Role of Big Tech in Society

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. As I said, I am not going to reference particular tech companies or particular information or misinformation campaigns. I am trying to get Members across the House to raise their eyes a little and look at the big picture of the conflict, coming down the road, between big tech and sovereignty, democracy and all the people we represent. But the hon. Lady’s point is also on the record.

Again, the close relationship between big tech and Governments is necessary, but is none the less becoming increasingly problematic and conflicted. Tech needs smarter regulation, certainly more competition, and a recalibration and rebalancing of its relationship with Government. The collaboration between the two should not mean Governments turning a blind eye to the breaking of laws, or big tech enjoying public policy vetoes. With big tech come big responsibilities. Governments should not rush to absolve big tech of the wrongs of tech in return for future technology transfer and unfettered access, and better terms for collaborations with Government.

These questions arise, perhaps. If the relationship between Government and big tech is conflicted, is it also compromised? If so, does that compromise equate to a type of corporate kompromat? Who wins? Who loses? Who is in control? Has big tech gone beyond even the power of the global banking system in 2008? Has it become too big to fail, too big to challenge even if the challenge is by Ministers of the Crown, too big to be sufficiently stood up to and too big to be fairly taxed?

If the Government’s mantra is “In tech we trust”, I hope this debate will challenge Whitehall and the Government on the fact that that laudable aim does not come without significant, inherent and strategic risks for the whole of our country, our institutions and democracy itself—the people we represent. Therefore the challenge for Government is how they preserve the benefits of private sector collaboration while ensuring that no single point of failure or future political, trade union or operational dispute can jeopardise or threaten the UK’s national security, sovereign capabilities or strategic interests. Who is ultimately in control? Is it the client—in this case, the Government—or is it big tech, or individual tech companies? Is there a master switch, and if so, whose hand is on it? If we are talking about a particular tech company, who within the tech company has the final say on disputed deployment of that tech, or on philosophical or political disagreements?

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member share my concern that because of the speed at which big tech moves, we in this House as legislators always seem to be five steps behind where the technology is? How are we going to be able to regulate for a world that is faster paced than we are in this building?

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point. That is a challenge for all Governments and all Ministers, however able they are. We have a very good tech Minister here today, but it is a real challenge. The starting point is better co-operation, transparency and openness from big tech itself, as I set out in my introductory remarks.

It is the owner or owners—as in shareholders, the board, the advisory board or even other clients and customers—who may object to collaboration between a particular Government and a tech company. That is problematic. Or could tech companies themselves find a moral or political argument to turn off a particular Government service at a particular moment in time? That has been seen in recent months in the conflict in the middle east. We have seen it in China where certain tech companies have switched off their moral compass to placate the Chinese regime in exchange for commercial advantage. Meanwhile, freedom and democracy in China is set back. What can the Government do? There need to be more robust legislative safeguards. The Government need to collaborate with tech companies, of course, but not to capitulate.

In conclusion, tech companies should act as responsible corporate citizens, but they so often do not unless they are made to, and they are not made to enough for the reasons I have set out today. When Parliaments do regulate, tech companies fight it all the way. They weaponise the courts and demonise parents and legislators around the world who dare to even raise legitimate questions and scrutinise these companies. Big tech should not be asking what the minimum is it should do to keep Governments off its back, as it sees it, or to avoid negative publicity and public opinion. Big tech firms should be corporate leaders leading by example and setting high standards without Parliament or Ministers having to tell them what they should do. Big tech should do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this debate. Given the number of people present, it will be a successful debate, and it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.

Technology plays a huge role in all our lives. I think all of us in this room carry a smartphone or some sort of tablet device that we use to check emails, do social media or read the news and all sorts of things, so the debate is timely and important. I do not want to repeat the points that the right hon. Gentleman made, but I think big tech has a lot to answer for in harvesting individuals’ personal data, carrying out surveillance in marketing promotions and tracking us through various map applications. There is a lot to be said about big tech and about companies’ market concentration and algorithmic control in social media.

I did a school visit recently and was told about pupils missing school because they are hooked on social media overnight. They barely get any sleep and cannot come to school or perform well at school. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about political neutrality. Without naming names, a prominent social media platform comes to mind in terms of a lack of political neutrality. As we use big tech in our day-to-day lives for work, leisure and for personal reasons, there is a lot to be said about data sovereignty for individuals and also for Governments, businesses and cyber-security.

I want to make a point about France and Germany, whose Governments have been moving a lot of their software systems to open-source software, which is not part of big tech. I would like to see the British Government seriously analyse open-source options.

[Rosie Wrighting]

On cyber-security, in recent weeks the US Government have decided to block Claude’s new AI software, Fable 5. What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on new AI software and cyber-security?

[Navendu Mishra]

I have a lot to say about the Trump Administration, but I will not bore the House with those remarks. The threats we are seeing to modern society from artificial intelligence are quite serious and there is an unpredictable Government in Washington DC.

The Government should do a big piece of work, similar to that being done in France and Germany, on open-source software. I read an excellent book recently by American author Ben Tarnoff, called “Internet for the People”, and I would highly recommend it to the Minister and all Members of the House. It is about how we are where we are in terms of big tech.

The point made by the right hon. Member for The Wrekin about better and stronger regulation is important. I also want to touch on the digital services tax introduced in 2020. The rate of digital services tax in the UK is fairly low. In Austria, it is 5%; in France, it is 3%; and in Germany, it is 10%. We need to revisit that as a society, and make sure that big tech companies pay their fair share of tax.

I have tabled two written questions, UIN477 and UIN57573, asking whether the Government have a strategy for using open-source software; I would like to see them do a lot more on that. In Europe, our friends can see where the big tech platforms most of us use every day are leading us, and they are looking more and more at open-source software. Cyber-security and data sovereignty are really important issues.

I could go on and on, Sir Jeremy, but you are looking at me, so I will finish my remarks. I would love to hear the Minister address the points about open-source software and a digital services tax that could yield a lot more revenue for taxpayers.

Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.