Emily Darlington MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State and I do not necessarily agree on the effectiveness of a ban, but we absolutely agree on companion chatbots. The entire business model of companion chatbots is to keep us and our children online for as long as possible, using grooming language, grooming behaviour and sometimes sexual circumstances to data-mine us and, more importantly, our children. Can the Secretary of State make it clear at the Dispatch Box that we will not tolerate these types of business models exploiting us and our children?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  As are mine, and they were only a few days apart. The other thing we did was bring together our two NCT groups and try to radicalise them to the Labour cause—some more successfully than others. We dragged them to LWN fundraisers. We ended up organising many women with their babies and their buggies coming on to the Terrace of the House of Commons. We were determined that these women who we had bonded with so much in our pregnancies—the time, and then the feeding, the burping and the sleepless nights—were going to become part of our revolution. We were both behind-the-scenes women; we liked to work and build up other people. But in the run-up to the 2015 election, we called each other back and forth, asking, “Are we going to do this? Are we going to stand in this election?” We had asked everybody else to stand, because that is what we do, and finally we asked each other and said, “Look, I’ll do it if you do it,” because we were not confident. We were confident in other women; we could see all those qualities in other women, but we were not confident that we were the ones to take that forward. That is such a woman thing to do—we look at others and see all their amazing characteristics and abilities, but we struggle sometimes to see them in ourselves. We made a pledge to each other that we would stand in the 2015 election—she in Batley and Spen, and me in what was Milton Keynes North at the time. We would check in with each other regularly. We were each other’s secret lifeline, in this world in which we had encouraged other women to go where we had never been before. After that election, Jo won and became the MP for Batley and Spen, and I went off to Kenya, because I thought, as you do, “If I can’t make a difference here, I can go and make a difference elsewhere.” We had completely swapped paths: she had spent time in Kenya while I was a special adviser in the Labour Government, and now she was representing our views and ideals here and I had gone off to Kenya to see what I could do. Everywhere I went, people would say, “Oh, you’re from the UK—do you know Jo?” I would proudly say, “Of course I know Jo. She’s my friend. She’s doing an amazing job in the House of Commons.” I fell pregnant again when I was out there—Jo had already had her second child—and one day I got a phone call from a mutual friend of ours who was also in Kenya, and he asked me, “Have you heard the news?” I literally had to sit down because I thought, “I’m going to collapse, and this baby is going to get squished. I need to sit down and take this in.” I just could not believe it. Because so many people in Kenya knew that I had known Jo, I was inundated with messages saying, “What are we going to do?” None of them said, “Isn’t it so sad?” They said, “What are we going to do?” That is so Jo. The high commissioner in Kenya gave us his property for an evening, so the first thing we did was hold a reception event in remembrance and celebration of Jo, simultaneously with the one being held in London. There remains a book of remembrance at the high commission in Kenya of all the people whose lives she touched in Kenya across those many institutions, charities and other places, and some people who just knew about her but had been inspired to come. Not long after that, Brendan reached out to me and to other friends of his and Jo’s in Kenya, saying, “Look, it’s become too much for myself and the kids in the UK, and we can’t get a break because of all the media focus. Can we come out and spend some time with you guys?” I very much understood that our job in that situation was to surround those two amazing children with joy, so we spent a lot of time driving around, singing musicals at the top of our lungs—it is a shared passion between our two families, and her children and my children knew all the words. We brought them to see the tree that the children had planted in Karura forest in memory of Jo. For those who do not know Karura forest, it is the forest that is right in the middle of Nairobi, and that tree stands there today. Now I am in Parliament. I sit on the Government Benches every day and, because of the strangeness of this place, we now look at Jo’s crest every day. She is a constant reminder. I do not know if anybody else is like this, but I have a series of amazing women in my life who have passed and with whom I have conversations, whether it is my grandmother, my mother-in-law or Jo. I think, “What would that conversation be? What would they say?” The conversation I have with Jo is, “How do you raise children and protect them when you are a Member of Parliament?” You try to laugh off your home security and your personal security; you make jokes about them. Sometimes you go to events with them, so you have this guy with these big guns—big muscles—walking along with you. The children ask, “Who’s this?” So you say, “Oh, it’s just a friend of mine.” “Do you know his name?” “No, but he’s a friend of mine, and he’s going to follow us around as we go to an event in the constituency together.” I think, “What would Jo think of where we are today?” We talked a lot about how women of all backgrounds needed to be in this place, because it was the only way we were going to make our politics better. That is something that so many of us have fought to achieve, yet we have brought women to this place and told them, “You need to put up with the crap we are putting up with”—apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; that was not the best language. It is everything from social media to what we do to protect our children and the fact that we cannot be as open and available as we all want to be. I get criticised all the time for not having my surgeries in the middle of an Asda, and I keep saying, “I can’t. Yes, you need an appointment; you cannot just come in and see me. You cannot just walk into my office, because of my team”—who, again, are a bunch of amazing women. What does that say about our politics? We would all love to be more open and inclusive. We would all love to feel safe to pop up anywhere in our constituency, but we cannot. It goes against everything that Jo and I believed a good MP—a good public servant—should be, and I struggle with it all the time. I think Jo would love Milton Keynes, not just because we are quirky and weird, and she was a bit quirky and weird—we have new technology delivering groceries—but because we are a city that is not afraid to stand up and say that diversity is our strength. Diversity is what makes us the capital of innovation in this country. Diversity is something we celebrate throughout the summer, with festivals for diaspora communities, and everybody is included. We will be doing the MK Great Get Together. It is a picnic where everyone is invited. Bring a blanket; if you can bring food, bring food. If you have enough to bring food for others, bring food to share with others. Share the best cooking from your mum, share the best cooking that you know from your communities, and let us come together and celebrate our amazing city of Milton Keynes. I want to finish with the fact that I knew Jo best as a mum, and I want her to know that while her legacy lives on in so many places, it also lives on in our joint NCT groups that have come together. We continue to have girls’ nights out and girls’ weekends away. The dads have a beer club, but they are not as good at organising themselves. We still have joint birthday parties. We still go away at Whitsun recess to a Eurocamp somewhere. Her voice and her memory are never forgotten in those spaces. Inevitably, as we are sitting there as a bunch of mums drinking wine, her name comes up. Inevitably something triggers it—it could be about anything. She was a brilliant mum, and she did what all brilliant mums do, which is to try to be an example to their children and to be supportive of all the other mums. Faye, Tracey, Karin, Sarah, Hannah and Claire and others from our NCT group asked me to say this on their behalf: her passion brought people together, not just in the country, but as mums. Her sense of community and of cohesion that she expounded is why her death felt even more traumatic. I want to thank her sister and my friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), for always letting us remember Jo with positivity, not anger, and with a gumption to go. That does not mean we are all going to do a run with my hon. Friend. [ Laughter. ] God knows what your parents fed you for breakfast, but whatever it was, it should be in those free breakfast clubs that we have across the country, because boy are you two amazing. You are supporting us to be the amazing MPs that we can be, and we are all supporting that next generation to say, “This is not what politics is about. This is not what our country is about.” We are better than this, because we are more united and we have more in common than that which divides us.

• 21 May 2026 · Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I want to flag at the beginning of this debate that I will be using a selection of words that big tech deems too sexual for its platforms. I hope everyone in this room can hold their composure and not get too flustered when I mention “sexual” terms such as vaginal atrophy and pelvic prolapse. To reassure the Chair, the precedent has already been set in the House for most of these terms. “Vagina” was first used in the House in 1961; “labia minora” in 1983; “orgasm” in 1974; “clitoris” in 1971; and “vulva” goes all the way back to the 1880s. I must make a point about the historical use of the word “orgasm”. My team had a really interesting time searching Hansard for this debate. As they trawled through it, they found really interesting examples of “orgasm” being used, which I find quite entertaining. In 1978 the former Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch spoke passionately in favour of the creation of the Defence Select Committee, saying: “I am firmly convinced that to discuss defence in the House in the traditional way is merely to give everyone the chance of an emotional orgasm.” —[ Official Report , 3 April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 144.] In 1982 the former Member for Grimsby spoke against the horrors of what would happen if cable television became the norm, warning that “We shall finish up with wall-to-wall orgasm” and “constant pornography”. —[ Official Report , 2 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 471.] With the country totally fed up with politics, I find it refreshing to remember that we in this House have the ability to discuss with passion what most of the country would find very dull. For millions of women and girls today, social media is where they learn about things like menopause, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, fibroids, vaginismus, dysmenorrhoea, bacterial vaginosis—are we all managing to control ourselves hearing these terms?—and countless other aspects of women’s health. If social media had been prevalent when I was desperately trying to figure out why my periods hurt more than giving birth, I am sure I would have been able to advocate for myself with my GP and receive my adenomyosis diagnosis far earlier than I did.

• 21 May 2026 · Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I met some survivors of vulval cancer this morning. Even though they included a former midwife, a health advocate and other people who were well-informed, they told me about their struggle they experienced when advocating for themselves and to be taken seriously by their GP. They knew something was wrong with their vulvas, but they could not get through to their GP. Luckily, they all did; they are all doing well and have responded to their cancer treatment, but they might have been able to advocate effectively sooner had they been able to access more information than they found online. There are more women out there in exactly the same situation. Words such as “tampon” are being suppressed by big tech platforms. “Shadow-banning” is the term for when users can still technically post but their visibility is secretly throttled. Their posts stop appearing in feeds, their reach collapses, their engagement disappears and their followers cannot find them. In the examples I have seen, the user is never clearly informed about it. That is censorship without accountability, which is harming education, charities and businesses, reinforcing stigma and, in some cases, putting women’s lives at risk. We need to call that what it is: algorithmic sexism. Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has removed or restricted dozens of accounts belonging to abortion providers, women’s health campaigners and reproductive health organisations across the world. These takedowns began last October and have affected more than 50 organisations globally, some of which support tens of thousands of women. Repro Uncensored, a non-governmental organisation that tracks digital censorship focused on gender, health and justice, documented 210 instances of account removal and severe restriction this year, compared with 81 last year. That is not random moderation, it is escalation. The Sex Talk Arabic, a UK-based Arabic-language sexual health platform, says it receives warnings from Meta almost weekly. The organisation’s former director, Fatma Ibrahim, said that Meta repeatedly informed it that posts about sexuality, reproductive health and sex education would not be recommended to others because they supposedly violated the platform’s rules. Then the warnings escalated, and Meta began to simply remove its posts. Examining Meta’s community guidelines allows us to understand why these organisations are so alarmed. Meta says that it allows nudity for “educational”, “medical” and “awareness-raising content”, but that is clearly not what is happening in practice. Under its policies relating to “adult sexual activity”, which it supposedly bans outright, Meta includes “menstruation” alongside “dismemberment”, “cannibalism” and “bestiality”. Something that every woman does monthly—an involuntary biological process connected to the menstrual cycle that is experienced by billions of women—is grouped alongside acts of violence and abuse. What does that tell women about their bodies and how they are being understood by these systems? This morning, I met representatives of the Eve Appeal, the UK’s leading gynaecological cancer charity, who handed me a letter that they wrote to Meta after attempts to reach it by other avenues failed. They told me that they are extremely concerned about the suppression of some of their content. Last month, The Eve Appeal shared a medically accurate illustration of vulval anatomy on Instagram. It was not pornography or explicit material, but a labelled, educational diagram intended to help people understand their vulva, recognise changes in their cervix and identify symptoms of vulval cancer. The post had a Patient Information Forum tick, the gold standard for health information content. The Eve Appeal has posted the same content three or four times over the last five years, but last month, Instagram removed the post for alleged “nudity or sexual activity”. The Eve Appeal’s account received a warning and its appeal was rejected. Eventually, the post was reinstated, but it was hidden under a “sensitive content” screen, warning users that the image “may be upsetting”. I have seen the image, and it is literally a line drawing. The Eve Appeal received no explanation, and the sensitive content warning has stifled engagement on its post. One of the Eve Appeal advocates, Zoe, told me, “When I was diagnosed with vulva cancer, I was clueless. Why? Because I was taught the whole thing was a vagina. The use of pictures with labels of anatomy and names would have been a great help. Penis, prostate, balls, breasts, ovaries, cervix and womb are not taboo, however vulva and vagina, the two rarest of the gynaecological cancers, are being censored and dismissed.” The Eve Appeal’s educational posts are designed to save lives. Hiding women’s anatomy behind “sensitive content” warnings does not protect women; it silences them. Such policies can even put lives at risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who could not make it here today, has been raising awareness of another extraordinary case involving Thames Valley Air Ambulance. The charity launched a campaign highlighting that one in three women suffering cardiac arrest do not receive CPR before emergency crews arrive. Why? Because bystanders are often hesitant to touch women’s chests, remove bras, expose nipples or remove clothing in an emergency. Thames Valley Air Ambulance created an educational content video using a female CPR mannequin to demonstrate how to apply defibrillator pads correctly. Facebook removed the post and Instagram temporarily deleted it. The reason? The female mannequin breached community standards. Again, after appeal the content was restored with a blurred sensitivity warning. The charity responded: “If we can’t even share an image of an educational use manikin online without it being deemed ‘inappropriate’, how are we expected to normalise removing a real person’s bra to…save their life?” As you can imagine, similar content with a male mannequin is never removed or shadow-banned. Education campaigns like those save lives, yet the algorithms of big tech treat them as indecent. While charities are struggling to share lifesaving information, women’s health businesses are also being throttled. The global femtech market is projected to exceed $97 billion by 2030. It should be one of the great growth sectors of the future; instead, female-led health businesses are facing relentless moderation barriers. Bodyform’s Vagina Uncensored campaign was censored 22 times in one month across Meta, TikTok, Instagram and X. One advert containing the words “menstrual cycle” and showing a sanitary towel with blood was rejected by Meta unless it carried an 18-plus warning. To remind people, periods start much younger than 18 years old and the questions start even earlier than that. Apparently, period products are considered inappropriate for under-18s despite the fact that the vast majority of girls begin menstruating well before that age. Sixty-four per cent. of women’s health businesses have lost revenue because of those restrictions. Some businesses report losses of half a million pounds a year. One company said their app downloads collapsed from 250 per week to just 50. Another said years of content creation vanished overnight. Smaller femtech start-ups are the hardest hit. Hanx, a women’s sexual wellness company, said nine out of 10 of its adverts were rejected in the early days, and even now 34% of all its adverts are rejected. Meanwhile, treatments for erectile dysfunction are explicitly permitted under Meta’s advertising rules; women’s libido products are not. Tommy’s, the pregnancy and baby charity, had a video flagged as inappropriate because it included the word vagina. The video featured a researcher studying the vaginal microbiome to better understand infections linked to premature birth and miscarriage. Again, educational, evidence-based medical information was treated as inappropriate content. Ordinary women are seeing this happen every day. Influencer Charlotte Emily has more than 90,000 Instagram followers—something I think every politician in this room would like. She said that posts about periods, body image, menopause and women’s health perform dramatically worse than her fashion or lifestyle content. She said that simply using the word “period” instead of euphemisms like “Aunt Flo” reduces visibility. Think about the message that sends to young girls online: that medically accurate language about their own body is unacceptable and that they should hide behind euphemisms and embarrassment. This is not accidental. Words connected to women’s healthcare are treated as suspect content when they should be treated as healthcare education. That is the same prejudice that women have faced for centuries, simply translated into code. Victorian doctors dismissed women’s suffering as hysteria; today’s algorithms suppress the words that women search when they need to find out whether what is happening to their body is normal. The technology has changed, but the sexism has not. This censorship has consequences far beyond embarrassment or inconvenience. When trusted information is hidden, misinformation flourishes. The Government have now acknowledged that poor-quality online health information harms women’s outcomes—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for his work on that—particularly around reproductive health, contraception, miscarriage, menstruation, menopause and infertility. I am glad to see us acknowledging that, but tackling misinformation means nothing if accurate information is suppressed in the first place. If charities are hidden, educators are shadow-banned, doctors are down-ranked and medically approved content about the uterus, cervix, vulva and vagina is blurred, conspiracy theorists and grifters fill the vacuum and women suffer. I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to mention that Essity surveyed about 4,000 adults and found that two thirds look online for health advice, while half rely on social media for health and wellbeing information. Among young people, that number is even higher. Overwhelmingly, the public reject this censorship. Nearly eight out of 10 adults said that words such as “vagina”, “period”, “boobs” and “menopause” should not be restricted when used educationally. The public understand what platforms apparently do not: women’s anatomy is not obscene, women’s health is not inappropriate and education is not pornography. So what must happen now? First, big tech companies must stop hiding behind opaque moderation systems. They must explain how their algorithms operate, why women’s health content is disproportionately targeted and how appeals are reviewed. Secondly, the Government must stop allowing this issue to fall between policy silos. This is simultaneously a health issue, a women’s equality issue, an online safety issue and a digital regulation issue. It requires co-ordinated action between departments, regulators and the affected organisations. Thirdly, platforms should work directly with clinicians, educators and trusted charities to establish verified pathways for evidence-based health content. Finally, we need a cultural shift. Women and girls deserve to talk openly about periods, menopause, infertility, miscarriage, sex, orgasms, puberty and breastfeeding and every other aspect of their health without shame. They deserve medically accurate information without censorship. Ultimately, this debate is not only about algorithms. It is about power: who gets heard, who gets visibility, whose bodies are treated as acceptable and whose health is considered legitimate. Right now, the message that many women receive online is this: “Your body is inappropriate. Your anatomy is shameful. Your health is controversial.” It is also about autonomy. If we can make informed choices, we have autonomy, but until big tech changes course, women will continue to pay the price in lost education, lost opportunity, lost trust and, in some cases, lost lives. The technology companies have the money and they have the ability; what they lack is the will. It is about time they found it.

• 21 May 2026 · Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, they would be. I am trying to say that the OSA does not limit this, but it does limit some of the other material. It is important that there is a place for the Government to say what platforms should or should not be able to publish, but they should not micromanage. I agree on that. It should not be like the Lord Chamberlain saying, “Here are the words that you are allowed to use”, or, “The Queen does not approve of those phrases”, but we should be clear that we limit free speech where it has a real, negative impact on individuals or on society, and that we are protecting people because of their age, gender or other protected characteristics. The shadow Minister raised an important discussion about publishers, plurality and biases that are already in the system. The systems are designed by men and the content, for the most part, focuses on men—not completely, but the algorithms are traditionally designed by men and therefore feed what they think men want, or not even what they want, but what will keep them on the platform the longest. That is their business model. I appreciate the Minister reiterating the Government’s position that we believe that women should have access to accurate medical information. There are two sides to that: making sure that we suppress inaccurate medical information; and making sure that we have the mechanisms to show what is medically accurate with a tick. We should then make sure that that is the material that people see. I appreciate what you said about appeal mechanisms, but it is difficult to appeal against shadow-banning, so we need to talk further about that. Again, that is about transparency on algorithms, which you were talking about, and about our dialogue with social media platforms. We need to ask them, what is more damaging? Is it the sexualised content, the misogynistic content or the health advice? We need to have that serious discussion with them. We also need to think much wider than the four big social media companies. That is not always where people go for such advice. We have heard of experiences on LinkedIn and many other platforms that show that this is a widespread issue. Finally, you are absolutely right about media literacy, so that we know what is good health content and what is based on rubbish science. That is part of how we get through this. [ Interruption. ] I thank everyone for attending.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a good point, and I agree with him. In Milton Keynes, we did not privatise our social housing stock; we had 12,000 in the housing revenue account. The reality is that the reforms done under the Conservatives during the 1980s destroyed council housing stock across the country. The wall that has been put between the housing revenue account and the council’s account means that authorities cannot invest in building new housing to reduce their use of temporary accommodation. Things like that need to go. We also need to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are not the ones evicted from their homes with their children. It is the perpetrators who need to leave. For the first time we are bringing forward legislation that will make sure that that happens. Stability for children and victims needs to be at the absolute forefront of our minds. Rather than move them around the country to protect them, we need to intervene to get the perpetrator away and to protect them from the perpetrator. We are banning conversion practices. It should have been done before, but it is finally going to be done under this Government. The removal of peerages Bill is so important, too. People will also know my views on the digital access to services Bill, which will be vital in order to modernise our public services. I want to talk about security, which is the theme that runs through the King’s Speech. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) that when we talk about security, we need to talk about domestic, defence and development, because they all go hand in hand. We need to see the tackling state threats Bill in the light of the horrible events that we have seen against our Jewish communities in recent weeks, and in the context of our democracy. That is why we need to do more to protect democracy through the Representation of the People Bill, which is coming back in this Session. The most personal form of power that any of us hold is the power to freely choose who we vote for. That power is fundamental to democracy, but today it is under threat from foreign states that want to cause us chaos, tech bros who do not share our values, and opportunists looking to make money from division. They are not taking away our right to vote, but they are distorting the national conversation and undermining genuine voices. Deepfakes stop us being able to trust what is real. Bot armies spread disinformation. Algorithms that prioritise engagement over truth amplify all of that, and foreign actors exploit it. This is a make-or-break moment for the security of this country’s democracy. We cannot shy away from what is at stake. Democracy does not require agreement, but it does require us all to live in a shared reality. Every Member of this House has seen misinformation, disinformation, bot activity or deep fakes in action—in fact, many of us have been victims of it. If we do not act, we are putting our democracy in the hands of tech bros in other countries who do not share our values—in fact, some have even called for riots on our streets—and who cannot be trusted with Britain’s future. The Representation of the People Act 1983 was not designed for a world of deepfakes of politicians, micro-targeting, political advertising, and algorithms with agendas. I am thrilled that this Government are reforming it, and I will be re-tabling my seven amendments to the Bill on Report. I want to see clear laws that recognise and define digital manipulation as a serious offence against our democracy. I want increased powers for the Electoral Commission to demand back-end, real-time access to social media platforms when manipulation is suspected. I want mandatory labelling of AI-generated content and a political advertisement repository so that voters can separate what is real and what is not, and see where political content comes from, who is funding it and what they are saying in different parts of the country to different voters. I want to see a critical incident protocol, independent of Government, which can be triggered in response to a significant risk to the integrity or security of our elections. I know this is controversial, but elections do not just happen for six weeks every five years now, so our election laws should also apply all year round. The six-week campaign is a thing of the past—we cannot keep regulating for a world that does not exist. Anything that people see relating to our democracy, whether it is a year out from an election or two weeks out from an election, should meet our electoral standards. This is not about limiting debate or controlling outcomes; it is about safeguarding the conditions in which each and every person makes their choice. It is the only way our democracy survives. I am pleased that we are pursuing a serious agenda—an agenda that is about our security and the security of the everyday lives of our constituents. In Milton Keynes, the 35 Bills in this King’s Speech, on top of the 50 that we passed in the last Session, are making a real difference to everyone.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The new clauses raise a really important point about security by design implemented within companies, and within the companies that provide cyber-security technology to them. An hon. Friend of mine tabled an amendment, which we are not speaking about today, on a similar subject. Security and safety by design is something that we talk about quite often in this area. It may not be appropriate for this Bill, but I am keen to hear how we will progress those discussions, because ultimately we do want to prevent cyber-attacks. We need to make sure that companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, major infrastructure and local government all have access to technology and infrastructure that looks at security by design in its own design right from the outset, because that is what makes us most secure. How will we take forward those discussions, and extend the idea that already exists in legislation, through the Online Safety Act 2023, about safety by design, in order to ensure that products around cyber-security have this at their heart, and deliver the prevention mechanism that I think we all want to see—especially the small businesses and organisations that are victims of such attacks?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very important point about how sophisticated the technology has become. When we ask companies to take action to stop outcomes, the technology exists to do that. We are not asking them to reinvent the wheel or come up with new technology. It already exists because they are even microtargeting two different sides of the road. Having discussed this with experts, parents and—most importantly—young people, what do I think we need to consider? First, we need to fully and properly implement the Online Safety Act 2023. That must be done at speed, and it requires nothing from the House. It has been a request of the Secretary of State and the Minister, and I recommend that Ofcom gets on and does that as quickly as possible. We must make safe spaces for children online. How do we do that? Part of the answer is ensuring that content is related to ratings that we already understand as parents, such as those from the British Board of Film Classifications. I have been asking YouTube what rating YouTube Kids has for about a year now. Is it rated U? Is it 12A? Is it 15? It cannot tell me because it does not do things on that basis. As a parent I want to know the rating before allowing my children on an app, because parents have a role in this as well. All apps should be rated like videogames. Roblox has a 5+ rating, which does not exist in videogame ratings. We see ratings such as 4+ or 9+, but those are made up. At the parents forum that I did after the survey, one parent said that she walked in on her nine-year-old playing “guns versus knives”—on an app that is rated 5+. The ratings on apps mean nothing, yet we have video game ratings that we as parents understand, so why are they not used? Should in-app purchases ever be allowed for young children? What is the age at which in-app purchases should be allowed in a game? We must consider the time limits for the different stages of brain development. We have guides on fruit and vegetables that recommend five a day to parents. We all know that. Schools use the same language, we use the same language, yet we have nothing to support parents in deciding how long a child should be online at different stages of brain development. I hope that the evidence that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee collects will help inform that. We need to change addictive and radicalising platform algorithms. To protect children from child sexual abuse images, we need to talk to those behind iOS and Android to stop the creation of self-generated child sexual abuse images—some 70% to 80% of child sexual abuse images are self-generated—and we need to stop end-to-end encryption sites from sharing them. We have technology that can do that. We should always keep the ability to ban in our pockets, but any ban should be for particular apps. We should not ban our children and young people from having an online experience that is good.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely do. My full sympathy goes to that family in my hon. Friend’s constituency—it is the worst thing in the world for a parent to lose a child. But we have to get this right, which is why it is right that we have a consultation. It does no child any good if we jump to a conclusion that does not actually protect children. Although I maintain an open mind, I worry about a full ban. Some children rely on social media for connection, often including those who are exploring their sexuality—LGBTQ+ people—and those who are neurodivergent. The consequences for them could be devastating, so we need to consider their views. If young people get around the ban, as they do in Australia, they are less likely to report when they see harmful content or are being targeted on social media, because they worry that they will get in trouble for breaking the law. A ban would create a cliff edge at 16. No matter the person’s maturity—I have already talked about the different brain development in young women and men—their skills or what they have been taught, there is a cut-off at 16. All of a sudden it does not matter, and they go into a world that is not safe. Younger children do not have their own social media profiles; they use their parents’ devices. Often, they start with a video of Peppa Pig, and all of a sudden—who knows where it ends up? A ban would not address that. So, what is the solution? Doing nothing is not an option—I think the whole House can agree on that.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  This week is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and we must remember the acceleration of online harms. We have heard horrific accounts of ChatGPT giving young people diets of 600 calories per day, which is just appalling. We know the suffering and pain caused by seeing images tagged with the terms “ana”, “thinspiration” and other terms that should go. The promotion of such content is now a category 1 offence, and Ofcom should be weeding it out. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is absolutely right to say that that measure should be extended to bots. I thank the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), for her fantastic speech. We have taken this matter seriously since the very beginning of the parliamentary Session, and we have done a lot of work on it. I echo her call for Ministers to look again at the recommendations in our Committee’s “Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms” report, which goes well beyond misinformation and into how the damage is done. Protecting our children and young people online is extremely important. The Online Safety Act was an important step forward, but it has not been fully implemented by Ofcom, it is not proactive enough, and it is too dependent on what social media companies themselves tell Ofcom. In the spirit of consultation—I know that we will get to that—I have done my own consultation with 500-plus 14 to 16-year-olds across my Milton Keynes Central constituency. Some 91% of them have a phone, and 80% have social media profiles. However, what will surprise the House is what young people consider social media profiles to be. We consider them to be Facebook or Instagram, while they consider them to be YouTube and Roblox—two organisations not covered by the Australian model. Additionally, 74% of those 14 to 16-year-olds spend two to seven hours online a day. Let me remind the House that, at that age, the brain development of young women is close to finished, while for young men, whose brain development does not finish until they are about 25, it is nowhere near complete. We know that from the science—just to be clear, that is not an opinion. Brain development in young women and girls happens differently, so should we therefore have different rules for young women and men? Fifty-nine per cent of the 14 to 16-year-olds have been contacted by strangers, and more than a third of that was through Roblox, which is not covered by the Australian social media ban. Thirty-three per cent have been bullied, and a third of those was on Roblox. The Australian social media ban—which I assume is what the Liberal Democrats are talking about when they say they are in favour of a ban—does not cover YouTube or Roblox, and we have not even looked at whether it is effective. A ban is a blunt tool that essentially raises the flag of surrender to social media platforms and declares that there is no way of making social media safe. That is essentially what the Conservatives did when the Online Safety Act 2023 was passed: they said, “We cannot go far enough, so we are going to roll back. It is about free speech.” No, it is not about free speech. Freedom of speech was written into law in this country and spread around the world, so we understand how to protect it and limit its harm. The Online Safety Act was a missed opportunity. It also took seven years to get through this House, but we do not have seven years to wait. There would also be unintended consequences to a ban. I had the pleasure of meeting Ian Russell the other night, and we had a really powerful discussion. My heart goes out to him, as one parent to another, given what his family have been through. He does not jump to the easy solution of a social media ban. The Molly Rose Foundation has done a brilliant briefing paper, which every MP should read, about why it does not support a ban: it wants the online world to be safe for children, but a ban does not make it so.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q A huge thank you to the panel. Many of my colleagues have already asked the question, so I appreciate you talking about the futureproofing in quantum, the international regulatory environment and the use of standards alongside regulation to drive up quality. You all have a huge amount of UK clients, and I want to ask you about how good cyber culture gets embedded, and what the role of the Bill is within that. To pick up on Ben’s point around the security by design within his own firm, do you think that is well understood among your colleagues in the UK? How do we get the balance right between what is in the regulation and what should be done through a standards model, working with the British Standards Institution and others? Dr Ian Levy: The previous set of witnesses talked about board responsibility around cyber-security. In my experience, whether a board is engaged or not is a proxy indicator for whether they are looking at risk management properly, and you cannot change corporate culture through regulation—not quickly. There is something to be done around incentives to ensure that companies are really looking at their responsibilities across cyber-security. As the previous panellists have said, this is not just a technical thing. One of the things that is difficult to reconcile in my head—and always has been—is trying to levy national security requirements on companies that are not set up to do that. In this case I am not talking about Amazon Web Services, because AWS invests hugely in security. We have a default design principle around ensuring that the services are secure and private by design. But something to consider for the Bill is not accidentally putting national security requirements on those entities that cannot possibly meet them. When I was in government, in the past we accidentally required tiny entities, which could not possibly do so, to defend themselves against the Russians in cyber-space. If you translate that to any other domain—for example, saying that a 10-person company should defend itself against Russian missiles—it is insane, yet we do it in cyber-space. Part of the flow-down requirements that we see for contracting, when there is a Bill like this one, ends up putting those national security requirements on inappropriate entities. I really think we need to be careful how we manage that. Matt Houlihan: Can I make two very quick points?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their leadership on defending Ukraine not just in wartime but in peacetime, which will really reassure the many Ukrainian families who have sought refuge in Milton Keynes and across the UK. I would like to ask the Secretary of State’s advice. It is clear that Russia is challenging not just Ukraine, but the UK. It is carrying out incursions into our airspace and our waters, using cyber-attacks to undermine us and using social media to undermine our democracy. What advice would the Secretary of State give the British public on creating vigilance against the Russian attacks we are seeing increasing, over and over, on the UK?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on social media, and I hope we can meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is responsible for elections, ahead of the publication of the elections Bill to see what we can do about those protections. The Secretary of State has announced a very good review. Will the money that is coming into this country, particularly related to changing our politics on abortion rights, trans rights and other areas, be within scope of the review?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate what the Minister says—that these powers are in legislation—yet the process is still the social media platforms marking their own homework. We are in a vicious circle: Ofcom will not take action unless it has a complaint based on evidence, but the evidence is not achievable because the algorithm is not made available for scrutiny. How should Ofcom use those powers more clearly ahead of the elections to ensure that such abuse to our democracy does not occur?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises two really important points. First, if we try to create legislation to address what companies do today, it will be out of date by the time that it passes through the two Houses. What we do must be done on the basis of principles, and I think a very good starting principle is that what is illegal offline should be illegal online. That is a pretty clear principle. Offline legislation has been robustly challenged over hundreds of years and got us to where we are with our freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to congregate. All those things have been robustly tested by both Houses.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I wanted to raise with the Minister that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will be undertaking an inquiry in the new year on brain development, addictive use and how that impacts various key points in children’s development. The Minister says that he will look at all evidence. Will he look at the evidence produced by that inquiry to ensure that its information and advice goes to parents across this country?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree and I am going to come to that. I recently met the NSPCC, the Internet Watch Foundation and the police forces that deal with this issue, and they told me that there are easy technological fixes when someone uploads something to a site with end-to-end encryption. For those who do not know, we use such sites all the time—our WhatsApp groups, and Facebook Messenger, are end-to-end encryption sites. We are not talking about scary sites that we have not heard of, or Telegram, which we hear might be a bit iffy; these are sites that we all use every single day. Those organisations told me that, before someone uploads something and it becomes encrypted, their image or message is screened. It is screened for bugs to ensure that they are not sharing viruses, but equally it could be screened for child sexual abuse images. That would stop children even sharing these images in the first place, and it would stop the images’ collection and sharing with other paedophiles. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) is absolutely right: 63% of British parents want the Government to go further and faster, and 50% feel that our implementation has been too slow. That is not surprising; it took seven years to get this piece of legislation through, and the reality is that, by that time, half of it was out of date, because technology moves faster than Parliament.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I agree; my hon. Friend makes a very important point about the slander that happens online, the lack of basis in reality and the lack of ability to address it. If somebody posts something about someone else that is untrue, platforms will not take it down; they will say, “It doesn’t breach our terms and conditions.” Somebody could post that I am actually purple and have pink eyes. I would say, “I don’t want you to say that,” and the platform would say, “But there’s nothing offensive about it.” I would say, “But it’s not me.” The thing is that this is happening in much more offensive ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made the point that what happens online is then repeated offline. We have even seen deaths when children try to replicate the challenges that they see being set online. With AI-generated material, those challenges often are not real. It is the equivalent of somebody trying to repeat magic tricks and dying as a result, which is quite worrying. The Online Safety Act is not perfect; it needs to go further. The petitioner has made a really important point. The lack of proper definition around small but non-harmful sites versus small but harmful sites is very unclear, and it is really important that the Act provides some clarity on that. We do not have enough protections for democracy. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I am a member of, produced a really important report on misinformation and how it led to the riots two summers ago. Misinformation was used as a rallying cry to create unrest across our country of a sort that we had not seen in a very long time. The response from the social media companies was variable; it went from kind of “meh” to really awful. The platforms say, “We don’t police our content. We’re just a platform.” That is naive in the extreme. Quite frankly, they are happy to make money off us, so they should also know that they have to protect us—their customers—just as any other company does, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton said. The radicalisation that is happening online is actually shifting the Overton window; we are seeing a more divided country. There is a fantastic book called “Man Up”—it is very academic, but it shows the rise of misogyny leading to the rise of every other form of extremism and how that links back to the online world. If this was all about Islam, this House would be outraged, but because it starts with misogyny, it goes down with a fizzle, and too often people in this House say, “This is all about free speech.” We know that misogyny is the first step on a ladder of radicalisation that leads people to violence—whether into violence against women or further into antisemitism, anti-Islam, anti-anybody who is not the same colour, or anti-anybody who is perceived not to be English from Norman times. The algorithms provoke violent and shocking content, but they also shadow-ban really important content, such as information on women’s health. Platforms are happy to shadow-ban terms such as “endometriosis” and “tampon”—and God forbid that a tampon commercial should feature red liquid, rather than blue liquid. That content gets shadow-banned and is regularly taken down and taken out of the algorithms, yet the platforms say they can do nothing about people threatening to rape and harm. That is not true; they can, and they choose not to. The public agree that algorithms must be part of the solution; 78% of British parents want to see action on algorithms. My hon. Friends are right that the Online Safety Act and Ofcom could do that, yet they have not done so—they have yet to create transparency in algorithms, which was the Select Committee’s No. 1 recommendation. [Sir John Hayes in the Chair ] Finally, I want to talk about a few other areas in which we need to move very quickly: deepfakes and AI nudifying apps. We have already seen an example of how deepfakes are being used in British democracy: a deepfake was made of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) saying that he is moving from the Conservatives to Reform. It is a very convincing three-minute video. Facebook still refuses to take it down because it does not breach its terms. This should be a warning to us all about how individuals, state actors and non-state actors can impact our local democracy by creating deepfakes of any one of us that we cannot get taken down.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. As parents, we all want to be able to have those conversations, but because of the way the algorithms work, we do not see what they see. We say, “Yes, you can download this game, because it has a 4+ rating.” Who knows what a 4+ rating actually means? It has nothing to with the BBFC ratings that we all grew up with and understand really well. Somebody else has decided what is all right and made up the 4+ rating. For example, Roblox looks as if it is child-ready, but many people might not understand that it is a platform on which anyone can develop a game. Those games can involve grooming children and sexual violence; they are not all about the silly dances that children do in the schoolyard. That platform is inhabited equally by children as it is by adults.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. They seek to promote chaos and the destruction of British values, and we need to fight that and protect those values. The AI nudifying apps, which did not even exist when the Online Safety Act came in, need a very fast response. We know that deepfakes and AI nudifying apps are being used overwhelmingly against classmates and colleagues. Think about how it destroys a 13-year-old girl to have a fake nude photo of her passed around. The abuse that we politicians and many others receive from fake and anonymous accounts needs to be addressed. Seventy-one per cent of British people consider this to be a problem, and we need to take action. AI chatbots are another thing that was not foreseen in the development of the Online Safety Act, and therefore it is far behind on them, too. The Online Safety Act is in no way perfect, but it is a good step forward. We must learn the lessons of its implementation to go further and faster, and listen to British parents across the country who want the Government’s help to protect our children online—and we as a Government must also protect our democracy online.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I want to add some actual data to our debate today. We are inundated, often online or in our inboxes, with messages about repealing the Online Safety Act. These are well-funded campaigns. There is also a lot of material online coming from very particular sources, not necessarily within the UK. Actually, 70% of people in the UK support the Online Safety Act and a similar number support age verification. Much of that has to do with what our children are seeing online. Almost 80% of people aged 18 to 21 have seen sexual violence before age 18. That is a huge number of people whose initial sexual experiences or viewing of sex involves violence. What does the Online Safety Act do? It puts porn back on the top shelf—it does not get rid of it. We are all of an age to remember when porn was on the top of the magazine rack in the corner shop. Now it is being fed to our children in their feeds. The issue is also the type and nature of porn that people are seeing online: 80% of online porn has some kind of strangulation in it. That has real-world consequences, as we have seen from the latest data on women’s health in terms of strokes. Strangulation is now the second leading cause of strokes among women in the UK. That is shocking, and it is why we needed the Online Safety Act to intervene on what was being fed to us. In Milton Keynes, 30% of young people have been approached by strangers since the implementation of the Online Safety Act. They are most frequently approached on Roblox. We do not automatically identify gaming platforms as places where people are approached by strangers, but we know from police investigations that they approach young children on Roblox and move them to end-to-end encryption sites where they can ask them to share images. In 2024, there were 7,263 online grooming offences—remember that those will just be the ones that are not in end-to-end encryption sites. There were 291,273 reports of child sexual abuse material identified last year—again, remember, that is not the material being shared on end-to-end encryption sites, because we have no idea what is actually being shared on those. Some 90% of that material is self-generated—that is, groomers asking children to take pornographic pictures of themselves and share them. Once a picture is shared with a groomer, it goes into networks and can get shared anywhere in the UK or the world. The UK is the biggest consumer of child sexual abuse images. The police reckon that 850,000 people in the UK are consuming child sexual abuse images.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this important debate. It would be remiss of me, as the MP for Milton Keynes Central, not to acknowledge the opportunities of AI. One in three jobs in Milton Keynes is in tech, often in the edge technologies or edge AIs that are driving the economic growth we want. However, we will not see take-up across businesses unless we have the safest AI, so we must listen to the British Standards Institution, which is located in Milton Keynes and is working on standards for some of these things. Nevertheless, I have many concerns. The Molly Rose Foundation has raised many issues around AI chatbots, not all of which are included in current legislation. It has documented how Alexa instructed a 10-year-old to touch a live electrical wire, and how Snapchat’s My AI told a 13-year-old how to lose their virginity to a 31-year-old—luckily, it was an adult posing as a 13-year-old. We have seen other examples involving suicide, and Hitler having the answers to climate change, and research has found that many children are unable to realise that chatbots are not human. AI algorithms also shadow ban women and women’s health, as others have mentioned. The tech is there to make AI safe, but there is little incentive for companies to do so at the moment. The Online Safety Act goes some way, but not far enough. Our priorities must be to tackle the creativity and copyright issues; deepfakes and the damage they do, in particular, to young girls and women; and the misinformation and disinformation that is being spread and amplified by algorithms because it keeps people online longer, making companies money. We must also protect democracy, children, minorities and women. How do we do that? I hope the Minister is listening. For me, it is about regulation and standards—standards are just as important as regulation—and transparency. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has called for transparency on AI algorithms and AI chatbots, but we have yet to see real transparency. We must also have more diversity in tech—I welcome the Secretary of State’s initiatives on that—and, finally, given the world we are in, we must have a clear strategy for the part that sovereignty in AI plays in our security and our economic future.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The first duty of Government is to keep their citizens safe. We do that with the police and our court system; and, although they are not perfect, we could not do it without them. The online space is an integral part of our modern lives, and we need to treat it as such, because what happens online does not stay online. Online safety naysayers want us to think that regulating the online space is a conspiracy to end freedom of speech. Some, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), try to make that case, while his online followers send women and members of minorities death and rape threats when they speak freely, and that includes Members of this House—like many women MPs, I receive at least one a week. Rather than taking away free speech and democracy, we are ensuring that everybody has a voice, so that people, including the alleged victims of Andrew and Tristan Tate, can one day have an online profile again, without getting their home addresses splashed all over the internet and being doxed, as young people like to call it. Democracy should be about ideas and debates, yet the online environment that some Members of this House want is one where people can make deepfakes, misleading the electorate; where they can threaten women with rape, to shut up those they do not agree with; and where they can make £300,000 by making 128 Facebook pages, spreading racist and AI-generated misinformation, which is then amplified by members of the Reform party—monetising hate, as the piece in The Times exposed this morning. Without an extension of our election laws to online spaces, single platforms or platform owners with specific political or financial agendas can continue to spread lies and misinformation, even going so far as to incite violence in another country. That is not democracy; that is not free speech. It is up to this Government to ward against it and ensure that our laws and sentencing are appropriate. As I said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. In real life, a 12-year-old cannot go to the cinema to see a film if it is rated 15, and pornography is put on the top shelf at the newsagents, out of reach. Kids cannot buy a video game that is adult-only rated without identification. Online, however, our kids can find any kind of graphic or sexual content, of any level of extremity, as easily as they can text their friends. The Online Safety Act is there to protect everyone. It is there to put porn back on the top shelf and out of reach of kids. It works to prevent 10-year-olds from finding graphic depictions of violence, being encouraged to become violent themselves or being groomed by strangers. Those who want to scrap the Act and the sentencing that goes along with it actually put at risk our free speech—the free speech of those who are intimidated every day for trying to express their views online—and, even more so, they put at risk our democracy. Let us bring back common sense and protect this country.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister recognise that when his Government were letting out rapists and violent criminals, they put in place no protections whatsoever, whereas this Government have brought in protection orders and domestic violence orders to ensure that victims are protected in these cases? Does he also recognise that the prison crisis was caused under his Government?