, which will cover the full range of issues raised in consultation, from transparency requirements, licensing arrangements and how copyright affects access to training data, to technical measures and standards, and enforcement mechanisms. It will also address issues relating to AI outputs, including computer-generated works, output labelling and digital replicas and enforcement mechanisms.

We want to thank the range of stakeholders who have been involved in this work so far, and encourage those with views to continue engaging with us as we seek to find a way forward that delivers our ambitions for both the creative industries and AI.

[HCWS1165]

Harnessing AI to Deliver Growth

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

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

This Government are announcing thousands more jobs and billions of pounds of inward investment, in a huge vote of confidence in the UK.

We are committed to making the UK a world-leading destination for developing and deploying AI as part of our No. 1 mission to grow the UK economy. Our ambition is to harness the power of AI to deliver for British people: creating great jobs and growth right across the country, improving our public services, giving people skills and putting money in people’s pockets. We are announcing a major package of new reforms and investment, putting AI at heart of the Government’s mission to drive growth, create jobs and spread prosperity across the country. These plans will ensure that new international investment boosts jobs and growth, giving British businesses the opportunity to scale and compete internationally. International companies are also hosting new bases in the UK and British companies are increasing investment—with £24.25 billion in private investment committed in this last month alone—a huge vote of confidence in the UK.

The Government are joining forces with companies like Vantage Data Centres and Microsoft, to create another new AI growth zone in south Wales—delivering more than 5,000 new jobs over the next decade, and £10 billion of planned inward investment, including in industrial heartlands such as the former Ford Bridgend engine plant. These zones will help transform local economies and ensure that no community is left behind, with £5 million of UK Government support committed to give local people the skills required for new, high-quality jobs and ensure that our children and young people have the best possible future. This is the second AI growth zone announced in Wales in as many weeks, with the UK and Welsh Governments working together for national economic renewal and driving UK growth. This has the potential to be truly transformative for communities across south Wales, meaning an area that led the industrial revolution will now be leading the technological revolution.

Alongside this, we are ensuring that British businesses and researchers stay at the forefront of the AI revolution, backing firms and scientists with the right tools to succeed and to seize the opportunity for British workers and growth.

The Government will act as a “first customer” for promising UK AI start-ups building high-quality AI hardware products but who currently struggle to get off the ground without investment. The new “advance market commitment”, subject to due diligence, is backed up by up to £100 million of Government support to buy their products for public supercomputers once they reach a high performance benchmark. This gives UK start-ups the opportunity to secure a competitive edge and win customers in a multibillion-dollar global market. AI growth zone data centres will house billions of pounds of hardware. Our goal is to see British chips deployed alongside established vendors.

Alongside this, venture capitalist James Wise will chair the sovereign AI unit, backed by almost £500 million in investment to help build and scale AI capabilities on British shores. The unit will bring together Government, industry and investors to become the go-to fund for high-potential start-ups and scale-ups in the UK.

New AI ambassadors will help maximise the benefits of AI for Britain. Monzo co-founder and Y Combinator general partner Tom Blomfield will champion British start-ups to scale up and attract talent and investment. Nobel prize-winning British MIT economist and former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund Simon Johnson will act as a standard bearer with public services and businesses to help them take up this brilliant technology to boost productivity. And Google DeepMind VP of research Raia Hadsell will champion the UK’s place at the forefront of AI innovation and security.

The Government will also offer more free compute to British researchers and British start-ups by expanding access to the AI research resource, a network of super-computers, so that researchers can train new AI models and deliver scientific breakthroughs. We are launching a process to spend up to £250 million on compute.

We are also publishing the new AI for science strategy to make sure that AI supercharges scientific discovery such as disease cure and prevention, backed by up to £137 million in Government support. This will support British researchers and start-ups to drive new innovations and discoveries, making sure the UK remains at the forefront of scientific discovery. Its first mission will be focused on harnessing AI to speed up the research of new drugs and treatments, giving patients a new lease of life and fresh hope that their conditions can be better managed.

Together, these announcements demonstrate a Government determined to harness the technologies of the future to deliver for our people here in the UK—supporting regional and national economic growth, great new jobs, and opportunity for communities across the UK.

[HCWS1086]

Digital ID

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I have always believed in giving people power and control over their lives: control over the public services they use and how they access childcare, benefits and housing support; control over their data, and who sees it; and control over the choices they make to rent or buy a home, apply for a job, open a bank account, and much more besides. In the age of the smartphone, we can take this control quite literally into our own hands, but too often it feels like we are at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should. It is one with endless form filling and bureaucracy just for people to prove who they are, and one where they may need their passport to apply for a job, their national insurance number to pay tax and their driving licence to buy a pint or a glass of wine—if they are lucky enough to be asked. Most frustratingly of all, they may have to rummage around in a drawer looking for an old electricity bill just to open a bank account, join the library or enrol their children in school. It is time to fix this: to put power back in people’s hands; to get more out of our public services; and to bring the UK into the modern age.

There are three reasons why we want to introduce a new, free digital ID, available to all UK citizens and legal residents above the age of 16. First, it is about giving people greater agency over their lives. In over 15 years as a local MP, I have lost count of the number of people who have come to me because they have struggled to get the public services they need or had to battle for support from different parts of the welfare state. I am sure many hon. Members will know a frustratingly similar story. People are passed from one person to another, and asked to repeat their story and provide basic information time and again. They are made to fit into a system, rather than the system working for them, which ultimately leaves them feeling as though they are a number on a list, not a human being with a life.

Bringing in a new digital ID is about far more than replacing numerous bits of paper just for people to prove who they are. It is about changing the way the state interacts with its citizens through what I like to see as a new digital key that unlocks better, more joined-up and effective public services that actually talk to one another and fit around them. In building our new system, we will learn from the experiences of other countries, some of which have had digital ID for over 20 years. Many show us just how transformative this can be. In Denmark, a graduate applying for jobs has to log into a portal only once, and their ID automatically links to their school records, saving them retyping their qualifications each time. In Finland, a parent can go online to register their children for day care without uploading a payslip or putting in their salary, and the site automatically calculates the right fee. In Estonia, a digital ID means that when someone has a baby, they do not need to go to a local office to register the birth, sign up for childcare benefits or apply for nursery places. That happens automatically from day one in the hospital, so parents are free to focus on what matters most.

Digital ID has the potential to empower millions of people like that in the UK, with quick, effective, seamless and secure integration between different Government systems. We know that the Tell Us Once service makes the process of registering a death more straightforward, but we should not have to wait until the end of someone’s life to offer them joined-up, personalised support. So our new system will help modernise Government services to fit around people’s lives, rather than forcing them to fit into the system.

The second reason for introducing digital ID is to offer people greater security and actually greater control over their own data. Other countries that have introduced digital ID find that digitally checked credentials are far more secure than physical documents. They are much less likely to be lost or stolen, they have reduced errors and mistakes, and they have helped crack down on fraudsters who can ruin peoples’ lives. Privacy and security will be hard-wired into the system from the start. There will be no pooling of people’s private information into a single, central dataset—it will be a federated data system—and user control will be at the heart of our plans. With a digital ID, people may end up having more choice over what they show the world, not less. If they are buying a drink at the bar, instead of showing a physical driving licence revealing their full name and address, they will be able to prove they are over 18 without even showing their exact birthday if they do not want to. We will ensure that our digital ID operates to international best practice standards for data security and privacy, and we are working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre to ensure it keeps pace with the changing threats we face.

The third and final reason for introducing digital ID is to deliver greater fairness by showing exactly who has the right to work in the UK. Digital ID is not a silver bullet for tackling illegal immigration, but it will be a deterrent to would-be migrants who are considering coming to the UK, alongside all the other action we are taking. Making ID checks both mandatory and digital for all employers will provide us with far more actionable intelligence, so we can move swiftly to identify rogue employers who are not following the rules. Under this Government, illegal working arrests have gone up 50% in the last year. That is progress, but our digital ID will help us to do more. It will be mandatory for right to work checks by the end of this Parliament, helping tackle illegal working, cracking down on rogue employers, creating a level playing field for employers who do the right thing, and giving people who do have the right to be here the cast-iron guarantee that this is their country and that they are welcome in the UK.

For our new ID to be both effective and fair, it must be genuinely inclusive. That is non-negotiable for the Government, and for me personally. Currently, around one in 10 UK adults do not have a passport or a driver’s licence to prove their identity, and around 1.5 million people do not have a smartphone, laptop or tablet, or are digitally excluded for another reason. We are already making progress with our digital inclusion action plan. We will continue to work closely with all the relevant organisations to understand the barriers to inclusion and how they can be overcome, so we bring everyone into the system. I want to hear directly from hon. Members across the House about these matters, and from those in the digital identity sector who have so much experience to learn from. We will consider physical alternatives to the virtual document and face-to-face support for those who need it, such as the 5% of UK households who do not have home internet access. Ultimately, however, we want Britain to be a country where everybody has the digital skills and access to be part of the modern world, including through our new digital ID to unlock more effective services and support.

To conclude, we will launch a full consultation on our plans by the end of this year, including with parliamentarians, the devolved Administrations and members of the public. Legislation informed by that process will follow shortly afterwards. I know hon. Members will have many questions and I look forward to taking them, but let me just say this. Some 92% of people over 16 already have a smartphone. Many of us already use digital credentials held in our phone wallets, from tickets to events and online banking to storing boarding passes. People should expect the same service from the Government. Indeed, we should be criticised if we are not modernising our services to make them easier and more convenient for the public. Years from now, when we look back, I believe that having your ID on your phone will feel like second nature, putting more power directly into people’s hands and giving them more control over how they interact with government and the whole range of services. That is something worth striving for. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Nearly three weeks ago, the Prime Minister unveiled a plan for mandatory digital identity that will fundamentally shift the balance of power between citizen and state. He did not announce it here in this House, but at a love-in of the progressive left, sponsored by Labour Together and haunted by the ghost of Tony Blair. The justification was his own catastrophic failure on migration. He knows it will not stop the boats. When Brits are forced to have ID as illegal migration continues unabated, it will simply confirm fears of a two-tier society, fuelling the division and conspiracy theories that he so arrogantly claims he is the antidote to. What a cynical mess. Can the Secretary of State set out how the scheme will identify illegal migrants working in the black economy, when their gangmasters are experts at avoiding any state interaction? She rather slinked away from those key points in her wonderfully innocuous statement about making it easier to join libraries. We have in the official press release this glorious piece of doublethink:

“It will not be compulsory to obtain a digital ID but it will be mandatory for some applications.”

When employment itself requires Government-issued identity, you cannot meaningfully consent—unless, of course, you never want to work.

Here is the fundamental issue: in a free society, the burden of proof has always rested with government to justify its actions to earn our trust. Mandatory digital identity reverses that. While today the scheme focuses on work checks, Labour says it wants to extend this type of mandate into more areas of our lives. Which areas? Where does it stop? I understand that even 13-year-olds are now being considered. What about those without digital access? Labour has deprioritised gigabit roll-out and published a very worthy digital inclusion action plan without any action.

The Prime Minister points to Estonia and India as models we should seek to replicate, despite serious cyber vulnerabilities. The UK’s own sign-on system was breached during red team testing this very March. When 2.8 million people petitioned against the plan, the Government assured them that they would adhere to the highest security standards. Can the Secretary of State confirm to us here today that the system on which her mandatory ID will be built already meets those standards, and that the National Cyber Security Centre will publicly back her up?

This crafty scheme was not in Labour’s manifesto. Even the Cabinet think the whole thing is a fantasy. The Secretary of State cannot even bring herself to tweet about it. Why does the Prime Minister keep handing her his steaming messes to scoop up? The migration argument has totally bombed—we heard it here today. She and the Prime Minister are now reframing this whole thing as the route to better online services—no more rifling around for utility bills; not an ID, we hear today, but a key. They are deliberately conflating two very different things.

Better and more convenient online services were already coming in. We already had right to work and rent checks, convenient DBS—Disclosure and Barring Service—checks and driving licence renewals, all designed with choice, consent and privacy in mind, paper options retained, nobody forced down the digital route and trust as the key, and private identity providers enabled. This is not about Luddites versus modernisers; this is about the fact that Labour cannot resist its big fat socialist dreams: centralised databases, state mandation, big money, the exclusion of private sector expertise. Why create this honeypot for hackers? How much will it cost? Why should we trust Labour to be the verifier of someone’s identity, when during the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 it would not even commit to recording someone’s sex accurately?

Let me be clear: Conservatives oppose mandatory digital identity in principle and in practice. If we believed it was necessary, we would have introduced it in government. We chose not to because you can deliver better online services without resorting to a costly, controlling, complex and risky system. This is a cynical distraction from a desperate Prime Minister. He wants people to believe that mandatory ID will fix his migration mess, but it will not. Channel crossings will continue until he introduces a real deterrent, but he has not got the guts to take on the lawfare industry that made him.

We believe that government should empower citizens, not the other way round; that government should earn citizens’ trust, not the other way round. Only those entitled to benefits should receive them and those with no right to be here must leave, but those imperatives are not best delivered by controlling British people instead of those who do not play by the rules. The Government who promised to tread lightly on our lives have got their boots out. Will the Secretary of State now kill this plan, rather than be the sacrificial lamb for another of this Prime Minister’s grubby mistakes?

[Liz Kendall]

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is definitely the first time I have been called a big fat socialist. [Laughter.]

The hon. Lady asks how it will help crack down on illegal immigration. Making ID mandatory and digital will really help us to get, much more swiftly and automatically, more actionable intelligence about rogue employers, and about who are doing the checks they are required to do and who are not.

Secondly, the hon. Lady talks about those who are digitally excluded. As I said in my statement, I take that issue extremely seriously. We actually have a digital inclusion action plan. The Conservatives did not do one for 10 years. If they cared so much about it, perhaps they would have done.

Understandably and rightly, I am sure we will have lots of questions about having the highest possible standards. We will be working to international best practice standards. There are not many advantages to lagging behind so many other countries—many other countries—that have digital ID, but one is that we can learn from their experience when things have gone wrong and how they improved their security. That is what we intend to do.

I finish by saying this. The hon. Lady comes to the Dispatch Box with fire and brimstone, but it is quite interesting that she differs from the shadow Home Secretary. Back in February, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) backed the idea, saying there were “very significant benefits”. In August, he said the Conservatives should consider it. The Conservatives’ leader in June said that she had moved her position on digital ID and that if it could answer difficult problems then, yes, that was something they would look at. Given the amount of flip-flops on the other side of the Chamber, you would think it was still summer. They are not serious, and they are not credible. Until they are, they are not electable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Select Committee Chair.

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

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to champion access to a consistent, trusted digital ID. All of us online have digital IDs aplenty already—Facebook, TikTok, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Tesco—so she is right to bring the benefits of one digital ID to my constituents. But making digital ID mandatory for everyone seeking work is poking a stick in the eye of all those with security, privacy and/or Government capacity concerns, which my Committee will be examining as part of our work on digital government. For now, though, can she first confirm that people will be in control of their digital ID data and who accesses it? Secondly, will she say whether it will be procured externally from the private sector or developed in-house by Government digital services?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the important issues of security—people are rightly concerned about the security of their data, and that is why that will be at the heart of our consultation. In answer to her specific questions: yes, people will control who sees and accesses their data, and we absolutely expect this system to be designed and built within Government, building on the One Login.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank Secretary of State for advance sight of this statement, but I am quite frankly disappointed that this is how we are starting the conversation on digital ID in Parliament. We Liberal Democrats believe that freedoms belong to citizens by right, but the Government’s plans for digital ID for every single working person risk eroding the hard-won freedom to control the way we live our lives. They risk excluding millions of vulnerable people from their own society and wasting billions in public money chasing expensive solutions that will not work. Yet again, it is a gimmick to tackle irregular migration—something I had hoped was reserved for the Conservatives. Yet again, by eroding public trust with these rushed, retrofitted policies, the Government have squandered an opportunity to use technology to improve public services by bringing people with them. In addition, the Government announced this—a scheme that will impact every single working person in the UK—weeks before it could be scrutinised by Parliament.

Any claims from this Government that this scheme will be non-compulsory and give agency are poppycock in reality. As a requirement for the right to work, it is mandatory ID in all but name—the Secretary of State said so herself just now. Where is the choice in that? Last week, the Foreign Secretary proposed issuing digital IDs for teenagers. This is clear Government mission creep, and it is dangerous.

Liberals have always stood up against concentrations of power, and for good reason. We have seen the Government’s abject failure to secure people’s data before—just ask the victims of the Legal Aid Agency data breach or the armed forces personnel who were victims of the Ministry of Defence data breach whether they have faith in the Government to keep their most personal data secure. How can the public have trust in the Government to manage a system that will manage the data of almost the entire population?

Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing an impact assessment for the 8.5 million people without foundational digital skills, such as my constituent Julie, who does not own a smartphone and is fearful of being excluded from employment, healthcare and other essential services? Will the Secretary of State come forward with a plan to reduce the risk of further marginalisation?

All these serious concerns, from privacy to exclusion, come at a staggering cost. This scheme will cost the taxpayer billions—money that will be wasted on a system doing little to tackle the Government’s stated aims of immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, our public services are crumbling. Finally, I ask the Minister how much taxpayer money the Government are prepared to waste on this—a scheme for which they have no mandate and no public support—before they admit it does not work.

[Liz Kendall]

I will try to keep this brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady raises a number of different issues that I mentioned in my statement. On digital exclusion, we have a digital inclusion action plan and will be spending £9.5 million in local areas to help people who are currently excluded to get online. We will be publishing a full consultation on that, and I am sure she will feed in her views.

It is interesting that the Liberal Democrat leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said last month that if a UK system were about giving individuals the power to access public services, he could be in favour of it. I hope the Liberal Democrats drop their partisan approach and work with us to deliver the system. I say to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members that many, many other countries have digital ID systems. The EU is rolling out a digital ID system in all member states—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Ah! [Laughter.]

[Liz Kendall]

I know that those on the Conservative Benches do not like it. I think we need to keep a little perspective.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Just over a month ago, I visited Tallinn, in Estonia, to understand why digital ID is so popular with the old, the young and those who are defined as digitally excluded. They told me that it is because they have control over their data that is held by the state; they can see it, see who has accessed it and who else can see it. What is critical, in a state that borders Russia, is that they have confidence in their absolute control over their data security. I believe there are lessons that we can learn.

In the UK, my constituents want to know who is in this country, who is legally entitled to use our public services, and who is entitled to work here. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to learn from countries such as Estonia and Denmark on those matters?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is right that the citizens of this country rightly want to know who has a right to be here and who has a right to work here. That is a very important principle.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I am wholly opposed to this policy, as I know are many of my constituents. While the Government have talked about the so-called economic benefits of accessing services and digitalising how we interact with Government, my constituents are concerned about infringements on liberty and the shifting relationship between the individual and the state. The state must always be accountable to the individual. Can the Secretary of State rule out this system ever becoming one through which the Government can track location, consumer spending habits or social media activity?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I appreciate the Secretary of State setting out the Government’s ambitions. I have to pick her up on something, though, because she said this policy would be free, but ultimately the taxpayer will have to pay for it. The costings that we have seen are about £1 billion to £2 billion to create the system and another £100 million each year to run it. We know the cost of a data breach: the Office for Budget Responsibility has suggested it could be 1.1% of GDP—in fact, our entire growth—were it to happen to the economy. Marks & Spencer, Jaguar Land Rover and Co-op have all shown us that. Can the Secretary of State therefore give us at least a ballpark figure for the capital and revenue costs that she envisions for what she has set out?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We also need to look at the potential benefits of this policy in savings from cracking down on fraud and making services more effective and efficient. Clearly, the eventual cost will depend on the design and build of the system, which is what we are consulting on. I am sure that she and many other colleagues will feed in their views.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Given that digital ID will not stop illegal immigration and will further erode our civil liberties, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister announced it only as a deterrent to those seeking to topple him at the Labour party conference? If not, what is the actual purpose of this policy?

[Liz Kendall]

That is nonsense.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by a large number of constituents in recent weeks, whose healthy scepticism about digital ID making a material difference in tackling illegal immigration I share. I think there is scope for better digital integration across the public sector more generally, but the Secretary of State talked in her statement about a lot of hypothetical things—things that this policy could do in the future—and the only use case that has been confirmed so far is right-to-work checks. Can we be clear on the use cases that we intend to pursue and over which timescales, so that we have the information we need to make a decision on whether we want to go down this path?

[Liz Kendall]

These are not hypotheticals; we are looking at how other countries have used these systems to deliver more effective Government and other services to their citizens. We have proposed having mandatory right-to-work checks by the end of the Parliament, but there will be many important voluntary ways in which people can better access services and support. We will be consulting on that fully when we come forward with the detailed proposals.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I am firmly against the Government’s plans to introduce digital ID, which is alarming state overreach. This pledge—seemingly made on a whim, given that it made no appearance in the Labour manifesto and there is no mandate for it—seems to be a desperate attempt to shore up Labour’s moribund pledge to smash the gangs. There appears to be little appetite or enthusiasm for this proposal on the Government Benches, and the claim that it will curb illegal immigration, when we are still offering asylum seekers somewhere to live and an asylum support enablement card of £49.18 a week, is not supported by the evidence. Having received a huge amount of correspondence on this matter, I ask the Secretary of State what guarantees she can give my constituents that the scheme can be afforded, that their data will be safe, and that the scheme will be never used to track their use of services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I have already said that the scheme will not be used for that. In many other countries these systems have made accessing Government and public services much easier, quicker and more efficient. I think there is some scaremongering about this issue. Such schemes in other countries really have made Government fit around people, rather than making people fit into Government and their different services, and I think that is a huge benefit.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Given the serious threats that digital ID poses to civil liberties and our data security and the risk of our data being handed over to US tech giants, I am firmly opposed to it. However, is it not also a real big waste of money, and should the Government not instead focus on the No. 1 priority of people across the country, which is tackling the cost of living crisis? Would it not be better to push the money from this into that while safeguarding civil liberties?

[Liz Kendall]

I think that providing better value for taxpayer money by getting services to work more quickly, effectively and efficiently and by cracking down on fraud and reducing error and waste is a really important part of delivering for the British people.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I fully agree with many of the points made so far, and I too have had many comments from constituents. This scheme will not help in areas of digital exclusion, especially where there is poor phone coverage, as there is in many parts of Devon, and neither will it stop rogue employers who currently employ cash in hand and do not look at the books. Why would they look at ID on a phone? They will not. Digital ID must be optional. Could the Secretary of State please assure us that it will be built along the lines of sovereign AI and that we will not hand over control of a system like this, with information about people’s lives, to companies such as Palantir?

[Liz Kendall]

We absolutely will not. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with more detail about areas and groups of people in his constituency who are digitality excluded, I will make a commitment to doing everything possible to tackle that problem.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I think that many Members have fundamentally misunderstood the proposal. It is actually about putting power in the hands of the citizen, not the state. The state already holds this information; digital ID will allow citizens to access it. On fraud, £11.4 billion was lost in scams last year, and £1.8 billion per year is lost due to identity theft. Does the Secretary of State see a role for digital ID in cracking down on the growing problem of fraud and identity theft?

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely do. The countries that have introduced digital ID have found that it helps to tackle fraud. People can lose forms of identity and they can be used by other people. The scheme will help to tackle that problem as well as make services more effective and efficient.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am completely opposed to digital ID cards as a matter of principle. The proposal was not in the Labour party manifesto, and the Government have no mandate for it. It is basically a multibillion-pound gimmick to try to address the fact that small boat arrivals are up a third since they came to power and they have not got the faintest clue how to stop them. I have two very specific questions to ask of the Secretary of State. First, how much—even as a ballpark figure—will it cost to bring in this system? Secondly, if it is to be mandatory, which would be completely wrong, what would be the penalty for a citizen who refuses on principle to have digital ID?

[Liz Kendall]

I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman thinks that people should not be required to prove that they have the right to work in this country. It seems a very reasonable thing to do. Some 92% of people over 16 have a phone, and as I said in answer to a previous question, we are consulting on how we will design and develop this whole programme. Further details about costings will come out in due course.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On the Public Accounts Committee we regularly hear examples of Government IT systems that are out of date, inefficient and open to fraud and hacking. That is the reality of it. When looking at other countries such as Estonia and Denmark, will the Secretary of State also look at how they have completely reformed and recreated modern, comprehensive IT systems where individuals have easy access? In Estonia, as I understand it, an individual has the right to know which parts of Government have looked in their IT systems at them.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will be learning lessons from those countries. People will be able to see who accesses their data, so this proposal will give them more power and control.

If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will reply to the second question from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). There will not be a sanction or penalty for people who do not carry digital ID. There will remain penalties on employers who do not obey the law and do ID checks, but there will not be penalties on the individual.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I am not sure, however many examples the Secretary of State gives of other countries, that she will convince the people of Britain that mandatory ID cards fit with our particular values. Will she listen to the millions who signed the parliamentary petition, as well as to the fighting Yorkshireman Harry Willcock and the Churchill Government of 1952, who considered the abolition of ID cards an important symbol of a society that trusted its citizens?

[Liz Kendall]

I think that when the British people—so many of whom now have online banking on their phones and store so much in their digital wallets—look at their friends, neighbours and colleagues across the channel and see that many across Europe have digital ID as a matter of course and that it makes their lives simpler and easier, their common sense will say, “We want a bit of that.”

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

As Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital identity, I welcome the Government’s proposals. However, many of my constituents have deep concerns and are seeking reassurance. In order to build trust in the digital ID system, it would help if people felt that they had choice and control over whether to use digital ID or not. As such, will the Secretary of State look again at the proposal for mandatory digital ID for adults and allow people a choice for non-digital alternatives, which incidentally would offer resilience against IT failure, and control over their data with a decentralised or federated data approach?

[Liz Kendall]

The Prime Minister has been very clear that it will be mandatory for right to work checks, but I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we do not want one big, centralised data set and that it will be federated. That is one of the lessons we learned from other countries. I am sure that there are many more things we will have to do to make sure that people’s data is secure, but this will give people more control because they will be able to see who accesses their data, and that is a good thing.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

If it were not so sinister, it would be quaint to hear the Secretary of State say that it is international, novel and modern, and therefore it must be good. Try telling that to Jaguar Land Rover workers, M&S customers, or postmasters and postmistresses. Will the right hon. Lady recognise what I recognised when I was the Home Office Minister responsible for national cyber-security: when one concentrates data and makes it interconnected and interoperable, one also concentrates risk, and the risk is that people lives will be damaged and possibly even destroyed?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He has a lot of experience in this area. We want not only to learn from other countries but to work closely with the National Cyber Security Centre to make sure that we have the highest possible standards of security. Where mistakes have been made, we can learn to put them right, and we are determined to do that. I am very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this in more detail, because we want to get this right.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

Identifying rogue employers who exploit labour and dodge taxes is one thing. However, it makes no difference whether someone holds digital ID over paper ID if the employer refuses to acknowledge the ID. Could the Secretary of State point to the evidence, which I am very interested to see, of how a digital ID will prevent rogue employment?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Member is always rightly concerned to see the evidence, and when we publish our consultation on this proposal she will see it all there. It is important to understand that making ID checks mandatory and digital, rather than solely relying on getting information from individuals, as we do at the present, can make a real difference in identifying those who are not doing the full range of checks. It is not the only thing we need to tackle rogue employers, and there are many other actions we need to take, but it is a good step forward.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Just as we opposed ID cards under Tony Blair, we will oppose digital ID under this Labour Government, as they seek once again to impose this unwanted scheme on a sceptical public. The whole idea of digital ID is an attack on our liberty and privacy. It is a treasure trove for hackers and those who would hoard personal data. It will do little to tackle illegal immigration and it will cost billions of pounds. We in Scotland want nothing to do with this Britcard, and the Scottish Government will energetically oppose it. My question to the Secretary of State is this: when we rightly and inevitably oppose and reject this, will she do the usual UK thing of imposing it on us anyway?

[Liz Kendall]

It is not a Britcard. I must say that I am tiny bit confused, because in March 2021 the Scottish Government published “A changing nation: how Scotland will thrive in a digital world”, which included plans to

“Introduce a digital identity service for users…to prove who they are, and that they are eligible for a service.”

The hon. Member had better make up his mind.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I do not know how many doors I have knocked on in my 12 years as a Labour member, but I do know that not a single person has ever told me that what they really need to improve their lives, their community and the country is mandatory digital ID. It will not tackle irregular working, it would undermine civil liberties, it is divisive among the public, and it will not make a difference to people’s lives. Why are we doing it? Why are we burning political capital and public money on that instead of focusing on the issues that really are impacting our constituents? I worry that this is yet another huge mistake.

[Liz Kendall]

In the 15 years that I have been an MP, many people have said that it can be a nightmare trying to talk to different bits of the public sector: repeatedly having to give the same information and tell their story time and again. They are concerned about illegal working in this country. This is an important step forward in terms of improving how the state fits around people’s lives—it does not force them to fit into the system—and I think that is an issue that many Members across the House have in common with their constituents.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her new position. I am mindful of her previous position, where she masterminded the personal independence payment reforms, so with her proposals before us today I am concerned that she is fast becoming the Minister for lost causes. In my constituency, we have an awful lot of people who are digitally excluded; it is really sobering. Will she please give us some clear examples of how people will be helped? I know of dozens and dozens of people who are against the proposal in principle, but what about those who will potentially be excluded?

[Liz Kendall]

We have a £9.5 million digital inclusion fund that will support local organisations with grants of between £25,000 and £500,000 to help specific groups of people who are currently digitally excluded, to ensure that they can get the benefits of all manner of different private and public sector services that are available online. We will announce the results of the application process shortly. As always, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman for him to tell me about the specific issues in his constituency. If we need to do more to ensure that everybody is digitally included, we will act.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Well, here we go again, 15 years after the Conservatives abolished it. I say to the naysayers that our passport data and our driving licence data is on a database, so we need to be careful about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

We have had GOV.UK Verify and Tell Us Once, so there have been attempts to do this, and we all log into our HMRC accounts, so we are using digital identification in many ways, but will the Secretary of State be really careful about the challenges that some will face? Also, why on earth is it mandatory? The previous proposal was for voluntary use, and interestingly it was popular with migrants, who really wanted to have that ID to prove their right to access, but they did not have to do so. That would allow public services the time to work with those who are digitally excluded.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend has a huge amount of experience on this issue; I look forward to discussing it with her. The only area where we are proposing the digital ID to be mandatory is for right-to-work checks. [Interruption.] No, we are not proposing it to be mandatory for any other area. I believe that as people start to see those benefits, they will want to have it on their phone for accessing public services as well as those in the private sector. We have to get the security right and we have to get digital inclusion right, but I believe that in today’s world, where so many of us have so much information on our phones, there has been a shift in opinion. I look forward to hearing more from her about what she thinks we need to do next.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

This ID card is being touted as an idea to do mandatory work checks. It rather surprises me that the right hon. Lady, who until recently was in charge of the Department for Work and Pensions, is not aware that we already have mandatory checks in order to work. Her statement was contradictory: she said that it will give people more control over their data, but unless you are a multimillionaire who does not need to work, you will need to have an ID card, so it is not really optional at all. She has failed to answer questions from many MPs across the House on how much it will cost. Can she say how much it will cost?

[Liz Kendall]

At the risk of repeating myself, costs will depend on exactly the design, build and delivery of the programme. We will set out further details. I think people would expect that those who work here have a right to do so. That is an important principle, and one that I am proud to support.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and the consultation as a contribution towards modernising our public services. Constituents of mine are frustrated by how they cannot interact with the state. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), I went on the recent trip to Tallinn, and I was struck by not just how digital identity could make things easier, but how it could drive the uptake of things like childcare and pension credit and actually provide a service to people. I was also taken by the fact that, in Tallinn, the identity system was developed to stop the overreach of the state, and civil liberties are built into it. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that control and data use are a real part of the consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with my hon. Friend that this could give people more power and control over their data—who sees it and who uses it—as well as all the other benefits he rightly set out.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The British people did not vote for a two-tier digital police state run by this failing Labour Government. This policy is undemocratic and authoritarian and will do absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration. Will the Secretary of State listen to the overwhelming volume of public opinion and drop it immediately?

[Liz Kendall]

No.

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

I recall the debate about the previous attempt to bring in ID cards, when people were concerned about having to produce them if demanded by authorities such as the police. I too have been to Estonia, and I understand that the argument has moved on—we now have apps on our phones such as the NHS app and we have the GOV.UK One login, so we all have a digital footprint these days—but can my right hon. Friend categorically state that that at no stage in the future will people be required by the police to produce this digital ID?

[Liz Kendall]

I can.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

EU nationals in the UK were guinea pigs for a digital-only status. Serious concerns are still being raised, including about access issues that resulted in people being wrongly denied work, housing, education and welfare. Extending digital IDs to the British people will result in another layer of mandatory surveillance and loss of privacy. Will the Secretary of State confirm what independent oversight will monitor data breaches, errors and misuse?

[Liz Kendall]

There will not be surveillance, and we are not proposing that it will be mandatory to access all different types of services. That is just a wrong characterisation of what we are proposing.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

The current proposal is that digital ID will be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. Concerns have been raised with me by constituents that that makes it de facto mandatory for working-age people. Has the Secretary of State considered simply sticking with it as a voluntary service so that people who wish to can get the benefits of a streamlined ID, and then, when it is bedded in, perhaps looking at whether it is necessary to make it mandatory for right-to-work checks?

[Liz Kendall]

We have considered all those different aspects. It is right for the Prime Minister to say that it should be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of the Parliament to prove a person’s right to be here and to work. I also believe that as we develop it and show the benefits for many other aspects of daily life, for which we are not proposing it will be mandatory, people will see the benefits of that. I hope that that will start to shift the debate.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I want to pick up the question about punishment, because I am confused. The Secretary of State says that, in order to work, someone will have to have a digital ID—it will be mandatory—yet she also says that the impetus will be on the company and not the individual, who will not need to have one. How will that work? Will the individual have to have one? If they choose not to, will that mean they cannot work? Will it mean they have to claim benefit? Or will it mean they will go to prison because they do not have a mandatory ID?

[Liz Kendall]

No, that is not what it will mean. The specific question was whether there would be sanctions or penalties on a person for not having one, and I said, “No, there won’t.” As is the case now, if an employer has not done the required checks, it can face a civil penalty of up to £60,000 for each individual worker or, for a criminal offence, up to five years in jail, but there will not be penalties or sanctions on the individual.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, which set out clearly how far the UK is lagging behind our European neighbours on faster and easier access to services. That said, my constituents have raised two main concerns with me, and I would be grateful if she could provide some reassurance. One is about why they will require digital ID to work when they already have national insurance numbers, and the other is about how digital ID will impact the most vulnerable residents.

[Liz Kendall]

I hope that I have explained why digital ID needs to be mandatory for right to work checks, and the benefits of that as one part of a toolkit of things to crack down on illegal immigration. Making sure that vulnerable people—those who do not have smartphones or tablets, or the skills—have access is extremely important to me. We will be working closely with all the organisations that can make a difference and the digital inclusion action committee, and we want to look at what more we can do very locally to support groups that we know have access to people. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk in more detail about what we might be able to do to support her constituents, because we are determined to make sure that Britain is a digitally included country.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Through the Secretary of State, may I thank the Minister for Digital Government and Data, who is sitting to her left? He was in Belfast last week and engaged with the Minister for Communities in the Northern Ireland Executive. He will know, and she should know, that our principled and practical objections to this proposal 20 years ago remain to this day, but the Secretary of State will also know that since the policy’s announcement there have been many fanciful and facile comments in Northern Ireland suggesting that it would be in breach of the Belfast agreement. She knows that ideologically, practically, principally, politically and legally, that is wrong, so will she at least confirm today that nothing within the consultation will give an option to anyone to suggest that the policy, if it were to be introduced, would be anything other than across the United Kingdom?

[Liz Kendall]

It will be across the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Government and Data was in Northern Ireland just last week, and he also visited and talked to members of the Irish Government. The Good Friday agreement and the common travel area are absolutely sacrosanct. This will be a UK-wide proposal, and nothing that we do would ever harm the Good Friday agreement.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Over 20 years ago, I began a career with Experian, a data company, and we were talking about having a unique reference number for everybody in the country. That was for the benefit of companies, so that they could make more money off us, whereas what the Government are doing is looking to give us access to our own data. I am excited by digital ID, but I used a Facebook post to ask my constituents what they think. I had over 400 responses, which were really kind and considered—

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Niblett]

My question is this: with all the arguments for and against taken into account, and with trust in politicians and politics at an all-time low, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give that she will work with me to ensure that my constituents feel like this is being done with them, rather than to them?

[Liz Kendall]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will send me the results of her survey, and I will look through them in detail. I believe that if we can show people that the Government are changing, and that we are working around them and meeting their needs and concerns, that will be one of the ways in which we can build trust, and that is what we are determined to do.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

My constituents have been crystal clear with me: they do not want a mandatory digital ID forced upon them. It would mark a clear erosion of their civil liberties and—let us face it—the Government’s track record on data security is poor to say the least. Many in my constituency do not have phone signal or wi-fi, and rolling out digital ID is set to cost between £1 billion and £2 billion—four times what the Government plan to save with the family farm tax. Please, Minister, learn the lessons from the welfare Bill, listen to your Back Benchers and do not waste this colossal amount of taxpayers’ money.

[Liz Kendall]

I do not really know what the question was there.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and her comments on digital inclusion. Will she say a bit more about how the inclusion strategy might address some of the challenges faced by care-experienced young people and care leavers? Will she guarantee that the priority will be bringing together and integrating the public services and support that they are entitled to? Too often, they fall between the cracks of those services.

[Liz Kendall]

Absolutely. That is one of the issues that has already been raised with me directly, along with people who are homeless, women who may be fleeing domestic violence, people who do not have access to broadband, and a whole range of other issues. We will work closely with the groups that work with care leavers, but obviously we will want to talk to them ourselves. I am more than happy to follow up that conversation with my hon. Friend.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Why does the Minister think that a staggering 3 million people have already signed a petition against her expensive and intrusive plans? Does she perhaps think that those people want her to get on with fixing things that matter to them, like illegal immigration and smashing the gangs, which this measure will do nothing to fix, as the construction of her statement seemed to suggest she understands? Will she spend her time trying to sort things that really matter to people, rather than trying to create problems to which there is no obvious solution?

[Liz Kendall]

At the risk of repeating myself, I think that trying to get Government services to talk to one another and work more effectively is what people want. The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of action on illegal immigration. The Home Secretary has made it clear that she will do whatever it takes to secure our borders. [Interruption.] Somebody asked, “How’s it going?” Removals are up to 35,000. Returns of foreign national offenders are up 14%. We have taken the first step in our French returns deal, and we are investing an extra £100 million to boost our border security. There is much more to do. I think this is one of the tools to do it. I believe that it is possible for the Government to tackle illegal immigration and transform our public services and give people greater control over their data. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government did not, but this Government do.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Thirty-one per cent of children in Wales live in poverty, and 25% of households in Wales are in fuel poverty. Given the scale of the crisis facing people, does the Minister honestly believe that an intrusive and unpopular digital ID system should be a priority?

[Liz Kendall]

Tackling child poverty is also a priority, as the hon. Lady will see when we produce our strategy.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The people of Mid Bedfordshire, in response to my survey, said that they do not want digital ID, and nor do I. Does the Secretary of State agree that the individual freedoms of British people are an unacceptable price to pay for failures to enforce existing laws, protect our borders and stop illegal working? Will she please answer how much this will cost? If she does not know at this moment in time, is it responsible of her to be pushing it?

[Liz Kendall]

How much this costs will depend on exactly how we design and build it. I believe that this will help tackle illegal immigration and help give people more control over their data. There is a lot of misinformation out there about what this will and will not do. I do not believe it will take away people’s freedoms. I do not believe that people in Estonia, Denmark, Australia, France and many other countries believe it takes away their freedom either.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

As has been mentioned, the petition opposing the Government’s proposals is the fourth largest that the people of this country have signed. I have had nearly 100 emails from my constituents opposing the scheme. Will the Secretary of State please commit to documenting every single use case for the scheme, and will she say how the separate islands of automation across Government and public services will be prepared to take advantage of a single digital ID?

[Liz Kendall]

All those details will be set out in the consultation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will respond to that. I will say once again that many other countries do this. They have learned from experience about security, and they have learned how to keep people’s data secure. We will learn the lessons from what they have done, and I look forward to his response to the consultation.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I have been contacted by a contractor who worked on the last Labour Government’s ID card scheme. He wrote to me that

“it was a massive waste of money”

and suggested that it could be like

“writing Fujitsu a blank cheque”.

What sum are the Government setting aside for that cheque to the contractor to pay for the development of digital ID?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me earlier, but I said that it will be designed and built in-house.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Let us be absolutely clear: a national digital ID system creates infrastructure for surveillance and control, not freedom or efficiency, and in the hands of future Governments it could be weaponised against the most vulnerable communities. That is not a hypothetical threat. History shows us how identity systems have been used to target the powerless. We do not build tools of authoritarianism and simply hope they are never misused. Will the Government listen to the overwhelming public concern from more than 2 million people, many of whom are my constituents, and finally scrap this draconian proposal?

[Liz Kendall]

I think there is a lot of misinformation out there about this proposal. It is not about surveillance; it is not about a police state—the police will not be able to stop people and require them to show their digital ID. In many other countries where such a scheme has been used, it has been about making the Government and the state more effective and efficient and about giving people greater control over their data so that they can actually see it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman uses search engines or whether he has any form of online banking on his phone, but I gently say to him that the world has moved on. I understand that lots of people have concerns, but I believe that there is a strong case for making this happen, just as it has happened in many other countries.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I respect the Secretary of State greatly, but honestly on this one I am afraid I just cannot support her whatsoever. I say that because the opposition to this ID in the United Kingdom is great, but in Northern Ireland, the Labour party, the Government and the Secretary of State in particular have managed to unite all the political parties against it. My goodness—she should do more stuff on Northern Ireland affairs, because if she can get everybody together, we could do things that were never done before. I say this with great respect: this is not about illegal immigration; this is about the nanny state. It is the first step on an icy, slippery slope—an imposed restriction by Government—and my constituents are saying no. Would the Secretary of State reconsider what she is putting forward, because really, it is going nowhere in Northern Ireland?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman and I agree on a football club, but it would appear that we do not agree on digital ID. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts visited Northern Ireland last week. We will work through all the different institutions. I want to be very clear to anybody who has concerns about this that it is not a Brit card—that is not what we are calling it. We want to ensure that security and privacy are built in from the start. The Good Friday agreement is absolutely sacrosanct. I think there are real advantages here: when people see the system that we want and the benefits to their lives, they may reconsider their views.

Points of Order

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member has put his point on the record, and someone on the Government Front Bench will no doubt be making a note in order to notify the appropriate Ministers. It is appropriate for colleagues across the House to notify colleagues when they are visiting their constituencies for work and political reasons.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I really apologise if we did not inform the hon. Gentleman that we were coming. That was an error and we will make sure that we put it right.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—