Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Social Media: Dangerous Content · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their positive engagement with me and colleagues across the House who have been working with bereaved families and the Molly Rose Foundation on the devastating impact of suicide forums. On the new crisis response protocol, my understanding is that it is primarily designed for large-scale public safety events. Can the Secretary of State advise on whether Ofcom will consider rapid response arrangements being expanded to cover cases where compelling evidence shows that content presents a risk for suicide, so that platforms are expected to act with the same urgency to protect individual lives?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) have called upon the Government to withdraw the code and ensure that this issue is properly scrutinised by Parliament. Guidance of this significance should not simply be pushed through as a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure, without proper democratic debate or a vote in this House. Alongside parliamentary scrutiny of the code, there are urgent actions that the Government could take now. One meaningful and long-overdue step would be finally to implement a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. That was proposed back in 2018 by Theresa May’s Government, but it still has not happened. I have attended many Pride events and talked to people about a ban, and they are not aware that a ban is not already in place, and they are frankly shocked. The Government promised in the last King’s Speech to publish a draft Bill, but they did not. They promised again to do so in this King’s Speech, and although I thank the Minister for her comments on this issue, I join the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) in pressing the Minister for clarity on a timeline. The LGBT community cannot wait until the end of this Session, only to see the same promise broken yet again. Conversion practices are barbaric. They are based on the offensive idea that LGBT people are somehow broken and in need of fixing. The practices cause profound psychological harm and have absolutely no place in a modern society. This Pride month, let us celebrate the progress that generations before us fought so hard to achieve. Let us also recognise that equality is never guaranteed and that we are in an incredibly fragile place. At a time when LGBT people, particularly trans people, are increasingly being used as a political football in divisive culture wars, this House has a responsibility to stand firmly on the side of dignity, compassion and human rights. Pride must always be more than a celebration; it must be a year-round promise that we will keep fighting until everyone is truly free to live openly and equally without fear.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q For transparency, I have met representatives of Full Fact in preparation for the Bill. I want to talk about doxing, and my understanding is that it is not currently within the scope of the Bill. For anyone who is not on top of doxing, it is where information is gathered about you and then dropped online so that people can find out where you live and other information. Given that the Speaker’s Conference and the Crown Prosecution Service have both spoken out about how important it is to address this, do you feel that it is a problem that doxing is not currently in or addressed by the Bill? Azzurra Moores: What you are trying to address is the issue of online harassment. Doxing is one part of it, but online harassment takes many shapes. I certainly do not need to describe that to members of the Committee, who will have experienced it themselves. We definitely feel that tackling online harassment is a massive missed opportunity in the Bill. For those of you who might have followed the work of the Online Safety Act Network, it has proposed a new code to tackle online abuse and harassment during elections. Again, that has not been tabled as an amendment to the Bill, partly because it was felt to be out of scope. When looking at in-person harassment, we also need to understand that those in-person threats happen digitally as well. Certainly, the issues you are raising, such as doxing, could fall under that code. As I said, it is not something that has been tabled, partly because of the narrow scope of the Bill, but I encourage Members to look to that and perhaps have representatives from the Online Safety Act Network come in to give evidence.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Can I go on to the issue of online attacks on candidates, their families and people involved in elections? Social media platforms play a massive role in the distribution of things like misinformation, disinformation and deepfakes. Is there more that the Bill could do to put a requirement on social media platforms to act more swiftly to address those issues? Chris Morris: My one-word answer is yes, but let me explain it in various ways. Broadly speaking, it is not unreasonable for us to ask the most powerful companies in the world—who have enormous power over our information environment and, therefore, increasingly over how everyone in this country gets information—to take on a more responsible attitude, some of which we believe should be made statutory. As part of media and political literacy campaigns, for example, there could be education about why harassing candidates is not a good thing to do. Some of that behaviour comes from ignorance, and from people seeing how others behave on social media. One of the recommendations we have made, and it is in our written statement, is that there should be a statutory obligation for the big tech companies, the online platforms, to make sure they are fully involved in media and political literacy campaigns. They do some good things, but we have to recognise, and we have to be realistic, that in the end their bottom line is their share price. Regulating how information flows is difficult. At the moment, we are essentially allowing them to regulate themselves, and I think sensible regulation of these companies—we know there will be howls of protest—is exactly what the Members of this House should be doing. Azzurra Moores: Maybe I can quickly explain why we have gone for such a narrow scope in our recommendation on deepfakes. We recognise that deepfakes are a really complicated topic to regulate, and they need something far bigger than an elections Bill to regulate. Really, wholesale AI regulation is needed. While the section 106 recommendation does not put new requirements on platforms, it starts to test the bounds on how you would regulate political deepfakes, which we appreciate is a really complicated topic. It is a slow and steady approach to amending legislation, rather than coming in and making big mistakes straightaway. This would be a first step, but obviously there need to be conversations within Government about how we could go further on that as well.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this very important debate. His speech was incredibly powerful, and I congratulate him on the work he is doing to support and empower his constituents to build positive relationships and communities. It has also been good to hear from other Members of the positive stories about their communities coming together and of the clear vision, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere among colleagues, that we can together create more cohesive communities. We meet at a moment when communities across the UK are experiencing uncertainty and rising tensions. Alongside those challenges, however, we continue to see wonderful examples of solidarity, co-operation and everyday kindness. Our job as politicians is to empower more of the second through thoughtful policy so that it can continue to flourish. Community cohesion is not built by rhetoric or grand gestures; it lives in the ordinary moments of daily life, in shared spaces and shared conversations, and in the quiet confidence that difference does not threaten one’s sense of belonging. It is also built by the everyday choices that people make to treat one another with dignity and respect, not by the divisive narratives that some, sadly even in this place, choose to deploy. At the same time, many feel that the social contract—the belief that we all contribute to and benefit from a shared civic life—is under strain. Over the past decade, local authorities and community organisations have faced significant funding reductions; youth services have closed, community centres have disappeared and the everyday spaces where people once met across different backgrounds have diminished. Those were not mere local government services; they were the backbone of community life, allowing people to mix, understand one another and build solidarity. When those shared spaces disappear, so too do the opportunities for understanding. Alongside all that, many now face real pressures, with difficulties accessing services, finding affordable housing and making ends meet. When support feels distant, frustration grows, and the risk is that people turn inward rather than reaching outward. Those tensions reflect pressure and uncertainty, not a lack of good will. Rebuilding community cohesion requires more than responding to those who stoke division; it requires reinvestment in the local institutions and services that allow our communities to meet and thrive. Across the country, people are experiencing increasing hostility because of their race, faith, sexuality or gender identity. Even incidents that fall below the legal threshold of hate crime, when repeated or unaddressed, erode trust and weaken community cohesion. Police forces record thousands of non-crime hate incidents each year. Those are early warnings of tensions that can grow if they are ignored. I hear from some in my constituency how, every single day, they face unpleasant, abusive—even aggressive —and unsolicited interactions with others because of their race, gender or sexuality. The figures for Surrey show that hate crime remains significantly under-reported, which underscores the importance of early intervention to build trust so that people feel confident to come forward. In times of uncertainty, we really must resist narratives that divide people or single out newcomers or minorities. Those might offer simple answers, but they weaken the fabric of civil society. Strong communities are built not by excluding people, but by ensuring that everyone feels that they belong. Across the country are countless examples of cohesion in action, led by charities and faith groups. One example in my constituency and across Surrey is Big Leaf, which brings together displaced young people alongside other young people to create music, play sport and do so much more, fostering community and optimism. If we went around this Chamber and across the House of Commons, I am sure that we would have so many more examples, but I will stop there. I will focus on faith communities, not only because of their remarkable contributions, but because many of them face rising levels of abuse. Faith communities are deeply embedded in our society; they run food banks and warm hubs, support the vulnerable and isolated, and provide safe spaces for dialogue, care and belonging. During Ramadan, for example, many mosques open their doors for shared meals and community outreach, which are powerful expressions of the values that underpin cohesion. I am honoured to chair the all-party parliamentary group on faith and society. One of the things that we have led on has been local faith covenants, and I have seen how those create practical frameworks for partnership between councils and faith groups. They help to build trust, improve consultation and strengthen support for residents. Early feedback from academic evaluation of the faith covenant framework shows that it is improving relationships and co-operation across the country. As local government reorganisation continues, I hope that people will grasp the opportunity to instigate more faith covenants across the country, so that faith groups are treated not simply as stakeholders, but as trusted partners in the work that we all want to see in our communities to build community cohesion. Will the Minister support faith covenants and other structured engagement at the local level as part of any community cohesion strategy? On the subject of community cohesion strategies, ahead of the general election, the Prime Minister wrote to faith leaders recognising the vital role that faith communities play and the importance of partnership. That recognition was welcome, yet the progress on the actions that he outlined has been slow. Last month, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking about those promises and, in particular, when we will see the community cohesion strategy. Sadly, I have not yet received a response. I know that there are communities right across the country who want to contribute and are ready to contribute, and they want to see clear national leadership on this. As Liberal Democrats, we stand ready to work constructively with the Government, local authorities, police, civil society and faith communities to help to shape a strategy that reflects the realities of our communities. A clear strategy would align national ambition with local actions. When can we expect to see the publication of the community cohesion strategy? Which Department is leading the work? How will cross-government co-ordination be ensured? Community cohesion cannot be built in Westminster alone. It is built in conversations between neighbours, in partnerships between councils and faith communities, in the extraordinary work of charities and in the daily choices that people make to choose understanding over division. But goodwill is not enough; cohesion also requires national leadership, clear policy direction and adequate funding for local government to sustain the spaces and services that bring people together. It requires partnership frameworks, like the faith covenant, that build trust at a local level, and it requires a message of hope that unites people rather than dividing them. In every single conversation that I have with charities and with faith and community leaders, the same themes emerge: people want fairness, clarity, protection from hatred and the freedom to live their lives without fear. They want to be heard, to be included and to be part of the renewal of our society’s welcoming and inclusive heart. If we listen, work in partnership and invest in the relationships and institutions that bind communities together, we can strengthen the trust on which cohesion depends. Cohesion is not an abstract ideal. As many in this Chamber have already said today, it is something that we nurture together.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I was referencing specifically the debt of Woking and Spelthorne, which were under Conservative administrations. As I was saying, we understand why the Government decided to push Surrey to go first with reorganisation. However, we and local government colleagues in Surrey are deeply concerned by the speed at which the process has been pushed through, and the lack of meaningful consultation with residents. The decision to push ahead with a two-council model was taken in spite of residents saying quite clearly, in response to a survey, that they would prefer a three-council model, and the district councils setting out clearly that that would not be significantly more expensive and would, in fact, better represent communities and place. Local government reorganisation and devolution should be about strengthening local communities. I know that the Government want to do that—they set it out very clearly when this was originally announced by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—and yet I am afraid to say that the decision to have two councils and the double-speed process seem to be more about central cost savings than the people of Surrey. Of course, central cost savings are not enough to rebalance Surrey’s finances. Even with an unprecedented bailout for Woking, for which we are grateful—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Woking will mention it—the new West Surrey council, created by the draft order, is likely to start life with somewhere between £3 billion and £4.5 billion of unresolved debt, not to mention a potentially significant structural funding gap. East Surrey may face lower unresolved debt, but it will equally have a potentially significant funding gap. Ultimately, who pays the price for that? Residents, through both council tax and, potentially, the services they receive. I want to emphasise that it is vital that the Government provide sustained and adequate funding to ensure that reorganisation strengthens councils rather than destabilising them. Turning specifically to the draft order, although Surrey’s reorganisation is the first in the Government’s devolution programme, it is not the first county to ever go through this process, so it is interesting that the Government have diverged from the precedents set in previous examples such as Cheshire and Cumbria. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister to what extent her Department considered those previous local government reorganisation precedents when deciding on the Surrey joint committee model. What specific factors led to it diverging from those precedents, or was the decision primarily shaped by central Government’s evolving policy on reorganisation? On the formation of the two new councils, I am sure the Minister will agree that clear, vision-led leadership that puts local people first and seeks to work collaboratively and effectively with officers and political leaders involved in the creation of those authorities is absolutely crucial to a smooth transition. Article 15 of the draft order requires the formation of an implementation team led by the county council’s chief executive. Will the Minister advise what statutory or practical considerations led to the decision that that leadership must sit with the county council’s chief executive, rather than a mutually or jointly appointed lead? What representations did the Minister’s Department seek from councils across Surrey to shape its thinking, and can that information be shared with Surrey MPs and existing council leaders? I am also interested to understand from the Minister whether there were specific risks that the Department was seeking to mitigate by mandating county-level leadership for the implementation team, particularly given the scale of service disaggregation required. While reorganisation in Surrey is designed to create single-tier local government through the formation of East Surrey and West Surrey councils, I am glad that the draft order allows for the retention of parish councils. As the MP for Guildford, I have seen the very clear benefit of that hyper-local tier of local councils, which provide passionate, publicly accountable community leadership and deliver high-quality services and innovative ideas alongside local people. It has therefore been disappointing that, as far as I know, there has been very limited assistance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the formation of new town and parish councils to cover the areas that do not already have them. I understand that the draft order makes provision for community boards, but I am sceptical that they would provide a similar level of community benefit or accountability that parish or town councils do, so I am very interested to hear the Minister’s views on that. Speaking of accountability, will the Minister provide some clarity on the council vacancies that will arise after 30 September this year? My reading of the draft order is that no by-elections can take place after this date, unless the number of councillors on the district or county council they are a member of drops below a third of the total number of councillors—for example, in Guildford, that would be 16 councillors. Given that the new councils will not form formally until 1 April 2027, surely if significant numbers of vacancies arise, that will leave residents technically without full representation. Does the Minister believe that is democratically appropriate? Before I close, I have two last queries to raise with the Minister. First, will she set out the timeline of the remaining steps for the draft order to come into place formally, including the date she expects it to come into force? Secondly—I recognise that this is something the Minister may wish to take away and write to me on—can she advise what considerations have been made to review the Surrey Act 1985 in the light of the changes taking place through the draft order and the associated reorganisation of Surrey into East Surrey and West Surrey? In conclusion, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise the need for reorganisation. We do not oppose the draft order, but we urge the Minister and the Department to work closely with colleagues and officers across all tiers of local government in Surrey to ensure that they have the necessary funding and transition support so that local people see improvements to services where they are needed and council set-ups that put the needs of residents at the centre in both culture and service delivery and that are financially resilient for the future.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Molly Rose Foundation’s latest report makes it clear that bereaved families are deeply concerned that Ofcom has relied on voluntary measures, such as geo-blocking, to deal with pro-suicide forums. Can the Secretary of State explain what steps her Government are taking to ensure Ofcom moves beyond voluntary compliance and uses its full Online Safety Act 2023 powers to require the removal or blocking of suicide-promoting content?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this incredibly important urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am sure colleagues from across the House will have been as shocked as I was to read in the media last night that the four priority strategic areas have had their elections cancelled and postponed until 2028, especially given the reassurances to the House that have been referenced by other hon. Members. Will the Minister explain why, yet again, information about election cancellations has been announced to the press and council chief executives ahead of MPs? Why have the Government chosen to cancel these important elections, which are a fundamental part of our democracy, and then told the media, not Parliament, first? Will the Minister provide clarity on funding for local authorities, about which I am very concerned? The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of mayoral strategic authorities to unlocking investment and funding for authorities. Why are the Government limiting investment funding for the next two years, releasing only one third at a time, when local and upper tier authority leaders have already agreed the share of priorities? If mayors must work collaboratively with other local authority leaders and there is consensus on where investment is needed, why will the Government not release the funding now? Why will they hold that back by delaying the elections? Those authorities need the money now, so will the Government provide reassurance?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Freedom of speech is a vital right, but it must end where harm to another begins. Online freedom cannot mean the freedom to exploit, to encourage self-harm or to destroy lives. I appreciate that I am taking the debate in a slightly off-piste direction, but this is relevant to the debate we are having today, because suicide forums and other user-to-user platforms are also part of what Ofcom counts as social media. If this debate is about the proportionality of penalties applied to offences arising from social media posts, we must address the stark reality that the most harmful content online is actually the least likely to attract enforcement. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of unregulated suicide forums, which The Telegraph recently described as a terrifying online world where users share methods, encourage one another to die, and prey on the vulnerable. The Molly Rose Foundation, founded by bereaved parents after losing their daughter Molly, has exposed the scale of the threat. Its report “Missed chances, lost lives” links at least 133 UK deaths to a single pro-suicide forum that operates overseas. On that site, young people—many just teenagers—are encouraged, instructed and groomed into taking their own lives. The forum hosts detailed methods, promotes poisonous substances, shares advice on bypassing UK regulations and even enables suicide pacts between strangers, which facilitates the abuse of vulnerable women. That is not free speech, as the site moderators claim; it is the deliberate facilitation of harm—fatal harm. I first became aware of the foundation’s work when I met a local family who had lost their daughter, Hannah. She had been on that forum, where she found links to poisons and guidance on how to obtain them outside UK restrictions. Her father, Pete, warned me that harm is out there waiting to be found by teenagers. No parent should ever have to bury their child because of an unregulated user-to-user forum or social media. What makes this even harder to accept is how many missed chances there were to act. Coroners issued 65 prevention of future deaths reports to three Government bodies—65 formal warnings that the site and its content were putting people at risk. Had those warnings triggered action when they should have, many of those 133 people might still be with us today. Ofcom eventually opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, but only in 2025—long after families had begun sounding the alarm. Its own letter acknowledges serious risks to UK users, including children, yet despite that Ofcom initially accepted a voluntary geoblock, which could be easily bypassed with a simple VPN. It took the discovery of a mirror site, and determined, unrelenting pressure from bereaved families, to escalate the case to priority. That goes to the heart of today’s debate: if we are examining how penalties are applied for offences arising from social media posts, we must ask why the quickest and toughest enforcement does not fall on those creating the greatest real-world harm. The Online Safety Act creates strong penalties for encouraging suicide and serious self-harm—up to 14 years’ imprisonment and up to five years’ imprisonment respectively. Those penalties must not be weakened; they must be used, and they must be supported by regulators who treat the loss of life due to online harms with the urgency it demands. I have met too many parents, siblings, friends and loved ones whose lives have been shattered. Their message is simple: protect young people, target the real harms, and use the penalties to save lives. If proportionality is the principle, let it be proportional to harm, because our young people deserve a system that protects them, not one that leaves the deadliest corners of the internet untouched. I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), in part, for the debate today, which has enabled me to raise this part of the important conversation about penalties for offences arising from social media posts and user-to-user platforms.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Supporters of the switch-off argue that most homes will have gigabit broadband by the 2030s, but of course theoretical access does not guarantee adoption by households. Around 13 million to 19 million adults are estimated to be living in digital poverty, and the switchover risks pushing more households into such poverty. We know that it is not just older people and people living in rural communities who do not have or will not be able to access digital television. We also know that one in five children is affected by digital poverty, which can have a huge impact on their educational outcomes. So I really am concerned that the proposed switch-off risks extending the digital divide, with unequal access to entertainment and educational resources, as well as to unbiased news. We need to be clear about the cost of the switchover. Terrestrial television currently accounts for just 3% of the licence fee. By contrast, switching entirely to internet-only delivery could cost £2.1 billion up front and £1 billion annually. I want to ask the Minister who is fronting those costs. For the 4.3 million households who rely exclusively on terrestrial TV, it could mean an extra £218 per year simply to access content that today is free to air. All this comes at a time when one in four households already struggles to afford their communication services, and when millions have had to cancel broadband contracts to make ends meet during the cost of living crisis. Once again, the switchover has risks. I think we can all agree that in the current world, terrestrial TV has an important role as a trusted source of information. Research shows that 96% of people trust the information that they receive on terrestrial TV. In this age of misinformation, that is not a luxury; it is a necessity in a healthy democracy and civic society. Broadcast television is a shared civic space where the nation comes together, whether it is for the coronation, the Olympics, the “Gavin and Stacey” finale or the women’s Euros, which reached more than 22 million on the BBC alone. Terrestrial broadcasting is not just about culture. It underpins our critical national infrastructure, supporting radio, emergency alerts and communication during crises. Are we comfortable discarding such resilience in our world, which is sadly encountering growing global instability and increasing informational interference from hostile foreign Governments? I am not arguing against digital innovation. Streaming offers flexibility and choice for those who can afford it, but it needs to complement, not replace, terrestrial broadcasting. That is why Ofcom has recommended a hybrid model combining digital, terrestrial and IPTV to give guaranteed universality and resilience. I ask the Minister: who will bear the burden of the annual cost of switching off terrestrial television? Will it be taxpayers, the vulnerable or both? How will the Government preserve emergency broadcasting if the network is dismantled? Does the Minister acknowledge that abandoning terrestrial TV risks widening the digital divide, raising household costs and potentially weakening our national resilience? Terrestrial television remains one of the last universal and accessible public services, and we should not dismantle that before every household has a real, affordable alternative.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Generative Artificial Intelligence: Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this important debate. AI use in schools has reached a critical juncture. According to Ofcom, 50% of children aged eight to 17 have already used AI tools. The Alan Turing Institute and LEGO report that 60% of teachers actively use generative AI. We have heard many colleagues across the Chamber today reference that. AI is everywhere, whether through explicit choice or integration into Google Workspace, Microsoft 365 Education and countless educational tools. The Government have funded AI development for teachers to speed lesson planning and reduce workloads, positioning AI as central to educational transformation. Yet, as 5Rights highlights, no statutory standards currently govern genAI use in schools. The Government’s own AI opportunities action plan fails to address children and their rights and development needs, despite encouraging schools to “move fast and learn things” when piloting these technologies. With AI’s undeniable rise, the Government really need to address this head on, hence today’s debate is incredibly important. We have heard across the room today that AI presents genuine opportunities for education. For teachers struggling with budget cuts from the last Conservative Government, AI can ease the burden of lesson planning, marking and administrative tasks. For students, responsible engagement with these technologies prepares them for tomorrow’s world of work. Those who understand technological change and harness AI effectively will thrive in today’s and tomorrow’s economy. They will be prepared for an AI-dominated world where critical thinking and analysis become even more vital. However, serious concerns are emerging about generative AI’s impact. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology research indicates that “over-reliance on AI tools could lead to the erosion of teaching, writing and reasoning skills”. The MIT Media Lab recently released a study that was so urgent, it published it before peer review. The study showed that students using ChatGPT showed dramatically lower brain activity than those writing without AI. Brain scans revealed a 32% drop in cognitive load. After just weeks of use, 83% could not even remember what they had supposedly written. That is really concerning information. We can understand why it was so keen to publish it, despite the fact that it had not yet been peer reviewed. The voices of concern grow louder, UNESCO warns that AI roll-out is “outpacing the adaptation of national regulatory frameworks.” Even industry leaders in the Alan Turing Institute acknowledge we have “limited evidence on the impact of AI use in education on learners’ development”. Evidence mounts about the negative effects of an unsafe online world. Research by 5Rights and the London School of Economics found that “EdTech products used in schools are highly invasive of children’s privacy and rely on the extensive collection of children’s data.” As we heard earlier, the NSPCC has documented cases where generative AI created deepfakes of children in schools, and the Children’s Commissioner has called for urgent action. This is particularly concerning given that many AI tools have not been developed with the younger audience in mind. We Liberal Democrats call for a public health approach to the online world, including AI, to ensure that children remain safe online and can enjoy their childhood as intended. We also call on the Government to introduce a safer screens taskforce that would be empowered to ensure a public health approach to children’s social media across all Government Departments, and lead research into social media’s impact on children. We believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically, transparently and in the public interest. We favour a workable and well-resourced framework for AI that can promote innovation and protect individual rights and freedoms. We call on the Government to establish a cross-sector AI regulator, combining flexible, ethical oversight and technological expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with rapid technological advances. As Liberal Democrats, we also believe that we should modernise our curriculum to face 21st century challenges, offering an approach that allows students to explore pathways in science, maths and the arts without prejudicing their learning in other disciplines. Such a curriculum must embed digital and data literacy throughout children’s learning experience, preparing every single student for a future shaped by AI and new technologies. I have a few questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer in his remarks. What skills audit has been done to ensure that we have the right skills for AI, and for working alongside AI, such as critical thinking? We welcome DFE guidance that pupils should only be using generative AI in education settings with appropriate safeguards in place, such as close supervision. But where is the implementation guidance, and where are the resources for schools to achieve this? Finally, how will this Government prevent AI from widening inequality between those with access and those without? Once again, I am grateful for being able to take part in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for bringing it to this Chamber. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, which I hope will be just the start of an ongoing conversation on this incredibly important issue, as we look to the future of our young people.