Social Media Ban for Under-16s
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for taking the Statement today and for her alert. On these Benches we welcome the fact that the Government have finally responded to the overwhelming public demand to protect our children online, especially from the bereaved parents: like the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, I pay tribute to them and to their campaign. We share the Government’s diagnosis. There is a genuine children’s mental health crisis and the platforms have for far too long been allowed to profit from it.
However, we fundamentally disagree with the Government’s prescription. After months of insisting that a drawn-out consultation was absolutely necessary before any action could be taken, what has been announced appears to be a panicked policy cobbled together ahead of a by-election and a Back-Bench rebellion. It appears that DSIT’s own expert panel flagged a “substantial” lack of evidence to justify key aspects of the plans. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to address those evidence gaps before the regulations are laid?
The Australian model the Government are adopting is based on definitions and lists. It bans specific platforms while trying to carve out exemptions for messaging or education. As my honourable friend Caroline Voaden pointed out in the Commons, the internet moves far too fast for lists. The moment one platform is banned, another unnamed platform launches. This is, at its heart, a “dangerous dogs” approach to regulation, focusing on arbitrary categories rather than the actual risk of harm.
The Secretary of State made a startling admission at the Dispatch Box. She openly acknowledged that children will find workarounds, using VPNs or fake IDs, stating that
“kids will get around this … That is what kids do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/26; col. 606.]
If the Government themselves acknowledge that children will bypass this ban, how exactly does a policy built purely on exclusion protect them? Does it not simply give parents a false sense of security and, worst of all, let the tech giants completely off the hook?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has tirelessly argued in this House, with our support, we must regulate the product, not just the child. This is about safety by design. Instead of an outright ban, the Liberal Democrats have consistently called for a targeted and coherent harms-based framework: films-style age ratings for platforms. Under our approach, platforms that deploy addictive algorithmic feeds or host inappropriate content would be legally restricted to users over 16 and the most extreme sites rated 18-plus. Will the Minister explain why the Government have rejected this approach and why the burden of proof is not being shifted to the tech companies themselves, forcing them to remove toxic, addictive features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay and manipulative algorithms.
As the Molly Rose Foundation has rightly warned, relying on blanket bans risks migrating bad actors, groomers and violent groups from banned platforms to permitted ones or into the dark web. We will end up playing a desperate, endless game of whack-a-mole with children’s safety. What assessment have the Government made of that migration risk?
There is also a dangerous cliff edge in what is proposed. DSIT’s own expert panel warned in writing that a sudden transition at 16 could lead to intensive uptake and increased risks. We risk keeping children in a sterile digital environment until their 16th birthday, only to suddenly expose them to harmful, unfiltered content the moment they come of age, without having helped them to safely develop the digital and emotional resilience they will need throughout their lives. What specific measures does the Minister propose to address that cliff edge?
The Statement is also glaringly silent on the commercial exploitation at the heart of this crisis. Will the Minister confirm when the Government intend to raise the digital age of consent from 13 to 16?
Finally, any ban or restriction is entirely meaningless if the regulator lacks statutory teeth. We have a fundamental enforcement deficit. The Australian experiment already demonstrates the immense difficulties with enforcement and circumvention: six in 10 children there are still on social media six months after the ban came into force. Will the Minister commit today to a formal review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers within six months to ensure that the regulator has the necessary tools—business disruption measures, injunctive relief— to compel tech giants to change their business models?
We will rigorously scrutinise the forthcoming regulations and continue to press the Government to move away from blunt exclusion towards a robust harms-based framework that holds these tech giants properly to account. This must be indeed big tech’s seat-belt moment, but a seat belt protects a passenger within a vehicle; it does not simply ban them from the road. We need a smart approach that allows young people to benefit from the best of the digital world—and indeed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, says, prepare to vote at 16—and to learn, connect and grow while properly dismantling the addictive profit-driven architecture that is doing them such harm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for their contributions. They have been at the forefront of calls to engage on how to make our online world safe for children growing up for many years, and I join them in paying tribute to the bereaved families who have also been tirelessly campaigning on this issue.
The Government set out earlier this year our intention to consult parents, children and young people on what more needs to be done. We also committed to act swiftly following that consultation. We repeatedly said, “The question is how we act, not if we act”. The two noble Lords have expressed concern about the Government’s consultative approach. Perhaps they have questioned whether it was needed. We feel that the approach has been both swift and responsible. A short, focused consultation was necessary so that we could hear that input. We received over 116,000 responses from parents, civil society, industry and, crucially, children and young people themselves. The magnitude of that engagement demonstrates the range of strong views. We felt that it was critical to listen to those children and families and to have a national conversation.
This week we have set out plans to ban social media platforms from allowing those under 16 to access them. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we have also announced our intention to restrict under-16s from accessing some harmful functionality, such as livestreaming and features that enable the discoverability of children and facilitate unrestricted communications with strangers. It is by doing those two things together that we build a safer future. Those features will also be off by default for 16 and 17 year- olds, and we have made it clear that we will age-gate features on AI chatbots that enable sexually explicit interactions to over-18s. We believe that will deliver graduated, age-appropriate experiences and address concerns about the issue of cliff edges, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
On the question of speed and when we are going to act, we have committed to moving as quickly as possible to lay these regulations on social media by the end of the year, to vote as quickly as we can on those, and to implement them by spring 2027. By taking the powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, we can move at this speed.
Noble Lords also asked about the digital age of consent. We have said we will come back to some other questions that were raised in the consultation—for example, the digital age of consent and the risk of circumvention through virtual private networks—in July, when we will come back on further details.
On the question of different ages, it is indeed the case that there are many different ages in our legislation for access to alcohol and access to gambling. That is a feature of our legislation. We feel these are the right ages to restrict social media companies from providing services to under 16 year-olds—and, as I mentioned, setting the default features for 16 and 17 year-olds.
In terms of the scope, this is indeed based on the Australian criteria. We will set out, with the regulations later this year, exactly the criteria that we choose in our regulations. In respect of age verification, currently the Ofcom guidance recommends the following age-assurance methods for over-18s: passports, driving licences, credit cards, facial scanning, mobile network operator checks, open banking checks, or email-based age estimation. Some of these will not work for the 16-plus category. That is why the Secretary of State has asked Ofcom to look at options for highly effective age assurance for 16 year-olds. We have asked that it publishes its findings in October, so that Members of this House can consider them before voting on the regulations. So, to answer the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, on age verification, there are a variety of models.
On the question of evidence gaps, we are aware, obviously, that social media moves quickly and that new services may be provided. We think that this can provide some opportunities. The current legislation is set in a certain way. Once the legislation and the regulations are changed, this will provide the opportunity for providers to provide services that they do not today—for example, to access the news or other services. This may provide our children and young people with better opportunities than they have today.
We also recognise that some children may attempt to circumvent age restrictions. What we are setting out in this set of proposals is a new societal norm. We are resetting what is expected. This will benefit children today and, importantly, it will benefit children growing up today who have not yet reached the age of 13, 16 or 18—the generation of tomorrow.
On the question of enforcement powers, obviously this is an incredibly important point. We need the new regime to be effectively enforced. That is why the Secretary of State wrote to the chair and CEO of Ofcom to reinforce this and to ask that they ensure that there is robust and effective enforcement of the ban, and to submit to Parliament and make publicly available an update on their wider enforcement strategy, noting the legitimate interest of Members in the other place and of noble Peers here. We will ensure that Ofcom has the resources to properly enforce these new measures and to take strong enforcement action and protect all users more widely.
We recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny in this process, and I welcome the offers to collaborate and engage on the proposals we bring forward with the appropriate scrutiny—and, it seems, some extra scrutiny and critique from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We all want to protect children online and ensure that their online life is as fulfilling as their offline life. It is a responsibility we take very seriously. We do not want children to have to navigate unsafe digital spaces. We believe that our statement of intent here will do that and will deliver to make sure that we give children the childhood they deserve.
Artificial Intelligence: National Security Implications
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord raises very important points, including the fact that Mythos and Fable are unavailable worldwide, including in the US. He rightly stresses the importance of the AI Security Institute—its establishment, its ongoing support and funding by this Government, and the fact that it was able to test both Mythos 5 and Fable 5. We are in touch with the US Government and are monitoring the situation closely.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned the AI Security Institute. It identified ways to circumvent the safety guardrails of Fable 5 and Mythos before their public launch, including vulnerabilities that could allow the extraction of instructions for producing dangerous substances, yet the model was released by Anthropic regardless. Will the Minister now accept that voluntary co-operation with safety institutes is wholly insufficient at this level of capability and bring forward legislation giving the AI Security Institute the statutory power, where necessary, to delay or prevent the launch of dangerous frontier AI models in the UK?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The AI Security Institute did test Mythos and Fable before they were launched. In light of the risks that they potentially posed—Mythos in particular—we also gave advice to our companies. We worked carefully with the National Cyber Security Centre to provide advice to companies and regulators on what needed to be done because, generally speaking, what we find with these potential new capabilities is that many of the basic mitigants that you need to take will inhibit the effectiveness of these new models. In respect of regulation, as I mentioned a moment ago, we continue to support the effectiveness of sector-based regulators regulating AI risks as they approach their sectors. They are best placed to know what those risks are and what the mitigants will be.
Digital Safety: Children
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that there is unanimity on the importance of tackling child sexual abuse online and taking measures to further restrict that and make it harder. As my noble friend Lord Hanson made clear during the passage of the Act, device-level nudity detection can play an important role in preventing children taking, sharing or viewing nude imagery.
This measure really looks at how to prevent those images getting online. That is a very important part of the strategy; it stops harm before it happens, in addition to the law enforcement activity that must happen in parallel. It applies to both old and new smartphones and tablets, and we expect tech companies to set up controls so that, if a parent hands down a phone, for example, all they have to do is reset it to enact this operating-level facility.
In respect of making sure that legislation is ready, as the Minister for Online Safety said in the other place yesterday, he is working carefully and closely in parallel with the Home Office to draw up legislation should that be needed, should the protections not be put in place at scale as expected.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my honourable friend Munira Wilson on trying to extract some clarity from the Government after the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday before almost any of us arrived at London Tech Week. Sadly, it did not contain all of what was in the weekend media briefings. On these Benches, the Liberal Democrats have long called for a film-style harms-based age-rating system, with addictiveness as a central criterion, rather than a blanket ban on user-to-user services. Minister Narayan in the Commons subsequently indicated yesterday that addictiveness is
“very much on our minds”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/26; col. 31.]
Can the Minister confirm that the forthcoming consultation response will explicitly adopt addictive design, including infinite scroll, autoplay and recommender algorithms as a harm category, triggering age-based platform restrictions, rather than relying solely on content type or constituting a blanket ban? Can she confirm that this will be enshrined in legislation, rather than a voluntary expectation of tech platforms?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The consultation to which the noble Lord refers includes looking at features and functionalities; it looks at addictive algorithms, screen time and the impact on children’s health. The consultation has closed. There were many responses, and we are taking time to make sure that we have looked carefully at them—and, in addition to those responses, at the conversations that have gone on. I cannot pre-empt the Government’s response, which will come soon, but all the matters I have just mentioned were within the consultation for discussion.
AI Regulation Bill
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. We should all thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his consistent advocacy for regulation, the need for which is clearly shared widely around this Room.
Geoffrey Hinton, the Nobel laureate and godfather of AI, and Yoshua Bengio, the world’s most cited computer scientist, are not alarmists about AI. They are the people who built it, and now, of course, they are our religious leaders. When they call for binding regulation, the Government should listen. Moreover, the Ada Lovelace Institute has found that 89% of the public support an independent AI regulator with enforcement powers, and that 48% reject lighter rules to keep pace with other countries.
This is a manifesto commitment abandoned without explanation. Binding regulation was promised in 2024 and reaffirmed in the King’s Speech thereafter, but it has gone by 2026. The Government say that the existing frameworks suffice. We have the CMA’s conduct requirement for Google but, in other areas, Amazon’s cloud businesses, say, remain unregulated under the Digital Markets Unit after years of investigation. The existing frameworks are not sufficient, and now the competition reform Bill further threatens the independence of the CMA.
On the regulating for growth Bill, the King’s Speech briefing notes make clear that successful sandbox pilots could lead to law being permanently disapplied. This risks becoming a Henry VIII power grab. We await the Bill text, but the stated intention alone should alarm us.
On copyright, 274 commercial licensing agreements between content providers and AI developers already exist. The myth that legal licensing is impossible has always been false. The Government know this, yet even requiring web crawlers to identify themselves has been sidelined. I ask a Minister one question: the Government have the legislative moment, the mandate and their own manifesto; why not bring forward the cross-sector framework that the House, the public and the experts have all called for? The window is still open but, in my view, not for long without huge risks to our society.
Sovereign AI Fund
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask His Majesty’s Government what strategy they have to ensure that the Sovereign AI Fund will support sovereign AI infrastructure and reduce public sector dependence on foreign hyperscale cloud providers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The sovereign AI fund will support early-stage British start-ups at strategically important parts of the AI value chain, including AI infrastructure and compute. It is not designed to replace foreign cloud providers or achieve total UK self-sufficiency. Instead, the fund seeks to reduce our strategic dependence and ensure that the UK has a stake in a world economy transformed by AI.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Secretary of State has said that Britain
“must be an AI maker, not an AI taker”,—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/26; col. 55WS.]
and the sovereign AI unit’s own chair has promised British start-ups a guaranteed route to government contracts. But even the AI Minister, Mr Narayan, has admitted that procurement is too hard for British start-ups across government. So when will public procurement, in particular the G-Cloud framework, be reformed to match that promise? Will “sovereign AI” not remain just a slogan without that?
Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Employment
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Reducing the AI skills gap and understanding the impact of the labour market’s change due to AI is indeed something that we are looking at closely. DSIT regularly reviews the AI labour market and skills gap, and we are working with Skills England to fully understand the needs. I will need to update the noble Lord on the role of the regional centres he mentions after this session.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Government have cited their own Ipsos research that 84% of people at work have not undertaken any AI training in the past 12 months. The Government’s AI skills boost programme is welcome, but it is not enough. Will the Minister commit to personal learning accounts, giving individuals genuine choice over their upskilling, and to prioritising putting the creativity and critical reasoning at the heart of the national curriculum that AI cannot replicate?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that AI poses challenges and opportunities to those in the labour market. The AI skills boost programme that the Government have announced is extremely ambitious in its reach. It will see a major expansion to upskill 10 million workers, which is a huge endeavour and will see the UK fit to grab the opportunities of the AI technology that is coming today.
UK Space Economy
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I share the enthusiasm of my noble friend, the committee and the report for the space economy. We responded in detail to the recommendations earlier this year. We are setting out our strategic priorities, which, as the committee and my noble friend highlighted, encompassed many aspects of our lives, including defence, economic growth and support for our farming communities. We will continue to focus our spend on the priorities of economic growth and national security outcomes.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, on the Government’s space plan, will they formally adopt a policy of space debris neutrality, requiring all satellites launched from the UK to have what is called a “designed to demise” commitment to prevent further orbital congestion? With an active debris removal procurement worth some £75 million, how are the Government ensuring that UK-based SMEs are not being edged out by larger international companies for these critical domestic contracts?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord raises the important issue of space debris, which creates risks to our critical national infrastructure. We are strengthening UK space surveillance and investing in debris mitigation technologies. We are seen as a leader in space sustainability, including with the international community and His Majesty the King. We are supporting important UK companies such as Astroscale to understand the risks and costs of active debris removal. In fact, there are further announcements today on this important issue of space debris removal.
EU Digital Services Act and Regulation
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have the Online Safety Act, which is enforced by Ofcom and other regulators and, as the noble Lord will know, we announced a consultation just recently on areas that we may seek to expand or take further measures on to enhance children’s well-being.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as part of this dialogue, close co-operation on robust competition enforcement is essential to resist growing US pressure to weaken digital rules? As the EU actively enforces its Digital Markets Act, will the Government commit to aligning in practice with strong EU enforcement standards rather than allowing US corporate lobbying to dilute the UK’s digital markets competition regime?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK has taken decisive action to strengthen competition and fairness in digital markets. In January 2025, Parliament equipped the CMA with new powers to boost competition and innovation in digital markets. In May, the Government issued a clear steer to the CMA to prioritise this work and align action with international jurisdictions, including the EU. The UK and CMA engage regularly with EU counterparts as both regimes begin operation to help maintain close alignment on emerging issues.
Superintelligent AI
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant on AI regulation and policy for DLA Piper. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for provoking an extremely profound and thoughtful debate on an international moratorium on superintelligent AI development. I was very interested that he cited the Warnock approach as one to be emulated in this field. That was certainly one that our House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee recommended eight years ago, but sadly it has not been followed.
For nine years, I have co-chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence. I remain optimistic about AI’s potential, but I am increasingly alarmed about our trajectory, particularly in the field of defence. Superintelligence—AI surpassing human intelligence across all domains—is the explicit goal of major AI companies. Many experts predict that we could reach this within five to 10 years. In September 2025, Anthropic detected the first large-scale cyber espionage campaign using agentic AI. Yoshua Bengio, one of the godfathers of AI development, warns that these systems show “signs of self-preservation”, choosing their own survival over human safety.
Currently, no method exists to contain or control smarter-than-human AI systems. This is the “control problem” that Professor Stuart Russell describes: how do we maintain power over entities more powerful than us? That is why I joined the Global Call for AI Red Lines, which was launched at the UN General Assembly by over 300 prominent figures, including Nobel laureates and former Heads of State. They call for international red lines to prevent unacceptable AI risks, including prohibiting superintelligence development, until there is broad scientific consensus on how it can be done safely and with strong public buy-in.
ControlAI’s UK campaign, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is backed by more than 100 cross-party parliamentarians in the UK. Its proposals include banning deliberate superintelligence development, prohibiting dangerous capabilities, requiring safety demonstrations before deployment, and establishing licensing for advanced AI.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer offers a precedent. In 1987, every country signed it within two years—during the Cold War. When threats are universal, rapid international agreements are possible. Superintelligence presents such a threat. Yet the current situation is discouraging. The US has rejected moratoria. Sixty countries signed the Paris AI Summit declaration in February 25, but the UK did not. Even Anthropic’s CEO, who has been widely quoted today, admits that we understand only 3% of how current systems work. Today, AI systems are grown through processes their creators cannot interpret.
The Government’s response has been inadequate. Ministers focus on regulating the use of AI tools rather than their development. But this approach fails fundamentally when facing superintelligence. Once a system surpasses human intelligence across all domains, we cannot simply regulate how it is used. We will have lost the ability to control it at all. You cannot regulate the use of something more intelligent than the regulator just sector by sector.
Our AI Security Institute, as the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, pointed out, has advisory powers only. We were promised binding regulation in July 2024, but we have seen neither consultation nor draft legislation. Growth and safety are not mutually exclusive. Without public confidence that systems are under human control, adoption will stall.
It is clear what the Government should do. The question is whether we will act with the seriousness this moment demands or whether competitive pressures will override the fundamental imperative of keeping humanity in control. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
TikTok: Bereaved British Parents
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government are aware of calls to make the data preservation process faster. These are new powers and we are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the current process, working closely with Ofcom to do this. We are carefully considering any means that could allow relevant data to be preserved in a timely manner to ensure investigations are well informed and families get the answers they need.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the litigation alleges that TikTok’s algorithm deliberately promoted harmful content to children. That is exactly what we originally thought the Online Safety Act was going to help protect our children from, but that appears to be wrong. Will the Government, given their statement of strategic priorities, insert a statutory definition of safety by design and require Ofcom specifically to address addictive algorithms and compulsive design features?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware of the Statement that the Technology Secretary made last week to initiate a short consultation looking at further measures that could be taken, which responds to some of the questions that underlie his question about the nature of social media use and actions that could be taken in response to parental and other requests to deal with it—for example, looking at breaks to stop excessive doomscrolling, or further enforcement of the law. That consultation will take place swiftly before the summer.