Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal

Lola McEvoy Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

I do, but I will come to some of the issues regarding social media platforms in what I am about to say. I certainly would not want to stifle the freedom of speech of Newcastle fans expressing their genuine heartfelt sorrow about yesterday’s events.

I turn now to wider concerns that have been expressed about the Online Safety Act, which, although they are not the motivations of the petition creator, are undoubtedly held by a number of people who signed the petition. The number of petition signatories notably increased in the immediate aftermath of the implementation of age verification requirements that have been applied to significant parts of the internet, from pornography to some elements of social media. Here, I am afraid I find it significantly harder to provide balance in my introduction to the debate, having read the report by the Children’s Commissioner that was published in advance of the implementation of the OSA, which stated:

“It is normal for children and young people to be exposed to online pornography”,

as 70% of children surveyed responded that they had seen pornography online. The report also found:

“Children are being exposed at very young ages…the average age a child first sees pornography online is 13…More than a quarter…of respondents had seen online pornography by the age of 11.”

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a clear and coherent speech. I surveyed 1,000 young people in my constituency, and the forum leads of my online safety forum said that they had found graphic and disturbing content, which they had never searched for, regularly fed to them through the algorithms. Does the hon. Member agree that that is robbing children of their childhood and that age verification needs to be stronger, not weaker, as a result of the 2023 Act?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I agree that there is significant work to be done to effectively implement the OSA. I will touch on that, and the Minister may wish to do so in his response.

Crucially, the report by the Children’s Commissioner found that children were most likely to see pornography by accident—a key point that some of the criticism of the Act fails to grasp. The horrifying statistics, showing the scale of online harm to children that the OSA is working to reduce, make it obvious why in a recent survey 69% the public backed the introduction of age verification checks on platforms, and why children’s charities and children’s rights organisations overwhelmingly back the OSA and—to my hon. Friend’s point—want it implemented more rapidly and robustly.

I have heard that some petition signatories are particularly concerned about age verification on platforms, such as X, Reddit or Discord, beyond those specifically designed as pornography sites. However, the report by the Children’s Commissioner shows that eight out of 10 of the main sources where children saw pornography were not porn sites; they were social media or networking sites. Those platforms that choose to allow their users to upload pornographic content—some do not—should be subject to the same age-verification requirements as porn sites in order to keep our children safe.

Following the implementation of those provisions of the Online Safety Act, it was reported that UK traffic to the most popular pornographic websites was notably down. Yes, it was initially reported that there had been in spike in the number of virtual private networks, or VPNs, being downloaded for access to those sites, but research increasingly suggests it is likely that that trend was being driven by adults worried about their anonymity, rather than by children seeking to circumvent the age limitations.

The Online Safety Act addresses harms beyond those done by porn. Content that is especially harmful to children and that children should not have access to includes very violent content and content encouraging limited eating or suicide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

I agree with the hon. Lady. In my understanding, when the legislation was drafted, it was not initially clear to those who drafted it that AI would develop at the astonishing pace that it has in recent years. I ask the Minister to reflect on that point in addressing the implementation of the Act and its potential future evolution through primary legislation.

[Lola McEvoy]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for being so generous with his time. Can we also pass on to the Minister that, going forward, there is a possibility to brand bots? That would require the Online Safety Act to be amended to make sure that any profile that is a bot—generated by AI—is explicitly marketed as such, which would protect users as AI advances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The Online Safety Act certainly has its weaknesses, but I do not believe that it should be abolished. This law has made progress in protecting children online. Scrapping it would throw them right back to well-known harms.

I will briefly focus my remarks on one area where the Act is not adequate: AI chatbots. AI chatbots have developed rapidly in recent years and are becoming ingrained in our children’s lives. Let me give hon. Members a few figures. One in four children aged 13 to 17 in England and Wales have turned to AI chatbots for mental health support. Vulnerable children are even more at risk: 26% say they would rather talk to an AI chatbot than a real person, and 23% say they use chatbots because they do not have anyone else to talk to. Children do not have anyone else to talk to—this is the society we are creating.

[Lola McEvoy]

The Government launched the youth strategy last week, the first in over two decades. It was on the back of stark research that found that one in four children growing up today do not have a trusted adult they can reach out to. Does the hon. Lady agree that functioning AI could be put to good use in the NHS? It could support signposting and make sure that children can get to the charities doing great work to support them, rather than giving them algorithm-based advice?

[Ann Davies]

Absolutely. Personally, I think that the algorithms in the system are a disaster. Wales is very different from England, so I have to be careful that I am not treading on the toes of the Senedd, because it does excellent work on youth services, in fairness. In my Caerfyrddin constituency, we have a number of youth projects that are doing really well, including Dr Mz, which provides services to over 500 children every week who come through its doors. Surely a person-to-person conversation is so much better than looking for something online, because we do not know what is coming through the chatbot. This is my main concern.

I have mentioned the scale of the issue that we are facing. While I appreciate that a multifaceted approach is crucial to ensure that our children are safe and thriving, we cannot afford to get this wrong. Ofcom and the Secretary of State have acknowledged that AI chatbots mostly fall outside the scope of the Online Safety Act. I welcome the announcement from the Secretary of State that the Government are exploring the tougher regulation of AI chatbots, and I have asked Ofcom to clarify expectations for any that are covered by the Act, alongside a public information campaign coming next year. However, I am concerned that we are not moving at the pace or with the sense of urgency needed to get a real handle on this issue.

Can the Minister share more specific details about the Government’s plans and a timeline for implementing tougher regulation of AI chatbots? Online safety for children is a priority for all of us, and I hope that Members across the House can agree that this is a shared goal that must not be politicised. Diolch.