Online Safety

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. It is heartening that she so clearly recognises the seriousness and urgency of the child safety issue before us. I welcome the spirit of today’s statement in two capacities: as shadow Secretary of State and as a mother. Every parent wants to know that, when their child inevitably picks up a phone, they have done everything reasonably possible to protect them from exploitation, abuse and harmful content.

We should take a moment to remember children such as 16-year-old Murray Dowey, who took his own life just hours after being tricked into sending an intimate image online. No young person should ever be put in that position, and no family should ever have to endure such a tragedy. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on device-level protections, particularly the commitment that children will be prevented from taking or sharing nude images on their devices. That is a huge practical step, which has the potential to prevent immeasurable harm.

I remember raising device-level protection from the Back Benches before summer recess, so I am pleased that this work is being pursued. But although the good intent is clear, the execution is often more challenging, so I would welcome more detail on the Secretary of State’s plans, including on what exactly can be done to ensure that tech companies take more responsibility in this space.

Before recess, the Government set technology companies a clear three-month deadline. Ministers said that if sufficient progress was not made, they would act. The Secretary of State’s assessment today is that progress has not been good enough, so the House now needs to know exactly what will happen next. We have heard a commitment to primary legislation, but “as soon as we can” is not yet a timetable. When does the Secretary of State expect to introduce the legislation? She has also said that the Government may reassess whether legislation is necessary if companies make sufficient progress in the meantime. What precisely would constitute sufficient progress and who will make that judgment?

I would welcome clarity on the devices themselves. Is the aim for these planned protections to apply only to new phones and tablets, or will companies be expected, wherever technically possible, to push them through software updates to devices already in use? Millions of phones are in young hands at this very moment. Protecting only the next generation of devices would leave a large gap. Where older devices cannot support these measures, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the scale of that problem?

The Secretary of State also said today that

“there is a central role for Government in shaping…technology for good”.

It is a very broad proposition, and I hope that she can reassure the House about exactly what she means by it. The Opposition want to see device-level protection and support further exploration, but it is just one part of a far larger picture. I pay tribute to the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who has led the charge by the Conservatives for stronger online protections for children. As His Majesty’s Opposition, we have relentlessly pushed for restrictions on social media for under-16s. To be frank, the Government got to the right place in the end, but we did have to drag them kicking and screaming. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the under-16s social media restrictions remain on course for early 2027, and that the necessary age assurance and enforcement arrangements will be ready in time?

There is considerable common ground across this House. We want parents to be more empowered, children to have stronger protections, and technology companies to take responsibility for the content they display to young people. I look forward to working constructively across the House with the Secretary of State and the Ministers towards these worthy goals.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member for the way that she has engaged with these proposals. I will try my best to briefly answer as many of her questions as possible. First, on the detail, I have instructed my officials today to begin working up legislation. I appreciate that it is frustrating when a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says, “We intend to do this imminently”—the hon. Lady’s party has been in government; they understand the difficulties—but I want to reassure her and the whole House that we intend to do this without delay. The only reason there is not a firm timetable at the moment is because we are the first country in the world to do it. There are a number of questions, some of which she posed, which we need to iron out to ensure that we get this right.

On what would constitute sufficient progress that would rid us of the need to introduce legislation, I would much rather the technology companies move at pace to meet their own social and moral obligations, but in the absence of that, the Government will step up and act. Frankly, if we were able to reach a situation very quickly, which we should be able to do with the right will, where children were not able to take or share nude images, then the problem would be solved. But I have to say, based on what I have seen in progress over the last three months, it is almost certain that we will be legislating in this area.

The hon. Lady asked about which devices. It is phones and tablets at a minimum, but I accept the point she makes, and we are exploring whether it is possible to extend this to other forms of technology.

The hon. Lady asked what I meant when I talked about shaping technology for good. I am a big supporter of the action we are taking on social media for children. I say this as the mum of an 11-year-old and someone who is going through it at the moment and trying to help navigate that; I know all parents across the House will recognise the challenges. I would love us to get to a situation as a country where all people, including children, can be online and find good, trusted information and things that help them to be creative, to feel empowered and to enable them to live the richer, larger lives that they want to live. I think the Government have a right and proper role in helping that to happen. One of the ways in which we are already doing that, building on the great work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), is in trying to use gov.uk as a pioneering service that really does help people to live better lives.

The hon. Lady says that this Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to doing this. Her party was in government for a very long time, and the amount of time it took them to try to introduce any legislation in this area at all was quite shameful. That is not to downplay the role that some members of the Conservative party played in ensuring that we got there, but if it was not for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West, I do not think I would be standing here today in a position to make this announcement. We should give credit where credit is due: this is a Government who are leading the world in keeping children safe.

The last thing the hon. Lady asked me about, which I know many colleagues are concerned about, is the social media ban that we announced earlier this year. I can reassure the House that we do intend to stick to both the spirit and the letter of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West set out earlier this year. We are on track to meet the timetable that she set out, to lay the first regulations by the end of this year and for the ban to come into force in the spring of 2027. We also intend to go somewhat further than our initial proposition statement, and I would welcome the opportunity to talk with the hon. Lady in more detail about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Celebrating culture as a community can be an incredibly unifying experience, and many people will have enjoyed Notting Hill carnival this weekend, but 636 people were arrested for crimes including sexual offences and possession of weapons. Last year, it cost about £16 million just to police the carnival, and this year a further £4.6 million of taxpayers’ money was provided for additional safety measures. Given those figures, are the Minister and the Secretary of State satisfied that this particular cultural event represents good value for taxpayers? What discussions is the Secretary of State having with colleagues about whether the present approach is sustainable?

[Ian Murray]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her position and welcome her to her place. I look forward to the many discussions the ministerial team will have with her shadow ministerial team. I am sure that she will do a marvellous job.

It was the 60th anniversary of Notting Hill carnival. Everyone is concerned about the 636 arrests. It is a carnival that has been enjoyed by tens of millions of people over the past 60 years. Its policing is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, and we will work closely with the Mayor of London on what will happen over the next 60 years of the Notting Hill carnival. It is something that we should celebrate and enjoy, but that has to be done safely, without discrimination for anyone and without fear or favour for anyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her warm words. I am looking forward to working constructively with her and her team.

May I begin by paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were killed in a horrific head-on collision on the A66 last month? The car that collided with them was travelling in the wrong direction. My thoughts are with their families and friends at this terrible, terrible time. Their deaths have renewed concern about videos on TikTok and other platforms that glorify dangerous driving and police chases. The behaviour these videos encourage can have fatal consequences. We know the Government recently raised this issue with social media companies, yet the content remains up. What more will the Minister and the Secretary of State do to ensure that TikTok and other platforms crack down on that before more lives are lost?

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, first of all, to pay tribute to those incredible police officers who lost their lives. May I associate myself with her remarks and put on record my sadness, love and sympathy to their families and loved ones? I agree with her that there is more that must be done to tackle what is becoming an epidemic in young people in particular using social media to encourage dangerous behaviour. I have a meeting set up with TikTok in the coming days. We have obviously been in close discussion with it and other social media companies since that tragic, appalling incident, but there is more that we as a Government intend to do and I would be very happy to meet her to discuss that further.

Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Sport occupies a special place in this country. We all know the power that it has to bring communities together, inspire millions of people to take part, and provide some of those increasingly rare occasions when the whole country seems to stop and watch the same thing. Britain can also take enormous pride in its place in the sporting world. There is no doubt that we excel across the board, and the patriotism that such events can generate is truly wonderful.

We are home to Wimbledon, the Open, the British Grand Prix and the London marathon. We have successfully hosted Olympic and Paralympic games, Commonwealth games, world cups and European championships—and we do it exceptionally well. Those events are part of our national culture. They create memories that last for generations, inspire children to pick up a racket, a football or a pair of running shoes, and showcase the very best of Britain to audiences around the world.

By way of example, take the London Olympics and Paralympics, which the Secretary of State has just mentioned—we obviously share some similar memories. I think it is fair to say that, before it started, there was a bit of grumbling about the disruption, cost, impact and even the logo, as some Members may remember. But once it started, the overwhelming pride that we all felt in our home nation, our capital and our sportsmen and women was something that I am sure none of us will forget. It was a truly momentous, once-in-a-lifetime event that made me so proud to be British. Those of us—including me—who worked in London at that time, certainly enjoyed the instruction to try to work at home during that busy period.

These big sporting events are not only sources of pride and joy for millions. Taken as a whole, sport is also a roaring economic engine. The Government’s latest estimates suggest that the wider sport sector directly contributed £63.2 billion to the UK economy in 2024 and accounted for 1.3 million jobs.

Major sporting events alone can generate considerable returns for our country. In 2023, investment of £10.8 million from UK Sport and Government supported 16 major sporting events, which generated an estimated £373 million for our economy. The Birmingham Commonwealth games is a particularly striking example, with research finding that the games contributed almost £1.2 billion to the overall UK economy, as well as nearly £80 million in social value.

Those are very substantial numbers. They represent money being spent in hotels, restaurants and pubs, business for suppliers, employment in event management, broadcasting and security, and visitors coming to parts of the country they might otherwise never have visited.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her place. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On the point about economic benefit, I am the Member of Parliament for Silverstone, and the grand prix has given a huge boost to the economy in our area; it is vital part of our economy, but it is on the annual calendar only because of the hard work of the team to keep it there; there is no guarantee that we will have it every year. I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s looking at widening the definition of “major events” to capture Silverstone, because it is so valuable to our sporting calendar; it is absolutely vital.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. She is passionate about Silverstone, and she is absolutely right in all the points she makes. We must never be complacent about it; we must strengthen and build on all the great sporting events that we have in this country.

Sport also strengthens Britain’s reputation overseas. Few countries combine our extraordinary sporting heritage, wonderful venues, broadcasting expertise, enthusiastic crowds and experience of putting on major events that the whole world wants to see. It is therefore very much in our national interest to ensure that the United Kingdom remains one of the best places in the world to host these big events.

That is the context in which the Opposition approach the Bill. We support its underlying objective and will support its Second Reading. It absolutely makes sense, and it is in this country’s interests, to create a standing legislative framework of this kind.

When the United Kingdom bids to host a major international sporting event, the governing body will commonly require host country guarantees covering matters such as ticketing, commercial rights, advertising and transport. Historically, Parliament has often had to legislate specifically for individual events. There is an obvious inefficiency in recreating substantially similar provisions every time Britain secures another major tournament. If we know that certain protections are repeatedly required, it is reasonable to place a common framework on the statute book that can be tailored to the needs of individual events. This should make Britain a more competitive prospective host and give international sporting organisations greater confidence that the protections they require will be available.

That confidence is vital, as international competition to host major sport is fierce. Countries across the world understand the prestige that these events bring, the visitors they attract and the economic activity they generate. We cannot simply assume that Britain will continue to win the rights to host them if we become less accommodating than our competitors. We need to make the strongest possible case for the UK, and part of that is demonstrating that when we make commitments as a host nation, we have the legal framework to deliver them quickly and effectively.

With that objective in mind, there is much in the detail of the Bill’s proposed framework that we support. It is right that organisers should have effective tools to prevent professional ticket touts from exploiting supporters; it is right that genuine sponsors, who may invest very significant sums in making an event possible, should receive reasonable protection against businesses falsely passing themselves off as official partners; and it is plainly sensible to have the capacity to make temporary transport and traffic arrangements when hundreds of thousands of additional spectators may be moving around a city or region.

[James Naish]

The Secretary of State moved on from this quickly earlier. I wanted to talk specifically about transport arrangements, as in my constituency, we have three international venues in very close proximity, and it can be extremely difficult for the residents who live in that area. Would the shadow Secretary of State agree that it is extremely important that local councils have the power to enforce the transport plans that are put in place, so that the residents in the areas hosting these major sporting events can live alongside those venues?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is really important that we explore this in more detail in Committee. This obviously requires a bit of balance. We need to consider both sides of the matter to get to the right place. This is a great starting position, and hopefully we will have a lot more detailed discussions as the Bill moves through the House, assuming it passes Second Reading, which it looks likely to do.

We are not concerned about the concept of the Bill, and colleagues in the other place approached it in exactly the same spirit: they supported the principle, while working constructively to improve the legislation. I want to acknowledge the important work undertaken in the other place to ensure that the framework is of benefit to not only major one-off international tournaments, but the great recurring sporting events already woven into British national life, which the Culture Secretary mentioned. As originally drafted, the Bill risked producing the rather peculiar result that an international tournament visiting Britain for the first time might qualify for these protections, while Wimbledon, the Open, the London marathon or the British grand prix might not. That was a significant gap, and Opposition peers, including Baroness Evans and Lord Parkinson, worked closely with colleagues across the House, and with the sporting sector, to address it.

The All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association, the London marathon, Silverstone, the R&A, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and UK Athletics were among those supporting a widening of the framework to include repeat events. These great recurring events are not simply fixtures in our sporting calendar, but strategic national assets. They attract international audiences, support thousands of jobs, generate significant economic value and serve to showcase Britain around the world. We should therefore always seek to maximise the opportunities and returns that they bring.

As originally drafted, the Bill was principally aimed at major one-off or infrequent international events, but amendments made in the Lords widened that framework, so that our great recurring UK sporting events of national or international importance, such as Wimbledon, the Open, the London marathon or the British grand prix, can also ask to benefit from its protections. That does not mean that every protection in the Bill will now automatically apply to every one of those events every year, but where a major recurring event can demonstrate a genuine need for one or more parts of the framework, it can ask the Government to apply them. Ministers must then agree, and any use of the framework will remain subject to parliamentary approval. Baroness Evans put the principle neatly when she described the Lords’ approach as providing opportunity, not obligation. It is a sensible and proportionate approach, and I welcome the assurances that have been given that the final legislation will deliver that objective and allow our great recurring events to benefit from the framework.

I understand that there may be some technical tidying required as the Bill proceeds through this House, and we will engage constructively with the Government on that work to ensure that the Bill does what is intended. The sporting sector has worked hard to secure this change. I was hopeful that the Culture Secretary could reassure the House today that the Government remain committed to delivering it in full and to preserving the substance of what was achieved in the Lords, and I believe we have heard that from her today. I thank her for that.

There are inevitably some further areas that we will want to examine as the Bill enters Committee stage. That is not because we oppose the powers themselves, but because a permanent legislative framework needs to strike the right balance between giving organisers the protections they require and avoiding unnecessary burdens on those affected.

The first such area is the impact on existing businesses. One of the central reasons why we want major sporting events in Britain is the economic activity that they generate. We want visitors filling hotels, restaurants and pubs, we want local businesses benefiting from increased footfall, and we want traders to share in the opportunities created when tens or hundreds of thousands of people arrive in an area. There will plainly be occasions when crowd safety, security or legitimate commercial arrangements mean that some restrictions are necessary, but the Government’s own impact assessment assumes that a substantial proportion of street traders in affected areas may be unable to trade while restrictions operate. Colleagues in the other place pressed Ministers on that point and secured a useful change, requiring existing trading licences to be taken into account. The Government also committed to work with organisers and local authorities to consider alternative arrangements when an existing trader cannot remain in their usual location. In Committee, we will want to ensure that the practical arrangements around notice, authorisations and treatment of existing businesses are fair and proportionate.

The same principle applies to advertising. We support action against genuine ambush marketing. Official sponsors make substantial investments in major sport and are entitled to protection. At the same time, the framework should operate sensibly for existing advertisers and should distinguish between falsely claiming an official association with an event and legitimate commercial activity, such as a company truthfully promoting an athlete whom it genuinely sponsors.

In the Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay raised the concerns of the Advertising Association. The Government undertook further engagement with the industry, which we welcome. It would be useful to have an update from the Culture Secretary on how those discussions have progressed. Again, that strikes me as exactly the kind of detailed matter that could be worked through constructively in Committee.

Finally, clause 25 gives the Government a broad standing power to provide financial assistance in connection with sporting events. There is a certain lack of clarity about what the criteria and eligibility for such payments would be. I ask, again, that that be considered further in Committee.

We all want Britain to remain one of the finest places in the world to host major sport. We all want to attract new world cups, European championships and other global events, as that is good for the sporting sector, our economy, the country and our people. We are fortunate that Britain starts from a position of considerable strength, with its world-class venues, experienced organisers, passionate spectators, internationally recognised events and a sporting heritage that few countries can match. Now we must capitalise and further build on those strengths to fully unleash the sector’s potential. The Bill can meaningfully contribute to that.

Our task now is to preserve the improvements made to the Bill in the other place, so that we deliver on the intention of ensuring that our great recurring events are properly covered. The Opposition support the principle of the Bill and the ambition behind it, and we will support its Second Reading while working constructively with the Government to improve and clarify it further as it proceeds through the House.

BBC Leadership

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend makes the important point. Although none of us should seek to downplay the seriousness of the failings that the BBC has admitted, accepted, apologised for and now must show tangible action to address, the BBC is and remains the most trusted source of news in this country, and one of the most trusted sources of news all over the world. We lose that at our peril.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Like many in the Chamber, I want to see the BBC rebuild public trust and return to its core mission, but it must be recognised that as a result of its pro-gender-ideology bias, it failed to adequately report on issues such as the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the placing of violent men in women’s prisons, and the loss of women’s medals in sport to biological males. On top of all that, it has attributed the crimes of violent men to women. Calling a male sex offender “she” can never be responsible, impartial journalism. How does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the BBC moves away from its current ideological approach on gender to one based on facts and evidence?

[Lisa Nandy]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that she said she wants the BBC to return to its core mission, but that is deeply contested, as we can hear in the House. I do not believe that it is the role of elected politicians to tell any broadcaster what it can and cannot produce and what it can and cannot say, or to get involved in the minutiae of editorial decisions. I do think it is the right and proper role of the House to ensure that editorial standards are robust, thorough, well thought through and consistently applied. That is what the Government have been seeking to uphold in the conversations we have had with the BBC in recent weeks, and we will continue to do so.