PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes - 12 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I would like to make a statement on artificial intelligence, social media and online safety. No woman or child should live in fear of having their image sexually manipulated by technology, yet in recent days the AI tool Grok on the social media platform X has been used to create and share degrading, non-consensual intimate deepfakes.

The content that has circulated on X is vile. It is not just an affront to decent society—it is illegal. The Internet Watch Foundation reports “criminal imagery” of children as young as 11, including girls sexualised and topless. This is child sexual abuse. There have been reports of photos being shared of women in bikinis, tied up and gagged, with bruises and covered in blood, and much, much more. Lives can and have been devastated by this content, which is designed to harass, torment and violate people’s dignity. They are not harmless images; they are weapons of abuse disproportionately aimed at women and girls, and they are illegal.

Last week X limited the image creation function to paid subscribers, but this does not go anywhere near far enough. It is insulting to victims to say that someone can still have this service if they are willing to pay. It is also monetising abuse.

Let me be crystal clear: under the Online Safety Act 2023, sharing or threatening to share intimate images without someone’s consent, including images of people in their underwear, is a criminal offence for both individuals and platforms. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), rightly made this a priority offence, meaning that services have to take proactive action to stop this content appearing in the first place. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 made it a criminal offence to create or request the creation of non-consensual intimate images, and today I can announce to the House that this offence will be brought into force this week and that I will make it a priority offence in the Online Safety Act, too. That means that individuals are committing a criminal offence if they create or seek to create such content, including on X, and anyone who does that should expect to face the full extent of the law. But responsibility does not just lie with individuals for their own behaviour; the platforms that host such material must be held accountable, including X.

This morning, Ofcom confirmed that it has opened a formal investigation into X and will assess its compliance with the Online Safety Act 2023. The Government expect Ofcom to set out a timeline for the investigation as soon as possible. The public and, most importantly, the victims of Grok’s activities expect swift and decisive action, so the investigation must not take months and months, but X does not have to wait for the Ofcom investigation to conclude; it can choose to act sooner to ensure that this abhorrent and illegal material cannot be shared on its platform. If it does not, Ofcom will have this Government’s backing to use the full powers that Parliament has given it. I remind X and all other platforms that those include the power to issue fines of up to 10% of a company’s qualifying worldwide revenue, and in the most serious cases, Ofcom can apply for a court order to stop UK users accessing the site.

This Government will do everything in our power to keep women and especially children safe online. I can confirm that we will build on all the measures that I have outlined and will legislate in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is going through Parliament, to criminalise nudification apps. A new criminal offence will make it illegal for companies to supply tools designed to create non-consensual intimate images, targeting the problem at its source. In addition to our taking all those actions, we expect technology companies to introduce without delay the steps recommended in Ofcom’s guidance on how to make platforms safer for women and girls. If they do not, I am prepared to go further, because this Labour Government believe that tackling violence against women and girls is as important online as it is in the real world.

This is not, as some would claim, about restricting freedom of speech, which is something that I and the whole Government hold very dear. It is about tackling violence against women and girls. It is about upholding basic British values of decency and respect, and ensuring that the standards that we expect offline are upheld online. It is about exercising our sovereign power and responsibility to uphold the laws of this land.

I hope that MPs on both sides of the House will stand up for British laws and values and call out the platforms that allow explicit, degrading and illegal content. It is time to choose a side. Opposition MPs can either support the legislative action that we are taking through the Online Safety Act, or they can ally themselves with those who think that the creation and publication of sexually manipulated images of women and children is acceptable. I say in particular to the one Reform MP in this Chamber that if Reform continues to call for the Online Safety Act to be repealed, it is shamefully supporting scrapping protections that keep women and children safe.

I would briefly like to address the understandable calls from many MPs and others for the Government to end their participation on X. I really do understand why many colleagues have come to this conclusion when X seems unwilling to clean up its act. The Government will keep our participation on X under review. Our job is to protect women and girls from illegal and harmful content, wherever it is found. It is worth bearing in mind that 19 million people in this country are on X, and more than a quarter of them say that they use it as their primary source of news, and our views—and often simply the facts—need to be heard wherever possible.

Let me conclude by saying this. I believe, and the Government believe, that artificial intelligence is a transformative technology that has the power and potential to bring about extraordinary and welcome change—to create jobs and growth, to diagnose and treat diseases, to help children learn at school, to tackle climate change and so much more besides—but in order to seize those opportunities, people must feel confident that they and their children are safe online, and that AI is not being used for destructive and abusive ends. Many tech companies want to act, and are acting, responsibly, but where they do not, we must and will act. Innovation should serve humanity, not degrade it, so we will leave no stone unturned in our determination to stamp out these demeaning, degrading and illegal images. If that means strengthening existing laws, we are prepared to do that, because this Government stand on the side of decency. We stand on the side of the law. We stand for basic British values, which are supported by the vast majority of people in this country. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. Last week, public outrage was rightly expressed about the use of artificial intelligence to undress women and children in photographs by X’s AI assistant Grok. The use of AI in that way without consent is wrong. It is disturbing, and in many cases it is illegal. We support Ofcom in taking enforcement action where an AI tool is used to generate illegal content, especially of children. We support the Government’s stance on nudification tools.

X itself has warned of consequences for anyone prompting Grok to make illegal content. The tools in question have been put behind a paywall, for the easy identification via name and bank details of anyone misusing them. Beyond the platform, however, the Internet Watch Foundation has identified cases where perpetrators have used Grok in tandem with other AI tools to generate category A material. As the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), has rightly said, such mainstream AI tools must not become an enabling step in the child abuse production pipeline.

Law already exists to deal with much of this, including the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—in which the Government voted against tougher amendments tabled by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge—and the Online Safety Act 2023. Those laws should be enforced. We await Ofcom, the independent regular, setting out its next steps.

Regardless of the law, it is right to expect AI companies to anticipate and prevent misuse of products before their deployment through rigorous red teaming. I accept that for a law to deter, the enforcement threat must be credible, but its use must also be proportionate.

Notwithstanding the soft back-pedalling of the Secretary of State today, the Government’s appendage swinging over the weekend was extremely serious. Ministers mooted as an urgent remedy the banning of a site with 21 million monthly users in this country, despite another Minister guffawing that banning X was “conspiracy theory No. 3,627.”

Since their invention, the internet and social media have been misused—often criminally—by people traffickers, paedophiles and fraudsters: the gutter dwellers of our society. Nobody is on their side, but Government have never before proposed blocking TikTok, Google or Facebook wholesale for the frequent and often flagrant misuse of their sites. That would be an extraordinarily serious move against a platform that can be used for good—for uncovering scandals, sparking democratic revolution, and allowing the free exchange of ideas, day to day, including those that we do not like. It is that very power for good that makes Iran’s mullahs reach to block the internet in the face of courageous protesters.

This episode poses legitimate questions about who holds power in the internet age. Many worry about the accrued influence of big tech titans—me included—but they worry, too, about the power of Government to divert, hide and duck accountability. They worry about this Government.

The uncomfortable truth for all of us is that some of this imagery sits in a legal grey area. What Grok has produced at scale in 2026 is a modern-day iteration of an old problem, from crude drawings to photoshop. Grok is not the only tool capable of generating false or offensive imagery, and not all of this content will cross the threshold into illegality. Plenty of it is sick, degrading and morally repugnant but does not cross the criminal threshold. What, then, is the Secretary of State proposing to do about the difficult enforcement choices that a regulator or police force must make? The risk is that, with finite resource, and in a highly politically sensitive environment, regulators could be diverted from pursuing the most abhorrent and dangerous crimes.

If we wish to mitigate the risk to children, one simple intervention may help stop them sharing their own image too freely: raising the digital age of consent for social media to 16. The cross-party consensus is growing. The Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, agrees with that idea; does the Secretary of State? She knows that there are geopolitical consequences to her rhetoric. Figures close to President Trump have already threatened sanctions. Has the Secretary of State engaged with the US Government? Has she been advised on the nature of any retaliation, were the UK Government to block X? The US-UK tech deal has already been paused. We need clarity on what else is at stake.

To conclude, the Tech Secretary has said:

“We are as determined to ensure women and girls are safe online as we are to ensure they are safe in the real world”,

so will she ensure that the Government enforce against themselves for their failure to advance the rape gang inquiry, their failure to stop puberty-blocking trials, their failure to implement guidance on single-sex spaces, and their inability to deport illegal migrants who have committed sex offences? This Government rightly worry about the online sphere, and we support them on that, but there is plenty to be getting on with in the real world.

I was going to say that I was grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for Ofcom’s action and investigations, and her support for our action on banning nudification apps, and that I hope she and her party will actually vote for the Crime and Policing Bill in its final stages, but she then began her own campaign of misinformation in the House. I merely stated the facts about the Online Safety Act. There is a backstop power in the Act, which I remind her that her party voted for in government. Under that power, in the most serious cases, if Ofcom believes that a company is refusing to comply with the law, Ofcom has the power to apply to a court for serious business disruption measures to stop people accessing a platform. If she disagrees with her own Government’s legislation, she should make that clear to the House.

The legislation is extremely clear that it is a criminal offence to share or attempt to share non-consensual intimate images. It is going to be illegal to create or ask to create those images. The ban on nudification apps will be an important change. As I have said, this is nothing to do with freedom of speech; it is about upholding British values and the British law. I also gently point out to the hon. Lady, who mentioned our allies in the United States, that the President signed the Take it Down Act, which deals precisely with non-consensual intimate images. Maybe she should do a little bit more research, rather than just reading headlines, online or in newspapers.

I think the public will be clear about what change they want, and I genuinely hope that this is something we can work on across the House. It is because I am such a champion of freedom of speech that I do not want women to be bullied or harassed off any platform, and want their views and voices heard. The hon. Lady’s colleagues might wish that she would take the same approach; I see that from their faces.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Chi Onwurah.

Unlike her shadow, the Secretary of State was rightly passionate when calling out these sexually abusive images. The libertarian tech bro lobby has to accept that consent counts online, too. In her letter to me today, the Secretary of State said that the Online Safety Act was designed to deal with this, but she is being overly generous to the previous Government. The Act was designed, or fudged, to give adults some protection from illegal content on certain services, and to protect children from harmful content more generally, but not including generative AI, and without making platforms responsible for content that they share. Will my right hon. Friend now accept my Committee’s recommendations. and do more to explicitly plug the gaps in the Act, particularly regarding generative AI, as well as tackling the social media business models that incentivise the content that we are talking about?

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she and her Committee have done on this issue. I have read its work in detail since coming into post. She will know that I have already said on the issue of AI chatbots, for example, that some are covered by the Act—if they do live searches or share user-to-user content—but I have asked my officials to see where there are gaps. They have said that there are gaps, and I have said that I want to plug them, including by legislating, if that is necessary.

This is a fast-moving area. With the Online Safety Act, plus the additional measures we have taken in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and that we will take in the Crime and Policing Bill, we have quite a comprehensive suite of powers here, but I know this is developing quickly, particularly around generative AI. I am always prepared to look to the facts and the evidence and go where that leads me, and if I need to take further action, I will.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

For over a week, Grok has generated illegal sexual abuse material—non-consensual images of women and children—without restraint on X, which took the disgraceful step of putting it behind a paywall. That is abhorrent, and those images are illegal. Unlike the Conservatives, we very much welcome the action being taken and absolutely want to work together to stop this illegal, abhorrent use of AI technology. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called on the National Crime Agency to launch a criminal investigation into X and for Ofcom to restrict access immediately. We also called for Reform MPs to donate their earnings from X to those charities working for those victims of sexual exploitation.

Where there are loopholes around AI creation of these horrific images, we are pleased to hear the Secretary of State announce the establishment of a criminal offence to create, or seek to create, such horrific content and the work to criminalise nudification apps. Regulatory gaps, however, are not the only problem; enforcement is failing, too. While other countries have acted decisively to ban X, Ofcom has taken over a week to start an investigation and lacks the resources to take on these tech giants. What has become clear is that with the pace of technology, the Government must look to future-proof online safety from new harms and harmful features.

The Liberal Democrats have long been raising the alarm. We tabled amendments to raise the age of data consent, proposed a doomscroll cap to curb addiction and called for public health warnings on social media. Protecting women and children from online abuse cannot wait, so will the Government support our calls on these actions? This matters in real life—to my constituent who was harmed by strangulation in a nightclub following online videos, and to the victims of sexual abuse and violence, which often starts online. Given the pace of change, does the Secretary of State have full faith in Ofcom’s ability to enforce the Online Safety Act? Will she meet me because, unlike the Conservatives, I would like us to work together on this important issue and discuss the action needed on AI chatbots and emerging technologies?

This is a moment for the House to act together. Inaction sends the message that abuse online is acceptable, and we must prove otherwise.

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I think I have said to the House before that patience is not my greatest virtue, but that is because the public and, most importantly, victims want to see this happen quickly. I said in my statement that I expect—because the public expects—Ofcom to do this swiftly. We do not want to wait months and months for action. I am of course happy, as is the Online Safety Minister, to meet her to discuss further steps. There are clear responsibilities here in terms of enforcement of the law on individuals and their behaviour, but the Online Safety Act, which I know her party voted for, does place some of those requirements on Ofcom. We have to see action, and I am sure that that message will be heard loud and clear today.

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the additional steps she has announced today. It is important that action keeps pace with the speed of the technology that it seeks to influence, so can I press her on the timescale for the Ofcom investigation and any subsequent action that may be needed? Can also I press her on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that children, whose abuse is being enabled by the creation of images by Grok, are safeguarded and protected, and that those responsible face the full force of the law? Can she confirm that, if X continues to take the attitude and approach to these issues that we have seen so far, no options are off the table?

Absolutely no options are off the table. As I said to the Opposition spokesperson, the Online Safety Act includes a backstop power: if Ofcom decides that X has repeatedly refused to comply with the law, it can apply to a court for serious business disruption measures. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issues around protecting children. This is the most abhorrent crime. That is why this Government have been so strong on this. I am very happy to meet with her and talk to her Committee about what other steps we need to take. We will make sure that children are protected, no ifs and no buts.

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

The Secretary of State has given very clear message on this, and I thank her for that. She is right to say that this is not only about X and Grok; many generative AI platforms are facilitating this illegal and dehumanising behaviour. I gently say to her that although she is absolutely right that AI has enormous potential to reshape our lives, over a year since the Government attempted to sacrifice our world-beating creative industries and individuals’ intellectual property on the altar of AI, we are still waiting for news of the AI Bill. However, I am pleased that she has drawn the line here that she will not sacrifice the safety of women and children.

I agree that there are gaps in the legislation—of course there are—but there is a lot of legislation out there and, since the Online Safety Act came into force in March, Ofcom has taken so very little legal action against illegal content, which is so prolific. How confident is the Secretary of State that Ofcom has not only the resources, but the willpower—the stomach—to take on these big tech companies?

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, for her letter to me—I hope that she has received the reply; I tried to get that done as quicky as possible—and for her passionate campaigning on this issue. She knows that I and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport have been engaging deeply with colleagues on the issue of AI and copyright. We will update the House on next steps on that by 18 March. The hon. Lady knows that I want to find a way that backs our world-beating creatives, but also enables us to ensure that our world-leading AI developers and academics can use the technology too. That is no easy task, but I am determined to find a way forward. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. This is a real test case. People want to see action. They want to see the laws of this land upheld. I am sure that Ofcom knows, and will hear once again from Members in this House, that that is what it needs to do to gain people’s trust and their belief that this will work.

I am very glad to hear that the Secretary of State is going to take swift action on this matter and that she is open-minded and prepared to do whatever it takes. It would be great if she could act as swiftly against the bot farms abroad that target our democracy with lies and mischief. Of course, I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to prove unless one is a social media company. This weekend, the uprising in Iran resulted in the internet going down, just as it did in the summer, and guess what happened? One thousand three hundred bot accounts that support the Scottish nationalists went down. Either there are a lot of Scottish nationalists in Iran, which I suspect there are not, or there was a deliberate attempt to undermine our democracy and stir mischief. This is very serious. That is just one example that can be proved. What is going to happen as a result of that?

I thank my right hon. Friend for her important point about the impact on facts, democracy and rule of law. I know that she takes this extremely seriously, and so do the Government. The Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology has written about misinformation, and I recently gave evidence about that to the Committee. I want to reassure my right hon. Friend that we are considering all those issues because, as I said, we want to uphold British values and the law, as well as the facts—that is a crucial issue in this whole debate, because there can be significant consequences if that does not happen.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, in responding to a threat of this magnitude, a graduated response is required, and is she tentatively encouraged by the fact that X has decided to say that users cannot be anonymous in doing that sort of mischief? [Interruption.] Wait for it. I do not think X is taking that step out of the goodness of its heart. [Interruption.] Please do not shout me down. I think that X is taking that step because it is afraid of the sanctions that will come next. Should the Minister not be encouraging Ofcom to impose the appropriate level of sanctions, and to threaten to move to the next stage, so the big tech companies know that if they persist, they will be fined again and again and, ultimately, stopped from broadcasting? In taking that action, X has blinked, but the pressure must be ramped up in a graduated way.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I set out in my statement the steps that can be taken. A formal investigation has been launched, as the public would expect—I want to see that report ASAP—and there are clear powers in legislation to fine such companies up to 10% of their worldwide qualifying revenue, alongside the backstop power. The right hon. Gentleman will know that other countries are taking a range of actions. Indonesia and Malaysia have introduced temporary bans, while other countries are amending their legislation to give them similar powers to us. People are making it very clear that they want to put pressure on. All that will send a clear, single message. I just hope that MPs on both sides of the House agree with it, so that we might protect all women and girls.

I thank the Secretary of State for her absolutely clear message that what X is doing, through the use of Grok, is illegal. That is as much the platform’s responsibility as it is the user’s. I am afraid that there is less confidence in Ofcom’s ability to enforce the Online Safety Act as it stands, or in the improvements being made. Does she agree with the many people across the country who believe that we need to see real action from Ofcom by the end of this week, or we will judge Ofcom’s leadership as failing the British public?

My hon. Friend is a powerful champion on this issue. I am a feminist; I believe in deeds, not words. The deeds and the action will provide the proof that the very tough legislation already in place must be implemented—British rule of law. Ofcom needs to act, and swiftly.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements. She rightly set out the abhorrent and criminal nature of the content being created through Grok. As well as being subjected to that abuse, our children are being exposed to harmful content not just on X, but on many social media platforms—together with AI chatbots that never sleep, doomscrolling and addictive gaming. Children and young people, and their parents, are crying out for further action. I implore the Secretary of State to finally consider raising the digital age of data consent to stop big tech companies profiteering from our children’s attention. She opposed that when we proposed it last year for the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, but next week we will have another chance in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the other place.

Opposition Members, and many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, have called for a ban on social media for the under-16s. That is not currently the Government’s policy, but I will always be driven by the evidence. I am closely monitoring the evidence, including where similar action has been taken in other countries. We are very concerned about screen time, and today we have announced that for the first time ever we will have new guidelines for screen use for the under-fives. We are very worried, including from recent evidence, that children under two who have the highest levels of screen time are struggling more with language. We are determined to take action, but I will always be driven by the evidence.

Last week I met the brilliant Cindy Gallop, founder of MakeLoveNotPorn, and the MakeLoveNotPorn Academy who, like me and many across the House, believes in empowering people to talk openly and responsibly about sex, free from shame. Given how quickly tech is evolving, regulation, bans and blocks alone cannot shift the behaviour of people such as those using the Grok tool to make non-consensual sexual deepfakes, and a shared cross-party commitment to lifelong age-appropriate sex and relationships education is vital to changing culture, promoting consent, and preventing harm. Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the horror stories we are currently seeing, tech is not an enemy, people are—including some tech bros like Musk—and that tech could be used for good by good people to aid lifelong sex education instead of exploitation?

Madam Deputy Speaker gave me a look just now that said, “speed up your answers”—I know that is what she did, so I will. Tech can be a force for good or bad. I am so passionate about this because I believe that it can be a force for good, including the proper education of children and young people. On that point I definitely agree with my hon. Friend.

I am not sure that I did give the Secretary of State a look, but I am going to run this statement for only an hour in total, so Members need to ask much shorter questions. I call Sir Jeremy Wright.

I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, and the robust encouragement that the Government have given Ofcom to act on this issue. When she considers Ofcom’s capacity to act, not just its willingness to do so, will she also consider whether injunctive-style relief ought to be available, so that it can act urgently when circumstances require? May I also ask about risk assessment? Because of the centrality of risk assessment to the process of the Online Safety Act 2023, it matters hugely whether a platform has assessed a risk, leading to its safety duties to do something about that risk. Will the Secretary of State discuss with Ofcom whether X has done a proper risk assessment and kept it up to date? At the very least we now know that X is on notice that its AI tools can be used for the promulgation of illegal content on its platform.

Yes, I will. I know that X replied to Ofcom on Friday about what action it had taken. I have not seen that, but I will ask to see it. Of course I want to see whether it is making the proper risk assessments as quickly as possible.

I thank the Secretary of State for her action on this issue. What role does she think is being played by the tens of thousands of pounds taken by some, particularly on the right, from Musk’s disinformation and child porn generator, in spouting false claims that this welcome Government action is about free speech?

This is all about upholding British values and British law, not restricting freedom of speech. It is about enabling women not to feel bullied and threatened, so that they can participate. Reform wants the Online Safety Act 2023 to be scrapped. Its leader has said that the way forward is just to talk to the platforms and tell them that this is not the way forward. So much for strong leadership. I wonder why that is its position.

I welcome and wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State’s statement, and I am ashamed and disgusted by the statement from the shadow Minister. Elon Musk is a so-called free speech absolutist who has decried Ministers as “fascists” and says that the UK must stop censorship. We now have American politicians threatening future trade deals if we tackle non-consensual content and deepfake child pornography being shared online. Does the Secretary of State agree that free speech should never extend to creating and sharing sexual abuse material of children or women? Does she agree that it is the responsibility of platforms that provide the tools, alongside Apple and Google, which permit those tools, and their app stores—

Order. Questions have to be much shorter.

Non-consensual intimate images of women bloodied and bruised, women in bikinis and child sexual abuse are not freedom of speech—they are abuse.

My hon. Friend and I discussed this matter just last week. I completely agree with her that we need to get our views and voices out on a whole range of other platforms. I and many Ministers make that point regularly, and I think there is much more that we could do. We will keep the issue under review. As I spelled out in my statement, there is an argument, which the director general of the BBC made, about keeping a voice on a platform that is used by so many people, but I understand her concerns and we will keep this under review.

If Ofcom does not act decisively and swiftly to protect people in the UK, it risks sending a deeply damaging signal that even the most serious forms of online abuse will be accepted when they are carried out by powerful platforms that are owned by powerful men. Does the Secretary of State have full faith that Ofcom will enforce the Online Safety Act in light of this slow and inadequate response to child sexual abuse material being produced by Grok?

I am sure that Ofcom will hear loud and clear my comments and the comments of the hon. Lady and others that we expect the law of this land to be upheld and enforced, and done swiftly.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the strength and passion with which she has responded to this issue. Elon Musk is ideologically opposed to the kind of ethical guardrails and safeguarding that the British public want to see online. The update to Grok that facilitated these images was put in place in August, so where has Ofcom been in that time? Does that not reveal that the way that we legislate and regulate in this place is not fit for purpose with the challenges that AI presents day by day? Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to consider a far more flexible principles-based, responsive approach to the way that we regulate?

My right hon. Friend raises a really important issue. Everybody in the House knows how long it took to pass the Online Safety Act, and by the time it was implemented, things had moved on very quickly. The question of how we move as quickly as the technology is moving is critical, and I am considering that issue deeply.

Will the Secretary of State consider adding AI responses to prompts by users to the definition of user-generated content, so that that is included in the scope of the Online Safety Act? Will she or one of her Ministers meet me to discuss my concerns about the risks posed to children of children being able to livestream?

I will definitely meet anyone who has evidence about that and what we need to do.

Having campaigned for a ban on nudification apps, I hugely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today. We have all seen how AI has been used to humiliate and sexualise women, with bullet holes, blood, gagging, bruising, and even the horror of a Jewish woman being stripped of her clothes and placed at Auschwitz. Like a number of colleagues, over the weekend I have also had my own treatment and been stripped into a bikini by AI on X—much less than many victims have suffered but a reminder of what many thousands of women face daily. Will my right hon. Friend look at how the Government can work with industry to introduce AI watermarking, alongside ways of enabling users to mark that their pictures or videos should not be digitally manipulated without their consent?

My hon. Friend is a formidable campaigner on all these issues. The Minister for Online Safety and I are happy to meet with her to discuss all those ideas further.

I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State. When she talks about a ban, one thing I am slightly concerned about, whether it is limited, short-term or long-term, is how it would be enforced. Is she confident that Ofcom could do so in response to X and what we have seen? How do we ensure that if we end up with a ban, temporary or otherwise, we do not allow people to circumvent it via the use of VPNs? What are her thoughts on that?

I hope that we do not get to that stage; I hope that X abides by the law and that Ofcom uses the powers that it has. That is extremely important, and we want to see that as quickly as possible. I am so sorry, but could the hon. Gentleman say the second part of the question again?

It was about ensuring that the ban is enforceable.

I think—

Order. May I suggest to everybody who is yet to ask a question that second parts are not required?

That was my fault; I did not hear the question.

We will see. I believe that this ban can be enforced. We have comprehensive legislation that is probably stronger than that in almost any other country, and it now needs to be enforced.

May I very much welcome what the Secretary of State is doing in proving that none of this is inevitable with the development of technology? She has just said that there is a concern that our legislation is behind, rather than ahead of, the curve. She knows that this issue is not just about Grok; it is about AI chatbots. I know that Baroness Kidron in the other place has brought forward legislation on that. Will the Secretary of State defend all those talking about content moderation and how we get this right in the future, including by standing up to Governments who are not free speech advocates if they bar those people from their shores?

Let me just keep to the point about AI chatbots. We are confident that some are covered by the legislation, but officials have told me that they believe some are not. I am currently working this issue through. I want to move swiftly, but I want this work to be effective, for all the reasons we have said. I am happy to meet with my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

Given the devastating harm caused by non-consensual sexual deepfakes and the reality that the Online Safety Act is ineffective against international social media platforms, how will the Secretary of State ensure the immediate removal of this material? How will she deliver practical support to women and girls from the moment that they become victims?

By backing the law, not calling for it to be scrapped, which is what the hon. Lady’s party wants.

The South West Grid for Learning is based in my constituency, and it does some really important work in keeping people safe online as part of the UK Safer Internet Centre. It also runs a programme called “Stop Non-Consensual Intimate Image Abuse”, which people can access to stop these images from being uploaded to platforms through a technological solution called hashing. Some platforms use that, but not all. Will my right hon. Friend encourage all platforms to take up this technology and promote this service to people?

That sounds like a very interesting and practical solution to many of the challenges we are discussing. I hope that my hon. Friend will send me more details.

I cannot pretend to understand the complexities of AI bots or the stuff that we have talked about this afternoon, but I do understand the impact that sexual abuse has on children and girls in my constituency. On Saturday, I was talking to a grandmother, who told me that her granddaughter had been groomed; as a consequence, she had become suicidal, was locked in her room and was unrecognisable from the young woman that she had been just three months ago. I live in a very rural part of the country. May I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that she will put as much money and as many facilities into rural parts of the country to prevent this disgusting habit as she will put into other parts?

I will do whatever it takes, and I know that is what the whole Government think. In particular, this is a personal priority for the Prime Minister. The people who abuse children find a way to do it, in every century and any different form. Our job is to find that and stop it, and that is what we will do.

I agree with the Secretary of State. The production of these disgusting images amounts not to freedom of speech but to freedom to abuse, harass and commit crime. Will she condemn what seems to be an organised campaign of intimidation against female staff at Ofcom? After all, they are just carrying out the responsibilities that they were given by this House.

Yes, absolutely. We all worry about what happens to our constituents, our family, our friends and the people who work with us if they have the temerity to speak out. We will not be bullied, we will not be cowed, and I know for sure that my right hon. Friend will not.

Many women and girls will be shocked to hear some colleagues in this House suggest that AI deepfakes is a question of free speech. Plaid Cymru is clear: digital abuse is not free speech. Does the Secretary of State agree that protecting women and girls must never be conditional, and will she outline what the Government will do not only to criminalise the creation of deepfakes, but to stop these platforms creating this technology in the first place?

Yes, and I refer the hon. Lady to my statement, which I think spelled out in detail all the action we are taking.

I cannot accept that it is okay for the Government to stay on X now, but I do welcome the strong action they are taking on online violence against women and girls. This is part of a wider problem of violent pornography that normalises and encourages violent sexual fantasies, so does the Secretary of State agree that Ofcom has a duty to act swiftly and firmly?

One hundred per cent.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarity about these disgusting and illegal images on X. I have chosen my side—I deleted X from my phone on Saturday. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that Ofcom will have the powers, the teeth and the funding it needs to keep up with the tech bros as they invent new and innovative ways to degrade women?

I believe Ofcom does have the powers and funding to do that, but this technology is developing rapidly, which is why I have said to the House that I will keep monitoring it. Where we see gaps, we will plug them; doing so is so important for the country.

I thank the Secretary of State for her comments this afternoon, and agree with her that anyone saying that this activity is free speech is totally incorrect. We must continue to redouble our efforts to protect women and girls. Part of this abuse happens on social media. As the Secretary of State knows, there is a big conversation about banning social media for under-16s. More teaching unions, teachers and parents are coming out in favour of doing so, and a large majority of the public are also in favour. The Secretary of State said that she is prepared to go further; will she ensure that the Government review what has been done in Australia and ban social media for under-16s?

We are closely monitoring what is happening in Australia. Banning social media for under-16s is not currently our policy, but of course we are looking at the evidence. I am particularly concerned about the addictiveness of social media and its impact on mental health. However, we also need to talk to young people themselves; some are acutely aware of the problems, but do not want it banned. I also hear organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation and the NSPCC, which worry that a ban would push things deeper underground and that there would be a cliff edge when young people reach 16. We need to take all these issues into account, and I will always be driven by the evidence.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and share her outrage and horror at the use of AI to create these abusive sexual deepfakes. Can I press her on implementation? Our legislation is only as good as its enforcement. She talked about acting swiftly, so will she set a hard deadline for Ofcom to complete its investigation? Will she also set a hard deadline for X to act, and if it does not, impose the fullest fines possible?

The legislation that we in this House voted for, the Online Safety Act, gives Ofcom those powers. I would expect a swift timeline and for any investigation to be done as soon as possible; people in this country, including victims, do not want to wait months. The legislation gives Ofcom the power to apply to a court for serious business disruption measures, and it is really important that that happens. Let us also not forget that X does not need to wait for any of this in order to act—it needs to do so immediately.

May I add my voice to those expressing shock at those somehow equating the holding to account of people who enable and profiteer from the production of sexual abuse images of children with the undermining of free speech? It is disingenuous and it does a disservice to everyone. I encourage the Secretary of State to continue to put pressure on Ofcom to make sure that it acts decisively and effectively against companies that break the Online Safety Act 2023.

I am sure that Ofcom knows only too well the expectation not only of this House, but more importantly of the country and victims, that action must be taken. We will continue to make that point.

Having read accounts of women who have had their image manipulated by Grok AI, I am dismayed by attempts by some to try to twist this into an argument about suppressing free speech. It is abuse and it is illegal. I welcome the news that the Government will criminalise nudification apps, but does the Minister agree that—as Elon Musk has so far refused to take any responsibility or to recognise the severity of online harms, and is unlikely to be bothered by the threat of fines—the only way to stop this abuse is to block access to X in the UK now?

I hope I have made clear my position on that, on the legislation and on my expectations, but I am more than happy to discuss it further with the hon. Lady.

I thank the Secretary of State for standing up for women and children with conviction and dedication, and with no ifs, no buts. I share that dedication. As a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, I supported our inquiry into non-consensual intimate image abuse. Witnesses told us that one of the most damaging aspects of that form of abuse was the length of time the images remained on those platforms. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that all these images and deepfakes are removed from the internet as quickly as possible?

My hon. Friend is another amazing campaigner on these issues. She is right to raise the issue of speed. I think I am correct in saying that the legislation expects platforms, when they know that this material is there, to take it down swiftly. It is interesting to note that the Take it Down Act that has been passed in the United States has a 48-hour time limit on non-consensual intimate image abuse. I always look at what is happening in other countries to see what more we can learn.

I welcome the actions outlined by the Secretary of State today. Nearly 10 years ago, Molly Rose Russell died as a result of suicide from content she had seen online. In Northern Ireland, one of the world’s most prolific paedophiles operated with ease online. We already know the risks here. Will the Secretary of State make sure that devolved regions are not left behind in our attempts to tackle this global scourge?

I will do anything I can to ensure that this is sorted in every part of our proud United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady has further ideas, I hope she will write to me about them, because I am keen to see them.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s swift action—all power to her. Long before this Grok app was invented, I met a father whose daughter had taken her own life after an overly sexualised fake image was circulated of her at school. That is the impact of these unregulated actions by anonymous people. Will the Secretary of State please use this opportunity to highlight the fact that creating, facilitating, hosting and sharing such images is against the law, and that no VPN or amount of money will prevent people from facing the full force of the law in this country?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The legislation is clear: it is illegal to share or attempt to share. It will be illegal to create or attempt to create. The nudification apps will be banned, too. We are crystal clear: VPNs or not, the platforms have to make sure that their duties under the law are fulfilled. That is what this issue is about, and we are determined to ensure that the full force of the law is felt.

I have been contacted by a significant number of constituents, who are appalled that Grok and X are being used to create and then disseminate child sexual abuse. One issue that they have raised is the length of time it has taken us to act, as opposed to other countries. Malaysia and Indonesia have already banned these platforms. Is the Secretary of State not concerned about the fact that it took Ofcom a week to launch an investigation?

Patience is not my greatest virtue. I want us to act faster and more firmly, and I am sure that that message will be heard loud and clear by Ofcom and by X, which has the power to sort this out now.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s serious and rapid action to tackle non-consensual sexual deepfakes on social media, which we know have generated child sexual abuse images and have been weaponised to abuse and silence women, including many in the House. We also know that AI’s capabilities are growing and it is becoming more widespread. How are the Government monitoring these evolving AI models to prevent them from causing harm in the future?

I pay tribute to the last Government for establishing the AI Security Institute, because, as my hon. Friend will know, it is a world leader. Its job is to monitor in depth, working in partnership with those companies, the harms that are there. I am in regular contact with the institute, which I think is very important, because I believe that the potential of AI can be used for great good—but only if it is safe.

I welcome the statement, but an idea has been advanced by some that X moving Grok to a premium service somehow means that those at X are blinking, and I think that is for the birds. I think it was a deliberate strategy on the part of those at X to create a content generation tool that is disgusting but that drove up demand, to wait until the demand reached a critical mass, and then to make it a premium product so that it could make money from it. X is continuing to make money from violence against women and girls, which is what this is: it cannot be denied.

The violence against women and girls strategy, released just before Christmas, stated that the work would

“ensure that the UK has one of the most robust responses to perpetrators of VAWG in the world.”

May I gently ask, given that other countries have already banned Grok, whether this is really the most robust response that we could have?

Other countries have different legislative systems. I believe that our Online Safety Act 2023, along with the other measures that I have mentioned, is one of the most comprehensive ways of addressing this issue. The hon. Lady is right to speak of the need for speedy and swift action, and that point has been made time and again in the House, but the Government’s determination to tackle violence against women and girls comes from the top down and goes right across every Department.

I should have said earlier that the Minister for Digital Government and Data, who is a joint Minister in DSIT and in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is looking at the issue of advertising, including the monetisation of some of these behaviours. “Follow the money” is a really important issue, and we want to address it.

The overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse imagery produced online is still, very sadly, produced by children themselves, who have been groomed by adults in order to do so. What steps will the Government take to ensure that there are device-level protections to prevent children from taking and sharing nude images of themselves?

My hon. Friend has raised a really important issue, which I am happy to discuss with her further. What she says is exactly what is happening in this country.

I know that many Members have not had a chance to ask a question, but I will find a way to enable them to ask that question, and I will secure a response through the Department—including my parliamentary private secretaries—because I know how passionately all Members care about this issue, and I want to continue the debate.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State responded to another Member on the subject of Northern Ireland. Can she confirm that the Crime and Policing Bill will be modified to include Northern Ireland?

The hon. Member will know that that is not a point of order. I made it very clear that the statement would run for an hour. The Secretary of State seems to be itching to respond, but perhaps she could do so in writing. It is very unfair on Members who have not had the chance to get in that we should seek to extend the statement via a point of order.