Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I apologise for running late, Mr Stringer; I had an emergency constituent issue.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) not only for securing this vital debate on the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online, but for her ongoing campaigning on this issue. I was delighted to join her roundtable on the subject with Essity. We need strong voices in this place and, my word, I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s strong voice on this issue.

We are here to talk about women’s health, so I will focus on that, but I want to make it clear that we are all fierce advocates for men’s health as well. It is clear that women’s health is being pushed to the edges of the internet by systems that fail to distinguish between pornography and public health. Posts about periods, endometriosis, fertility, pregnancy loss, pelvic pain and menopause—ordinary facts about ordinary bodies—are down-ranked, age-gated or quietly buried, while explicit content remains only a tap away. This is not a harmless quirk: it reflects design choices made by tech companies, often heavily influenced by men, the male lens and the male view of the world.

As founder of Labour: Women in Tech, I have been campaigning for years to get more women into the industry and creating tech that is made to serve more people. More recently, I have launched a campaign for age-appropriate, inclusive and lifelong sex education with Cindy Gallop of MakeLoveNotPorn and the MakeLoveNotPorn Academy, a platform for creating the Google of sex education. Talking of tech, I know she is watching this debate live online—so hello, Cindy Gallop.

We want to take the shame, guilt and embarrassment—all of which are perpetuated by shadow banning—out of talking about sex. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) mentioned some embarrassing things that can happen in public, and she is a fierce advocate for giving parts of the body their proper anatomical names.

I will focus on the huge role that sexual wellbeing plays in our health and happiness. We cannot rest on our laurels and assume that everyone had relationships and sex education in school. In fact, completing formal education at 16—RSE is not mandatory to 18—does not mean that the relationships and sex education provided to a student was adequate. A recent Youth Select Committee report found that relationships and sex education in UK schools is woefully lacking, particularly for LGBTQ young people. Like many adults, young people therefore turn to the internet and social media to fill the gaps.

When the online classroom censors the syllabus, we fail people twice: first by not teaching them enough, and then by hiding the very information they seek. These failures play out across a lifetime. After cancer treatment, for example, a woman may experience significant changes, such as early menopause, pain, vaginal dryness and changes in desire. She may look for practical, compassionate advice, but find it flagged as “sexual content”. That delivers not support but silence.

When it comes to pregnancy and the months after birth, evidence-based guidance on pelvic floor recovery or painful sex is frequently hidden behind warnings, while myths about “bouncing back” flow freely, leaving new mothers to stitch together care in the dark. Content on perimenopause and the menopause, an experience that will touch half the population, explaining brain fog, joint pain, dyspareunia—genital pain before, during or after sex—and the role of hormone replacement therapy is throttled by filters that bury the very help that women need.

Censorship compounds existing inequalities. Disabled people receive very little support around having a healthy sex life. Even straightforward, evidence-based facts about masturbation helping some people to relieve menstrual cramps are too often treated as indecent rather than educational. On top of that, creators and clinicians feel compelled to contort language to avoid suppression, writing “seggs” instead of “sex”, or “b00bs” instead of “breasts”. This is not merely absurd; for some neurodivergent people, misspelled language is confusing and exclusionary, making essential health information harder to understand and access.

We should also acknowledge the pressures on the very people trying to provide education. Some sex educators on mainstream platforms, especially TikTok and Instagram, feel forced to use coded or alternative language to get any reach at all.

Milly Evans, who has nearly half a million followers on TikTok, told me she never knows what rules might be imposed from one day to the next. She has had her account suspended; had stretches where algorithms would allow her to reach only existing followers, therefore not expanding her reach; and had periods of outright shadow banning, meaning that no one saw what she posted. When educators must choose between clarity and visibility, the public loses. This is especially true for those who rely on free, accessible information.

There is a gendered double standard that we must confront: women are penalised for posting clinically accurate information that men can share with far fewer consequences. Cindy Gallop’s “Fairness in the Feed” campaign on LinkedIn highlighted this starkly, with women who changed their profile gender to male seeing their posts reach further. When the same message travels differently depending on who says it, bias is no longer incidental: it is embedded in the system. Of course, LinkedIn denies it, but I say look at the actions, not the words.

The knock-on effects are not only personal but are economic. Women’s health companies, start-ups, clinics, apps and retailers struggle to reach the very people they exist to serve because their content and advertising are throttled. Lucy Litwack is the owner and CEO of Coco de Mer, a company that helps women with desire and sexual pleasure, which are central to health and wellbeing. She said that she cannot even run promotions for her lingerie on Facebook because her company also happens to sell sex toys. That is not just a ban on the promotion of sex toys, which is questionable in itself—I do not see why that should be banned—but a blanket block on lingerie because of association.

If responsible brands cannot speak to consenting adults about lawful products, innovation is chilled and growth is starved. The founders then walk into investor rooms and are told, “Sorry, your reach is too small and your traction is too thin.” The system is creating problems and then punishing those who try to solve them.

Shadow banning is especially corrosive because it is deniable. There is no clear refusal, only diminishing visibility, fewer views and a creeping signal that plain speech about women’s bodies is unwelcome. The predictable result is self-censorship: creators soften terms, clinicians dilute clarity, charities tiptoe, and the space left in respect of accuracy is quickly filled by misinformation and predatory products.

All that is why, alongside Cindy, I have launched a public consultation alongside our campaign for lifelong sex education. It is not a fixed blueprint but a genuine invitation for contributors to share their evidence and lived experience. We are asking people to tell us what is working well, what needs to change and where they would like the agenda to land.

In the spirit of listening, I will outline some ideas that people might suggest we explore together. People might call for greater transparency from and due process for platforms, including through clear rules for sexual and reproductive health content. That would mean having explanations when posts are limited and timely, and human-reviewed appeals so that educational material is not swept up by blunt filters and biased enforcement.

People might propose a mechanism to recognise verified educational and clinical content, thereby allowing NHS bodies, registered charities and qualified clinicians to label health education so that it is not misclassified as adult content, while still meeting robust safety standards.

People might ask for independent scrutiny and measurement so that we can track the visibility of sexual health content for women and men, LGBTQ communities, neurodivergent people and disabled people. That would allow us to compare enforcement patterns across genders and communities, audit algorithms and training data for bias, test whether changes actually help people to find the information that they need, and help responsible women’s health companies and educators to reach them.

People might also recommend partnerships that place trusted resources where people already are, such as GP surgeries, workplaces, community centres, schools and the large public platforms. That would make accurate guidance available at key life stages such as puberty, when making decisions about consent and contraception, pregnancy and postpartum recovery, illness and treatment, and the menopause transition.

What I have outlined are not conclusions; they are suggestions. They are invitations to shape a programme that is built with the public, rather than being handed down to them. Yet whatever solutions emerge will succeed only if the channels that carry our information stop choking on the words that we need to use.

Censorship by algorithm is still censorship, and when it hides women’s health, it harms half the country—quietly, cumulatively and needlessly. We should not accept an internet where it is easier to encounter pornography than to find clinically sound advice about pelvic pain, menopause, cancer recovery or accessible sexual wellbeing for disabled or neurodivergent people. We should not accept rules that police women’s language while allowing men to say the same things more frequently, nor a market that punishes health founders and educators for trying to solve the very problems that the system creates.

The consultation is open and we want people to share what already works, identify the gaps and point us to changes that would make the greatest difference. Together, we can bring women’s health out of the algorithmic shadows and into the light.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement, and I am particularly delighted to read the part that says, “Where the law fails to provide adequate protection, we will strengthen it.” As someone who had a case thrown out by the Crown Prosecution Service for being an MP, and who was told that I should just have thicker skin, that is welcome news—and I do have thick skin. Does the Minister share my concern that Members of this House are benefiting from engagement with platforms such as X and taking a significant income? They are essentially benefiting from angry engagement, and the money goes directly into their pockets.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very sorry to hear about what happened to my hon. Friend. She is right to refer to the work that we are doing. We are strengthening the law in order to provide additional protections for Members and elected representatives. She makes a good point and poses a good challenge, and I know it will have been heard and agreed with across the House.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

There is a little irony in the SNP advising the Labour Government that we should spend more taxpayers’ money on worse public services, which is exactly what the SNP has been doing for the last 20 years in Scotland. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman being part of this process so that we can show him how it can be done.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for announcing that there will be a public consultation, as I know that my constituents value having the opportunity to have their say. As the mum to an 18-year-old, in the last two weeks, I have heard—I kid you not—“Mum, where do I get my national insurance number? Mum, I need to tax my car. Where do I get my MOT certificate? Mum?” And that is before we even start talking about what she is going to do when she enters the world of full-time work and becomes a homeowner. May I thank the Minister for proposing that we give people access to the data that is already held about them in a far more convenient way that matches our lives in the 21st century?

[Darren Jones]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The good news is that there will be a “Dear Colleagues” letter coming out later today that will invite all hon. Members, on a cross-party basis, to hold a constituency event on digital ID so that they can submit those views to the consultation.

Middle East

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The basis is collective lawful defence in relation to our allies. The purpose is to take out the ability of Iran to carry out the strikes that are currently being carried out across the region and threatening British nationals, and the actions from our bases will of course be monitored, as the hon. Lady would expect.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

First, may I associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister in giving thanks to our brave armed forces who are serving right now? I have constituents in South Derbyshire, as I am sure we all do across the country, who look at their TV screens and their social media and see some world leaders who appear reckless, both internationally and domestically, overseeing what looks like state-sponsored murder of people in their own country. So may I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his cool head in this engagement, and may I implore him to continue exactly as he is: taking all the evidence into account, making decisions that are within the law, and putting the interests of British citizens, both in the countries that are under attack and in the region and at home, first and foremost?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the principles on which I have taken the decisions that I have taken this weekend. We keep uppermost in our minds the protection of our citizens and nationals who are in the region. There are 300,000 of them; they are at risk, and it is very important that we do everything we can to keep them safe and secure.

Lord Mandelson

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely. We have to erode this cancer that is affecting our public life and the esteem in which public servants are held. When the public see what has happened over this period in the Mandelson case, they must be horrified.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am a from the 2024 intake, and I am very grateful that I have never had to meet the cretin that is Peter Mandelson. I want to be clear that, party politics aside—or not, actually—I did not join the Labour party because I hold anyone who has led or influenced the party in high esteem. I joined the Labour party for two very important reasons: the welfare state, which is one of the most important things that this country has ever done, and the national health service.

It is dangerous when we hold someone in such high esteem, and when we give so much power to so few people, that things like this are allowed to happen. Let me be very clear: my faith in the Labour party to deliver for the people of this country continues. As for my faith in people like Peter Mandelson, I am very grateful that he is no longer a member of this party.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am certainly not going to make any accusations about her owing anything to Peter Mandelson’s patronage. From what she says, it seems that she is going to join those of us in this House who are independently minded and express our views in a straightforward manner, but it is obvious that a lot of Labour Members who were elected in 2024 were chosen by panels that included Mandelson. This is not exclusively a problem for the Labour party; we must recognise that in our democracy the people who choose the candidates have enormous power, and if those people are corrupt—as has now been established was the case with Mandelson—that places in grave doubt the credibility of our democratic institutions.

China and Japan

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I have told the House, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussions, save to say that we have subsequently spoken to Jimmy Lai’s family about that. In relation to the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, including Hong Kong: yes, all those issues were raised.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I want to thank the Prime Minister for his incredible leadership on an international scale, which has a direct benefit to us domestically, not least through the disruption of the supply chain for small boat engines. I just wonder, because it is not a silver bullet to solve the challenge with immigration through illegal routes, whether the conversation came up about TikTok being used as a platform to share disinformation and misinformation to encourage people to make dangerous journeys.

[The Prime Minister]

We raised a number of issues in relation to smuggling. The focus was very much on the engines for small boats because of the fact that 60% of them are coming from China, and we need to stop that supply chain if we are going to deal with the crossings.

Digital ID

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am pleased that through this Westminster Hall debate we are giving much-needed attention to the question of digital ID. Many of my constituents in South Derbyshire contacted me to share their views ahead of the debate. That includes well over 400 comments on a Facebook post in which I asked people for their views on digital ID —good, bad and perceived bad. Although there is a wide variety of opinion, many of my constituents have expressed concerns and it is my responsibility to communicate these here today.

Let me start by recognising that about a third of South Derbyshire constituents who have been in touch on digital ID were supportive, which is almost unique—people rarely contact me to tell me that they are pleased with what I am doing. There are some significant practical advantages: the ability to prove identity quickly for work; the potential to bring together passport, driving licence and national insurance details in a single secure format so that people would not need to faff around with a utility bill to prove their address anymore; and the benefits for people who currently lack traditional forms of ID. As things stand, digital ID would be mandatory only for those accessing work, although I recognise that many constituents have concerns over mission creep, which I will come back to.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Samantha Niblett]

I will not, I am afraid. I want to rattle through my speech.

Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands already operate digital ID systems that make everyday tasks simpler and more efficient. For some, digital ID is a natural progression for a modern, digital economy. One constituent told me:

“We already use our phones and banking apps—this would simply streamline it”.

If done well and offered for free, digital ID could make employment checks and even voting more accessible, but it is equally important to reflect that roughly two thirds of responses from my constituents expressed serious concerns. That has unfortunately been intensified by fearmongering, some of which have heard today from certain parliamentary colleagues, but my constituents’ message was clear: we need trust, privacy and inclusion to come first—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Samantha Niblett]

I will not give way, I am sorry. I am rattling through my speech.

Many fear that digital ID could pave the way, however unintentionally, to increased Government surveillance or the type of social credit-style monitoring that understandably alarms people. Others raise cyber-security concerns. One constituent said:

“If it can be hacked, it will be—and then what happens to our data?”

I am sure lots of tech companies would be delighted to get hold of our NHS data.

South Derbyshire is a rural constituency, and there are significant particularities when it comes to digital access and inclusion. Many older residents have raised concerns about their confidence in getting online and using smartphones. However, on this occasion, digital ID would thankfully be mandatory only for people accessing work.

There are also concerns about costs and priorities. Many people are asking why, at a time of stretched public services, the Government would invest in a new ID system that is mandatory for workers when we already have passports, licences, national insurance numbers and so on for that purpose.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Samantha Niblett]

I will not.

The public need to feel confident that digital ID is secure, inclusive and underpinned by strong, transparent safeguards, so I look forward to hearing more from the Government about how they intend to build trust, engage openly with the public and guarantee that no one will be left behind as this technology evolves. It must also have a brilliant user experience.

Oral Answers to Questions

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

This Government are focused on breaking down barriers to opportunity for everyone. We are backing working families, saving them £7,500 through rolling out 30 hours of Government-funded childcare and rolling out free breakfast clubs in our schools. Building on the proud legacy of Sure Start, we will deliver 100 Best Start family hubs to give every child the best start in life. We are opening 10 new construction technical excellence colleges, backing our young people to learn a trade and to get on. Our plan for change will deliver for everyone.

[Samantha Niblett]

I am sure that the Minister will have seen research last week, which parents in my constituency will be really disappointed in, saying that mums earn £302 less per week than dads. For too long, the Tories were happy for those costs to fall on women. What steps is she taking to ensure that this Labour Government tackle the motherhood penalty?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is totally unacceptable. This Labour Government will deliver for women, unlike the Conservative party—whose leader said that maternity pay was “excessive”—or the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who claimed it was a “fact of life” that women coming back from maternity leave would earn less. We know the difference that high-quality early years education makes, which is why I am delighted that, from this week, working families will be able to access 30 hours of Government-funded childcare.

G7 and NATO Summits

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, when we announced the 2.5% increase in defence spending, we made it very clear where that money was coming from, and it was not coming from welfare spend, as he very well knows. I do believe in the moral duty—and it is a moral duty—to defend our country, which means working with our NATO allies to ensure that we have the most effective deterrent. He cannot give lectures on the moral duty to protect our country while maintaining a position of casting aside the single most effective deterrent we have. That is unserious.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I recently visited a NATO air force base in Poland as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme I am taking part in with the RAF. There, I saw at first hand the importance of working closely with our NATO allies to defend our nation and keep us secure, as we witnessed the scramble to the skies to ward off Russian fighter jets. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is prioritising the wellbeing of our armed forces personnel, both at home and abroad, so that they can continue to keep us and our allies safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is, of course, Armed Forces Week. Among other things, we have given the armed forces their single biggest pay increase in many years, and made a strong commitment to other aspects, including their accommodation. It is important that we recognise and reflect what they do for our country, and that we ensure we are able to retain the brilliance of our armed forces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady, as she might imagine, considering the seat that I represent. We need a strong “by and for” service in our country. We need to ensure that the geographical location of someone in the country does not matter, and that specialist services are available for black and minority ethnic women and other marginalised groups—for example, disabled victims of domestic abuse or victims of domestic abuse in the armed forces. There needs to be a specialist approach for specialist groups and we will be making sure that that is part of our violence against women and girls strategy.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to help end discrimination against disabled people.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help end discrimination against disabled people.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

Our manifesto committed us to championing the rights of, and working with, disabled people, putting their views and voices at the heart of all we do. We want a more inclusive society, removing the unnecessary barriers that have too often held disabled people back.

[Samantha Niblett]

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that almost one in five people in my constituency are classed as disabled, and after 14 years of a Conservative Government who slashed public services, there are still far too many people in South Derbyshire who report that their daily activities are significantly limited by their conditions. What more can this Government do in my constituency to support disabled people in accessing care as well as career and educational opportunities?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend, in describing her constituency, speaks for the whole country. Disabled people and people with health impairments are very diverse, and we want to promote diverse, specialist initiatives to support people to stay in work, to get back into work if they have lost their job, and to progress in work, including by joining up local employment and help support. We need to remove barriers to accessing services as well.