James Frith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This Government are boosting digital and AI skills by embedding media literacy across all key stages, including by introducing an AI-inclusive computing GCSE and a £20 million early careers jobs alliance. We will ensure that digital inclusion is fundamental as the Government work to develop digital access to public services through digital ID. These measures will support children and all people to access public services when they need them; they will be personalised, joined up and involve less faff.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the Committee for considering this instrument today. Wireless connectivity underpins a vast range of everyday services, from mobile phones and wi-fi to broadcasting and satellite communications. All of those rely on access to radio spectrum, the invisible frequencies that carry wireless signals. Spectrum is a finite and valuable resource. It must be carefully managed to ensure that different services can operate without interference, that networks function reliably and that consumers and businesses benefit from competition and innovation. In the UK that is the responsibility of Ofcom, the independent communications regulator, which manages spectrum by issuing licences, setting conditions and promoting efficient use. The Government set the overall policy and strategic priorities, including through the statement of strategic priorities.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, sorry—I will write to him. I am grateful for the support across the House on the draft instrument. The direction it revokes has already been fully implemented in terms of obtaining—

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  On the first and third questions asked regarding this measure, consumers should not expect an immediate or visible change as a result of the instrument, but the Government will work closely with Ofcom to ensure that mobile coverage is improved through other policy measures. If the shadow Minister will forgive me, on the substantive numbers of gigabit availability—

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. The direction being revoked serves no practical purpose. This SI is therefore a simple but important step to ensure that the statute book reflects the current position by removing provisions that are no longer needed. In doing so, it supports a clear and coherent framework for spectrum management, giving certainty to regulators and industry alike. It helps to maintain the conditions for continued investment, innovation and reliable connectivity across the economy. I commend the order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to .

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I will conclude my remarks and perhaps pick up that question in my closing speech, which I am looking forward to making. Maintaining a clear and effective framework for managing spectrum is therefore an important part of supporting investment in digital infrastructure and the wider economy. The instrument contributes to that by improving legal clarity without changing existing services, business models or regulatory requirements. The draft order revokes a direction given to Ofcom in 2010. At the time, the Government used the direction to ensure that a specific set of reforms to support the roll-out of mobile broadband were implemented clearly and at pace alongside Ofcom’s existing statutory framework, and in line with wider European measures to harmonise the use of key spectrum bands. Those measures included allowing operators greater flexibility in how they could use key spectrum bands, enabling spectrum licences to be bought and sold, updating licence conditions to support long-term investment and preparing for major spectrum auctions. Together, those changes helped operators to transition from older mobile technologies towards newer ones, enabling the roll-out of 3G and 4G services more quickly and efficiently, and supporting the widespread availability of modern mobile services across the UK. The reforms were also reflected in wider European measures to harmonise the use of key mobile spectrum bands and support the transition to newer technologies. They played a significant role in enabling the roll-out of modern mobile networks in the UK and in promoting investment and competition in the sector. All the obligations set out in the direction have now been fully implemented by Ofcom through a series of regulatory actions over the past decade. As a result, the direction no longer has any practical effect and is now redundant. The instrument therefore revokes that direction, improving the clarity of the legal framework and removing the risk of confusion that could arise from retaining obsolete provisions. For example, when Ofcom looks to set annual licence fees for mobile spectrum, we want to minimise the risk of unnecessary legal challenge. The instrument does not introduce any new policy or change the way spectrum is managed in the UK. Ofcom will continue to exercise its functions under the existing statutory framework, including the duties set out in the Communications Act 2003 and the powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. They provide the framework for managing spectrum efficiently, promoting competition and investment, and protecting consumers. That step helps to ensure that the framework underpinning wireless connectivity remains clear and effective, supporting continued investment, innovation and reliable services for consumers and businesses. I hope the Committee will support this instrument.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s preparations for digital ID will ensure that all existing routes for accessing public services will remain in place. The preparation for digital ID, which will make digital access to public services easier, as I described earlier, will be built with the highest trusted status and will be road-tested by the public as we prepare it, design it and then build it. Verification is vital if we are to ensure that the guiding principles of digital ID—being trusted, inclusive and of use from day one—are seen and not just told.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you—a batsman needs runs, Mr Speaker. Digital ID will ensure digital access to our public services. In recent weeks, citizens have been debating evidence from independent technical experts, privacy advocates and civil society groups. They have been discussing how we can join up our public services, saving time and money and reducing faff and friction. It will be a free-to-use and a freedom-to-choose proposition from this Government, and the Government are now considering the recommendations I received in person on Sunday in Birmingham from the 120 citizens involved. By taking this independent, people-led approach, we will ensure that digital ID has genuine public consent.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is crucial that we learn how well some of the innovations in our health tech have lent themselves to the process of implementing digital access to services. I recommit to learning the lessons, and we are open-minded. In many cases, Scotland is ahead in its thinking and delivery in this area, and I am happy to have further conversations.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We are working closely with the devolved Governments through bilateral meetings and regular official engagement, and we are thankful to them for their constructive and ongoing engagement. In recent weeks I have had the pleasure of attending our regions’ devolved authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we are sensitive to their expectations and demands on this Government to deliver effective digital access to public services across their Administrations, but I repeat: digital ID will be free to use, and there will be freedom to choose.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I bring the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion. He does so on behalf of the signatories of the petition, which asks for “a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy”. I also thank hon. Members from across the House who have participated today. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in paying tribute to the Prime Minister, who has shown his finest form in his six years leading our party in rooting out antisemitism. I pay tribute to how he has handled himself and took the fight to issues in the party. On the specific request of the petition, the Government do not support a public inquiry solely on pro-Israeli influence—in fact, I would like to turn to and address what I believe to be the underlying premise of the petition and this debate. Before I do, I should say that we could have had another kind of debate today: a debate about legitimate concerns about foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy, more wide-ranging than from any one country, and what the Government are doing about that. Instead, the premise of this debate is narrowly and deliberately targeted on Israel. To speak to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) about the need for education in this debate, the premise is that Israel—the world’s only Jewish state—is an influence on British politics that stands alone and must be held to a standard different from that for any other democratic nation. It is unfortunate that the petition behind this debate plays into the same old antisemitic tropes of hidden forces and malign control. I remind hon. Members that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism lists the “double standards” applied to Israel as one of the hallmarks of contemporary antisemitism in public life. The definition also refers to the mendacious allegations of Jews having power as a collective, controlling the Government and other institutions. This e-petition invokes those very same stereotypes when it talks of pro-Israel organisations shaping Government decisions. With that in mind, I want to be clear that we reject the premise from which this debate originates. The framing used risks reinforcing the narratives historically associated with antisemitism. The UK and Israel have a deep and enduring relationship. Seventy-six years ago, we were rightly proud to recognise the state of Israel. Our commitment to the security of it and its people remains unwavering. My political party has long been an advocate for the Jewish state. More than 100 years ago, Labour’s 1917 war aims declaration committed us to support for a Jewish homeland. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Israel found itself yet again under attack from its neighbours, it found one of its most passionate advocates in the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Criticism of Governments is democratic and proper. Within Israel itself, citizens regularly protest against and challenge the actions of their elected Government. As a Government, we have challenged and will continue to challenge the Israeli Government when we disagree, such as on recognising the state of Palestine and the expansion of illegal settlements, and to impose sanctions on their leaders. There are those in the UK who wish to criticise the influence of a particular Israeli Administration or their policies, but we should acknowledge that there are individuals and organisations that support the Government of Israel: they engage in our democratic process and advocate for causes they believe in, just as countless other groups do. They are normal features of a democratic society, not evidence of malign control or undue influence. Furthermore, donors who support Israel are singled out like no others, expected to defend their position on Israel: “Jewish donors’ support for Israel equals malign influence” is the implicit and too often explicit rhetoric we see and hear. The premise of this debate gravitates towards a familiar inconsistency that even influence rooted simply in supporting Israel, or its legitimacy and right to exist, is somehow an improper or hidden force in British politics.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to an earlier answer I gave about misassociation, whether unintentional, explicit, deliberate or wilful. It is possible to be in Labour Friends of Israel without being a Labour friend of the Israeli Government’s actions on a particular day, and it is the duty of allies and friends to point out where we disagree. If we were debating certain behaviours of the Israeli Government, I am sure that a mix of views would be expressed in the House, including on a strong common theme. But that is not this debate, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to pull back from wilfully or unintentionally using tropes.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his comments. The record will show his support, and I concur with it. We have all seen the harm caused by the abhorrent rise in antisemitism, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Antisemitism in the UK has been on the rise, and it has no place in our society. Since the appalling 7 October terror attacks, there has been an increase in antisemitic attacks in the UK, including in Heaton Park, near my constituency. That is just one example of the shocking fear, prejudice and anger directed towards the Jewish community. The attacks cannot be divorced from the nature of the debate. We should condemn the readiness, ease and tendency to hold 300,000 British Jews collectively accountable for the actions of the Israeli Government. That standard is never applied to other communities in relation to foreign Governments.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I do not agree with that. On 30 April, the Government announced £25 million of additional funding for 2026-27 to strengthen policing, protect Jewish communities and provide reassurance in response to the terrorist attacks in Golders Green and the recent spate of antisemitic attacks. Instead of accepting the premise of this debate without question, I urge Members across the House to reject it, to remember the context and to question the notion of focusing any debate on Israel alone. Had this debate addressed the issue of foreign influence or interference as a whole, we could have focused on the range of actions that the Government are taking to address improper influence outside of the rules. The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review of lobbying, disclosure and access to Government. The Government are working with Parliament to consider their own rules on lobbying. We are tackling foreign financial influence by improving transparency, closing loopholes and reinforcing legislation.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. The premise of the debate veers into the unhealthy territory of antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories: the double standard towards the only Jewish state, questioning the legitimacy of a democratic state’s existence that is not applied to other countries, including those with authoritarian regimes. The Government are clear that antisemitism is unacceptable in all its forms and that British Jews must never be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that there is cause for concern that the premise of the petition is antisemitic. I have explained my reasons why. I commented earlier on the Prime Minister’s leadership in rooting out antisemitism in the Labour party. For too long, the Labour party gave too much benefit of the doubt to explicit antisemitic tropes and antisemitism. I encourage all Members not to trip over tropes knowingly or unknowingly when considering this matter, as holding British Jews collectively responsible for the Government of Israel’s behaviour is its itself antisemitic.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mrs Harris. The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying. We have commissioned and are now responding to the Rycroft review of political finance rules, with immediate steps taken to cap total political donations from British citizens abroad and to put a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. These measures are a first step, and the Government will have more to say. The Government will always take legitimate concerns over foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy very seriously, but I do not believe that the premise of this debate is to focus on those concerns. Criticism of Governments and policies is democratic, but the use of double standards in relation to Israel and conspiracy theories and tropes about the influence of Jews and the Jewish state take us into ugly, inciteful and deeply unhealthy territory. I urge Members to join me in rejecting this framing and rejecting the petition.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on his work in this area and on securing this important debate. In the interest of time, I intend to go through my pre-prepared remarks, but I have noted the themes that have been covered. I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I breeze through the themes and pick up any shortfall in subsequent correspondence, either through me or the Cabinet Office. We have heard excellent contributions on the impacts of hot and cold weather; covid and the need to learn lessons from the discoveries in the inquiry; the role of the Cabinet Office; the role that MPs lead locally; and education, skills and the role of devolved learning. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) that specifics on Cornwall shall not be ignored or bought off, and I look forward to a conversation with him on this in due course. The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the country safe. Domestic resilience is a fundamental element of our national security strategy. The resilience action plan, published in July 2025, sets out the Government’s strategic vision for a stronger and more resilient UK and the steps being taken to deliver that, including building domestic resilience and supporting the whole of our society to build its own resilience. The Government utilise a range of tools as part of emergency response, including the National Situation Centre, which was established in 2021 and provides situational awareness for crisis response and the emergency alerts system, which is an essential capability to inform and warn the public in emergencies. We are living through a rapidly changing global risk landscape, driven by geopolitical instability and rapid technological change, where the threats facing the UK are numerous, complex and exist on many fronts. Those risks may be non-malicious, such as accidents or natural hazards, or they may be malicious threats from malign actors who seek to harm us. Against that set of risks, it is more important than ever to make resilience front and centre of the UK’s approach to national security. Without security and resilience at home, we cannot deliver economic growth, peace and prosperity or any of the other Government missions to improve everyday life in Britain.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  I will get on to preparedness and the impact of global events, including in the middle east, but I will come back to my hon. Friend on specifics. Responsibility for the overarching resilience system is led by the COBR Directorate in the Cabinet Office. Colleagues are rightly asking about the role the Cabinet Office takes in this work. It leads work on cross-cutting and high-priority risks, and in scenarios with major impacts, it uses the COBR mechanism to manage the Government’s response to major crises or events. The UK Government define resilience as the ability to anticipate, assess, prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover from shocks. The resilience landscape is extensive and encompasses natural hazards, deliberate attacks, geopolitical instability and so on. The foundation of the Government’s approach is the national security risk assessment, which identifies and assesses the most serious acute risks facing the UK over a two to five-year time horizon. Under the lead Government Department model, each NSRA risk is owned by a lead Government Department, ensuring that those with the most relevant expertise, relationships and levers are responsible for putting the necessary planning response and recovery arrangements in place for each risk area. The Government are also taking steps to enhance our readiness for the highest impact, whole-of-system crises called catastrophic risks, including by explicitly embedding the leadership role of the Cabinet Office in our central crisis management doctrine, the Amber Book. Alongside that, the Government have an extensive programme of assurance to understand how prepared we are to assess risks, including through a dedicated red teaming capability in the Government Office for Science and independent expert panel reviews. Together, this approach ensures that the Government collectively understand and are prepared for the risks the UK faces overall, which relies on a collaborative approach and a shared ownership across Government Departments. The Government are committed to working in partnership with both the devolved Governments and the local tier to effectively plan for and respond to risks wherever they occur. The Cabinet Office leads for Government on the overall response to severe weather. That is, in effect, a co-ordinating role, as individual Departments lead for the response, planning and longer term resilience of the sectors they represent. A key component is the severe weather resilience network, which is chaired by the COBR Directorate and comprises representatives across Government Departments. On the matter of heat, periods of high temperature and heat waves are not a new phenomenon, and their risk—in terms of both impact and likelihood—is well documented in planning advice from the Government. There are tried and tested arrangements in place to warn of impending extreme temperatures, to review preparedness and, if needed, to co-ordinate the Government’s response to the impacts that they may have. On the devolved authorities, it is vital that the four nations across the UK work together to keep communities safe, so that we can ensure that we are most effectively using the different levers that each Government hold. On the matter of local resilience forums, it is also essential that we strengthen resilience at the local level, and the Government are committed to the stronger LRF trailblazers programme, which provides selected areas with the opportunity to test approaches and strengthen leadership. I encourage local MPs to engage with that leadership.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, as I want to make some progress, and I am afraid there is still a lot to cover. On covid, several Members made excellent points about the need to recall, remember and learn from that damning period. One such example is the significant improvement made to our crisis response structures and capabilities in line with the recommendations made in the covid-19 module 1 inquiry. That included establishing the National Situation Centre in 2021 to improve the use of data in crisis response, creating a single Cabinet committee for resilience to ensure ministerial oversight. On the issue of education and resilience, we must provide excellent training, and exercising is also essential to ensure that individual sectors can work together to prepare for, respond to and recover from crises. The Government have also established the UK resilience plan. On the matter of AI, AI sovereignty is defined as the UK having resilient access to key AI capabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) referred to the need to counter the increasing threats posed by AI that is housed and created away from these shores. Sovereign capability is vital, and the launch of the sovereign AI unit is vital as we transition towards that authority, as it will help the UK to win at strategically important parts of that value chain. Civil society also plays an important role in the UK’s resilience, including the many voluntary, community and faith sector organisations that contribute to community-level resilience and emergency planning. The resilience of the UK’s critical national infrastructure is of central importance to ensuring that the essential services on which the public rely continue to operate. Given the fundamental and connected nature of those services, failure has the potential to cause cascading and catastrophic consequences. The resilience action plan’s all-hazards approach, combined with the priorities in the strategic defence review, the national security strategy and the 10-year infrastructure strategy, underpins the Government’s commitment to improving the security and resilience of CNI. On smart devices and tech resilience, the Government take an actor-agnostic, risk-based approach to supply chain resilience. Instead of reacting to individual firms or components in isolation, we must focus on the structural choke points and systemic dependencies that create national-level vulnerability, regardless of where in the chain they are. While cellular modules present some specific cyber-threats, those can be mitigated in effectively the same way as any other cyber-risks. Therefore, existing work to strengthen our cyber-resilience will impact how vulnerable sectors and organisations are to threats via the cellular internet of things. In conclusion, the Government continue to regularly engage the public and parliamentarians on risk and resilience through our annual statement to Parliament, which gives a strategic overview of the current risk picture. The next annual statement will be made in July this year, and it will provide detailed updates on progress made to deliver against the commitments over the last 12 months.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this debate, and all Members who have spoken. As ever, my hon. Friend made a powerful and compelling argument. She is a compelling advocate for the people she argues for and the case she makes. That is met with deep appreciation and understanding. I think I understand most of the very helpful list that she provided, which I have handed to my officials, but I do not know whether I can pronounce every word on it. She made her point brilliantly, as did so many Members in their own speeches. My hon. Friend is right to challenge platforms that arbitrarily remove legal health content or engage in the practice of shadow-banning people, particularly where people struggle to appeal those unfair decisions. I will set out the Government’s position clearly. First, we believe it is crucial that every woman and girl can access trusted health information online. Secondly, the Online Safety Act does not prevent adults or children from accessing legal content about women’s health. Thirdly, the Online Safety Act will require the largest user-to-user platforms—designated by Ofcom as category 1 services—to have clear, accessible terms of service. Those must explain what legal content for adults they do and do not allow, and when a user may be banned or suspended. Category 1 services will also need effective routes for users to challenge content being wrongly taken down. Their complaints processes must be clearly set out in their terms of service, and platforms will be expected to act appropriately when complaints are made. Ofcom is due to publish the register of categorised services in July of this year, alongside a consultation on these additional duties, including strengthened terms of service requirements. Ofcom will consult over the summer and aims to publish final policy statements and guidance in 2027. Once those duties are in force, the largest platforms will have much clearer and stronger appeal mechanisms, and expectations on them, for users whose content has been removed inappropriately. Ofcom will be required to send out annual notices to categorised services, which may require them to disclose information about the design and operation of their algorithms. As the online safety regulator, Ofcom published guidance in November 2025 setting out practical steps that technology firms can take to make their platforms a safer and more inclusive place for women and girls online. The guidance is clear that safeguards for freedom of expression must remain in place, including routes for users to challenge wrongly moderated content. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is working closely with Ofcom to support the effective implementation of those measures. In March 2026, the Secretary of State held a roundtable with social media firms and set clear expectations that firms should implement Ofcom’s guidance by the end of this year. I hear the call from the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for a repeat roundtable with all parties, and I absolutely agree that that is a way forward. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), is absolutely right to say that this is about dialogue first—we agree on that. Where required, we must call out, but calling in is a good start. The Online Safety Act also requires Ofcom to raise awareness and understanding of misinformation and harmful content, especially when vulnerable groups are affected. As part of that requirement, Ofcom must publish a media literacy strategy every three years. The first focuses on research, evidence and evaluation, and on engaging with platforms, people and partnerships, which includes the delivery of targeted media literacy interventions for priority groups. DSIT is ensuring a more joined-up approach to media literacy across Government, aligning policy, education and communications. We are working to ensure that every person can access trusted health information online. That is why our media literacy action plan, published in March this year, highlights the central role that online sources play in helping people to learn about important topics such as health. It is also aimed at supporting parents in building their children’s resilience to the creeping-in of misleading content. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology continues to work with the Department of Health and Social Care on ensuring that people have access to safe and trusted health information online. Social media companies must realise the role that they play in women and girls accessing accurate information about their health. The Government agree that social media companies must do more to enable women and girls to access accurate health information. Ofcom has set out clear guidance on what companies must do to make the online world a safer and more inclusive place for women, and the Government have been clear that platforms need to implement this guidance by year-end. The Online Safety Act does not prevent adults or children from accessing legal content about women’s health. Safeguards for freedom of expression are built into the framework of the Act, which places duties on platforms to protect users’ right to freedom of expression when introducing safety measures. The largest services regulated by the Act will have additional duties: they cannot arbitrarily remove content; they must be clear what content is acceptable for their adult users; and they must enforce the rules consistently. Users will have access to effective complaints procedures to appeal when content is unduly taken down. On the specific points that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central raised about the Eve Appeal’s letter, the Government acknowledge that censorship of terms and diagrams relating to women’s anatomy is a problem, especially when such material can help to increase awareness about the spread and risk of cancer. In April 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care published a renewed health strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) is no longer in his place, but I commend him for the work he did on that strategy and for the powerful statement of intent that it is a Government priority, alongside the strategy to halve violence against women and girls in this Parliament. The strategy represents a decisive shift towards addressing long-standing failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences and access to care. It applies the Government’s 10-year health plan to women’s health, aiming for faster and more equitable improvements through fundamental reform rather than incremental changes. It aims to tackle medical misogyny and rebalance power within the healthcare system, to ensure that women’s voices and choices are prioritised. Central to the strategy is improving women’s and girls’ awareness of and access to services, and driving research that will benefit women’s health. Alongside this, the strategy recognises the need to tackle misinformation about women’s healthcare. That is why it focuses on making credible health information easy to find. I will now address a few specific issues mentioned in today’s debate. The renewed women’s health strategy has committed to invest £1.5 million in femtech, via the femtech healthcare challenge. Health information is critical. The sophisticated algorithms that we all experience as they target us with adverts should—indeed, must—be used to identify health-based information to ensure that women and children do not miss out on crucial health information. The role of the NHS social media team is to make credible health information easy to find, understand and trust, in the places where people already spend their time. It is using channels such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook to explain topics including menstrual health, contraception and conditions such as endometriosis. The team also uses audience insight and social listening to understand how people talk about these topics, what they are worried about and where they have gaps in their understanding. That helps us to make content that is clearer, more empathetic and genuinely useful. Finally, the Government agree that platforms need to do more to address how they moderate content. We will continue to engage closely with platforms and with Ofcom to understand better how enforcement is being conducted. We all agree that we want to see women and girls being able to access trusted health information, and we must remain vigilant on this issue. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central for securing this critical debate.

• 20 May 2026 · Digital Inclusion · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point; I know that he has an excellent record in this area. The digital inclusion fund was designed as a one-year programme to allow us to understand what works in digital inclusion. I share his concerns. We remain committed to building a digitally inclusive society, and that includes our public services, which we are making more personalised, joined up and digital, so that everybody is included and benefits from them. We all expect our public services to be adequate, and as inclusive as they can be.

• 20 May 2026 · Digital Inclusion · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour Government are the first in a decade to publish a digital inclusion action plan, to ensure that everybody benefits from our digital society. Seventy-three per cent of the £11.9 million digital inclusion innovation fund supported charities, many of them grassroots organisations. Through the digital ID work that I lead, we are supporting digital inclusion, and we are engaging expert grassroots organisations directly to ensure that we get this right, and that they are included.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Digital ID Scheme: Public consultation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his well wishes; I am grateful for the opportunity to help to dispel any misinformation on this exciting programme of digital transformation of our public services. Let me be clear: this will not be compulsory, and there is no central pot of data. In my early conversations, I have already been assured of the security of data by design and the intentions of this plan to make digital ID not compulsory, but something that people deem for themselves to be a “must have”. It is for us to rise to this challenge in our design and delivery of it. More broadly, we want to have a national conversation. The upcoming consultation will clearly set out the Government’s position on this programme.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Digital ID Scheme: Public consultation · Hansard source

  More

  Public services should be there for us when we need them, but right now it is too hard for people to get what they need. The new, free-to-access digital ID intends to change that by supporting the personalising of public services, making everyday life easier for everyone. The consultation will be launched next week to ensure that the public can have their say on how we make digital ID work for them.