Role of Big Tech in Society

I beg to move, That this House has considered the role of Big Tech in society.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and indeed the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I am grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting the debate.

Today, I want to look at the relationship between Government and big tech, and its impact on wider society and the communities we all represent, as well as the national and even global consequences of this expanding, what I term “unreliable relationship of reliance”. Let me be clear: the Government do not have the resources necessary for research and development of new technologies compared with the wealthy and global tech companies’ resourcing—I get that. Private sector collaboration makes sense and is of benefit to our country. Improving the efficiency of Government, public sector productivity, and the outcomes and effects of Governments—whatever their political complexion—is something that I support.

However, I think the Government need to establish—this is something for the Minister; perhaps a legacy for him —their very own centre for tech research: a Porton Down for tech innovation and development, or an expansion of the R&D work of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Not everything can or should be outsourced to the private sector—this is a Conservative MP saying that.

Today, I want to highlight some of the potential, if not inherent, democratic dangers for the UK Government —both today’s Government and future Governments—as the relationship with big tech becomes more embedded, we become more reliant, and by osmosis, we cede ever more power and influence to tech companies over all the people we represent in this Parliament, and the Governments they elect.

Perhaps UK Government data could be seen as the crown jewels of data—the ultimate state capture: data capture. Data is increasingly entrusted to companies with no democratic oversight or accountability. Some big tech companies regard democracy, governance and oversight, for all their faults, with distain and even contempt—an irritant to their commercial progress, rather than as a challenging and helpful partner.

I believe that any Government being beholden to big tech—I do not mean collaboration, which is positive—is a strategic risk to our country, full of moral hazard. I submit that it is a potential and emerging medium term strategic risk, where conflict between democracy and big tech will come into stark contrast. Today, we feel only the tremors of such a conflict, but it is for the future and for all Governments to address it before that tremor becomes an earthquake for our democracy and for politics more generally.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He is making an interesting speech. When we talk about big tech, we are primarily talking about companies based outside the UK—particularly in the United States. Does he agree that this argument is really about sovereignty and about how more of this technology can be developed and owned in the UK or across Europe?

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and will touch on sovereignty later. The European Union—it is a positive in many ways—is looking at that. That is partly why I am making this speech today; it is about sovereignty too.

Who knows the most—who owns or hosts the most data—and how that data is used determines who has the hierarchical advantage. I would argue that that gives the democratic or control advantage, not just the commercial advantage. The people, through democratically elected government, should always have ultimate control.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. Many big tech companies are a cause of concern, but a particular one is Palantir, which holds Government contracts worth more than £900 million, spanning 10 Departments. Does he agree that more concerning than its dominance is the fact that we do not know what data it holds and has access to? Numerous groups warn that patient data in the NHS federated data platform could be accessible by US authorities under the American CLOUD—Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data—Act, so does he agree that the Government must exercise the February 2027 break clause until those questions are property and publicly answered?

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will not name individual companies today—she has clearly put her views on the record—but no monopoly, be it a public or private sector monopoly, is good for our constituents, consumers and small and medium sized businesses. She makes her case well.

Will this universal knowledge that tech companies have—this data capture—always be used for good? Will it always be benign? Will it seek the common good or the corporate good?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Let me make a bit of progress, and then I will try to come back to the hon. Lady. I have applied for this debate a few times—I have been lucky today, but we have only an hour, rather than 90 minutes.

Is big tech politically neutral? Sometimes it does not seem like that. Is that of concern to the Government? Does the Minister agree that some Government data can never be white labelled? Are some big tech companies agnostic when it comes to the UK’s democratic values? Are they more interested in value than values? This is not speculation. Some—not all—of the most powerful figures in tech have openly questioned democracy and its relevance, authority and survivability. Some of those observers are not fringe voices shouting from the margins, but tech owners with capital, platforms and influence and with the ear of many of our constituents and, indeed, our Government.

Again, big tech is a force for good in the world. I believe that. It provides huge benefits with regard to human geography, economic empowerment and borderless prosperity. But in so many ways, tech’s story has only just begun. That is one of the reasons why we need to have discussions like the one that we are having today. It is why Governments, wherever they might be, need to strike the right balance on how much power—how much of the people’s power—they cede to big tech and its shareholders. Many of its shareholders are known, but some are a bit more mysterious and, to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), do not necessarily always share our values, or are certainly not in the UK.

Ten years ago today, the Brexit campaign became one of the first very successful disinformation campaigns. Ranging from Turkish immigrants to Spanish bullfighting, the targeted Facebook ads played on people’s fears and deceived millions. But today, disinformation is more pervasive, insidious and vindictive than ever before, so does the right hon. Member agree that we must learn the lessons of 10 years ago and introduce stricter regulations for social media companies to ensure that they challenge harmful disinformation and reduce its spread across their platforms?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. As I said, I am not going to reference particular tech companies or particular information or misinformation campaigns. I am trying to get Members across the House to raise their eyes a little and look at the big picture of the conflict, coming down the road, between big tech and sovereignty, democracy and all the people we represent. But the hon. Lady’s point is also on the record.

Again, the close relationship between big tech and Governments is necessary, but is none the less becoming increasingly problematic and conflicted. Tech needs smarter regulation, certainly more competition, and a recalibration and rebalancing of its relationship with Government. The collaboration between the two should not mean Governments turning a blind eye to the breaking of laws, or big tech enjoying public policy vetoes. With big tech come big responsibilities. Governments should not rush to absolve big tech of the wrongs of tech in return for future technology transfer and unfettered access, and better terms for collaborations with Government.

These questions arise, perhaps. If the relationship between Government and big tech is conflicted, is it also compromised? If so, does that compromise equate to a type of corporate kompromat? Who wins? Who loses? Who is in control? Has big tech gone beyond even the power of the global banking system in 2008? Has it become too big to fail, too big to challenge even if the challenge is by Ministers of the Crown, too big to be sufficiently stood up to and too big to be fairly taxed?

If the Government’s mantra is “In tech we trust”, I hope this debate will challenge Whitehall and the Government on the fact that that laudable aim does not come without significant, inherent and strategic risks for the whole of our country, our institutions and democracy itself—the people we represent. Therefore the challenge for Government is how they preserve the benefits of private sector collaboration while ensuring that no single point of failure or future political, trade union or operational dispute can jeopardise or threaten the UK’s national security, sovereign capabilities or strategic interests. Who is ultimately in control? Is it the client—in this case, the Government—or is it big tech, or individual tech companies? Is there a master switch, and if so, whose hand is on it? If we are talking about a particular tech company, who within the tech company has the final say on disputed deployment of that tech, or on philosophical or political disagreements?

Does the right hon. Member share my concern that because of the speed at which big tech moves, we in this House as legislators always seem to be five steps behind where the technology is? How are we going to be able to regulate for a world that is faster paced than we are in this building?

The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point. That is a challenge for all Governments and all Ministers, however able they are. We have a very good tech Minister here today, but it is a real challenge. The starting point is better co operation, transparency and openness from big tech itself, as I set out in my introductory remarks.

It is the owner or owners—as in shareholders, the board, the advisory board or even other clients and customers—who may object to collaboration between a particular Government and a tech company. That is problematic. Or could tech companies themselves find a moral or political argument to turn off a particular Government service at a particular moment in time? That has been seen in recent months in the conflict in the middle east. We have seen it in China where certain tech companies have switched off their moral compass to placate the Chinese regime in exchange for commercial advantage. Meanwhile, freedom and democracy in China is set back. What can the Government do? There need to be more robust legislative safeguards. The Government need to collaborate with tech companies, of course, but not to capitulate.

In conclusion, tech companies should act as responsible corporate citizens, but they so often do not unless they are made to, and they are not made to enough for the reasons I have set out today. When Parliaments do regulate, tech companies fight it all the way. They weaponise the courts and demonise parents and legislators around the world who dare to even raise legitimate questions and scrutinise these companies. Big tech should not be asking what the minimum is it should do to keep Governments off its back, as it sees it, or to avoid negative publicity and public opinion. Big tech firms should be corporate leaders leading by example and setting high standards without Parliament or Ministers having to tell them what they should do. Big tech should do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.

Order. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. I remind other Back Bench Members who want to contribute that they should continue to bob to show that they still want to be called. I am loath to impose a time limit if I can avoid it, but, given the level of interest, if everyone can stick to about four minutes each we will get everyone in.

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this debate. Given the number of people present, it will be a successful debate, and it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.

Technology plays a huge role in all our lives. I think all of us in this room carry a smartphone or some sort of tablet device that we use to check emails, do social media or read the news and all sorts of things, so the debate is timely and important. I do not want to repeat the points that the right hon. Gentleman made, but I think big tech has a lot to answer for in harvesting individuals’ personal data, carrying out surveillance in marketing promotions and tracking us through various map applications. There is a lot to be said about big tech and about companies’ market concentration and algorithmic control in social media.

I did a school visit recently and was told about pupils missing school because they are hooked on social media overnight. They barely get any sleep and cannot come to school or perform well at school. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about political neutrality. Without naming names, a prominent social media platform comes to mind in terms of a lack of political neutrality. As we use big tech in our day to day lives for work, leisure and for personal reasons, there is a lot to be said about data sovereignty for individuals and also for Governments, businesses and cyber security.

I want to make a point about France and Germany, whose Governments have been moving a lot of their software systems to open source software, which is not part of big tech. I would like to see the British Government seriously analyse open source options.

On cyber security, in recent weeks the US Government have decided to block Claude’s new AI software, Fable 5. What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on new AI software and cyber security?

I have a lot to say about the Trump Administration, but I will not bore the House with those remarks. The threats we are seeing to modern society from artificial intelligence are quite serious and there is an unpredictable Government in Washington DC.

The Government should do a big piece of work, similar to that being done in France and Germany, on open source software. I read an excellent book recently by American author Ben Tarnoff, called “Internet for the People”, and I would highly recommend it to the Minister and all Members of the House. It is about how we are where we are in terms of big tech.

The point made by the right hon. Member for The Wrekin about better and stronger regulation is important. I also want to touch on the digital services tax introduced in 2020. The rate of digital services tax in the UK is fairly low. In Austria, it is 5%; in France, it is 3%; and in Germany, it is 10%. We need to revisit that as a society, and make sure that big tech companies pay their fair share of tax.

I have tabled two written questions, UIN477 and UIN57573, asking whether the Government have a strategy for using open source software; I would like to see them do a lot more on that. In Europe, our friends can see where the big tech platforms most of us use every day are leading us, and they are looking more and more at open source software. Cyber security and data sovereignty are really important issues.

I could go on and on, Sir Jeremy, but you are looking at me, so I will finish my remarks. I would love to hear the Minister address the points about open source software and a digital services tax that could yield a lot more revenue for taxpayers.

I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing the debate. It goes without saying that big tech companies, like everyone else, should pay their fair share. They should not be allowed to harvest a child’s data or feature harmful content on their platforms. That is why the Government’s ban on harmful social media could be an important step towards better protection for young people online.

However, I worry that enforcing a blanket ban will just see young people turn to virtual private networks and access totally unmodified content. VPN use went up more than 100% as soon as the ban in Australia was implemented. I also worry that taking away all social media platforms could be really damaging to some young people in Yeovil and beyond, who use social media to find their people, battle loneliness and express themselves. When done right, social media can be a space where young people can be so creative. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how we balance those concerns with the vital need to protect young people. We Liberal Democrats have suggested a film style age rating system for these platforms to keep children safe online.

One area where we really do need to crack down is protecting the creative industries. Artists should not be finding their art being used by generative AI without their permission. We need the Government to clarify how they will go further on regulating the small print that big tech uses when it comes to what is used to teach AI models.

Beyond social media, the change and innovation coming out of big tech could be a real focus for good. For example, assistive technology for people with special educational needs and disabilities can be life changing, whether that is AI note takers like Plaud or more specific tech for things like speech and language disorders. I know that the Department for Education is working away at this, but we need a cross Government approach to fund and suggest the best assistive tech for schools and the workplace.

Related to that point, I ask the Minister to set out what discussions he has had with big tech companies about making their platforms—from social media to chatbots—more accessible for neurodiverse people, as there are lots of simple steps we can take. I would welcome a meeting with the Minister to set those out.

Finally, I want to talk about an issue where I am seeing impact: fraud and scams. One constituent with learning difficulties lost £70,000 to a romance fraud. There were no guardrails on social media, and nor were the protections on online banking apps good enough. Although we got Lloyds to refund my constituent, it was an uphill struggle. But it is not just that scam; scammers are everywhere and targeting everyone and anyone in our community. Fraudsters are even using sponsored slots on Google to act as fake clean air zone charging websites.

Veterans are being targeted by scam wealth creation and property investment influencers, who use their background as veterans to sell worthless courses that trap those targeted in a spiral of spending more and more on such courses. A veteran from my constituency was worried at first, but after being reassured by a veteran recruiting for the course and the slick social media presence of the influencers, he invested. Ultimately, he faced bankruptcy and nearly took his own life. Regulation is not keeping up, and the Government and big tech need to be doing more to crack down on fraud.

In my constituency, scammers have managed to impersonate the council to demand bogus penalty charges from vulnerable residents. Meanwhile, the world’s leading deepfake expert, Hany Farid, says in The New York Times that he can no longer trust his own eyes. If he cannot, what chance do the rest of us have? Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to compel tech companies to crack down on deepfakes and establish an AI regulator to enforce a statutory code of ethics?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Will the Minister set out the steps that the Government are taking with big tech and the Financial Conduct Authority to crack down on fraudsters? It is important that the Minister clearly sets out what new protections and awareness campaigns the Government are putting together, because the approach so far has not been enough. We need action.

I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for bringing forward this important debate. It comes at a pertinent time, as we discuss the impact of social media on our children, the way we use AI, and the influence of big tech companies, including on our lives.

As I pointed out earlier, a growing number of voices—doctors, nurses, civil society organisations and Members across this House—are sounding the alarm about the unchecked expansion of one company: Palantir Technologies. The concern seems to centre around two issues. The first is the sheer scale of Palantir’s involvement in our public infrastructure. It holds at least 34 current and past Government contracts across at least 10 Departments, totalling a minimum of £900 million. The true figure is likely higher, since several contracts remain unacknowledged or heavily redacted. Palantir’s largest single contract is the NHS federated data platform, which is worth £330 million over seven years. My inbox has been rammed with constituents calling for the Government to trigger Palantir’s February 2027 break clause. I support that call, and I hope the Minister will say whether the Government do, too.

It is unusual for me to intervene, but I am glad the hon. Lady mentioned that number. I had no idea it was that many contracts for that particular company, and that underscores some of the points I was making. I can think of certain service companies, which I will not mention today, that have multiple contracts, some of which they deliver well, and some of which have been a complete disaster under successive Governments. I can think of some global IT companies—not big tech, but the old, traditional hardware companies—where some of those programmes are delivered well, and some have been a complete disaster. To have so many contracts in the hands of so few is concerning.

That is why I was so pleased the right hon. Member called the debate. I hope he agrees that once a contractor has failed for one Department, it should not be given a contract for another Department. I hope the Minister will speak to that.

I hugely support my constituents’ call for the Government to use that February 2027 break clause with Palantir. I hope the Minister will tell us more about whether they intend to act on that. Some will say that Palantir’s expanding portfolio simply proves that it is the best company for the job. That may be true for some places—I doubt it—but it is not a reason to dismiss concerns. We should be worried about one company having this much dominance across so many pillars of our society, and particularly a foreign corporation that may not have the UK’s best interests at heart. I say that with confidence, because Palantir’s founder, Peter Thiel, has accused us of having Stockholm syndrome over our affection for the NHS and said that we need to “rip the whole thing from the ground and start over”.

His broader political views are just as concerning, and I encourage Members to look into them.

The current CEO of Palantir UK is Oswald Mosley’s grandson. I do not wish to judge a man solely by his grandfather’s sins, but that gets harder when the views on display are not entirely dissimilar. Nor can we ignore Peter Mandelson’s role in arranging the Prime Minister’s undeclared 2025 visit to Palantir’s headquarters—a meeting where no minutes were taken and that raised transparency questions that are still unanswered.

The second concern is data. Palantir built its reputation as a surveillance and intelligence tool for the US military; it is not a healthcare company, but a data aggregation company with software designed to link datasets across systems. This is no longer a hypothetical risk: NHS England has confirmed that Palantir staff can access identifiable patient data on the federated data platform through a new admin role on the national data integration tenant. The British Medical Association, Medacs, the Good Law Project, Privacy International and Amnesty International have all warned that that data could become accessible to other departments, or to US authorities under the American Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act 2018, regardless of what any contract says.

Some 50,000 patients have written to their NHS trust boards to urge them not to adopt the platform. I am not suggesting that every Palantir contract should be cancelled tomorrow, but we are sleepwalking into a dependency on this company that we will come to deeply regret.

We have not been universally successful at keeping to four minutes. I ask everyone to now get closer to three minutes, because I need to begin Front Bench contributions at 5.28 pm.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. In my lifetime, technology has found its way into every corner of society. It has changed our workplaces, our classrooms and my farm, to be honest. It has brought real benefits, but also huge harms.

One positive, of course, is that we can stay connected to everybody in the world, but we are also always reachable, and with that comes the downside of being exposed to the online world. Our children can stumble across content so harmful that it alters how they see themselves and the world. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement on banning children from social media and blocking nude images on children’s phones. But let us be honest: that should have happened years ago; the Government have dilly dallied while we, and particularly our younger generation, have been left to pay the price. That is because they are scared of upsetting billionaire tech bosses, and that shows the real role that big tech plays: an undemocratic hand on the shoulder of our politics.

Big tech is pursuing AI superintelligence with almost no democratic oversight, and even world class engineers admit they cannot fully control today’s models. People never voted for AI systems that can generate abuse or distort elections, yet those are being rolled out anyway. Children and women have already been violated by explicit images created without their consent, and misinformation is now so widespread that it threatens the foundations of our democracy. Still, the Government tiptoe around tech billionaires, acting only when the damage is already done.

We have to be honest about the power that these companies hold. We were not elected to represent tech bosses; we were elected to represent our constituents. This Government have allowed themselves to be sucked in by the interests of the very richest people on the planet—individuals whose wealth exceeds the GDP of entire nations. I therefore want to ask the Minister three things. First, what will the actual consequences be if companies do not meet the deadline for blocking nude images? Will the Secretary of State report to Parliament at the end of that period with a clear timeline for legislation if progress falls short? Secondly, what proactive plans do the Government have to address the national security risk expected to be posed by superintelligent AI? Finally, when will this Government stop governing in fear of big tech and start governing in the interest of the people who sent us here?

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall.

Apatura has submitted a planning application to Falkirk council for a 300-MW AI data centre just 500 metres from Forth Valley Royal hospital, 20 metres from a care home and next to a densely populated residential area. From the outset, it is worth noting that the council has received nearly 1,800 objections from local people. It is no wonder that the strength of feeling against this big tech project is so strong: the proposed site, which covers about 55 acres of land, is being labelled as “sustainable”, which is frankly insulting to my constituents. An environmental impact assessment shows that the proposed data centre would emit pollution that would rank it among the worst 10 polluters in Scotland. The data centre requires its own electricity substation and 200 diesel generators as back up. Even if they are never run for operational purposes, the generators will have to come online as part of a regular maintenance programme.

As we are here in Westminster Hall today in sweltering temperatures in the middle of a heatwave, let us also ponder the scale of the low grade waste heat that the AI data centre would produce. The direct thermal exhaust creates hot air, which needs to be dispersed into the atmosphere. AI chips created by the big tech company Nvidia get so hot that they need liquid cooling, creating a warm liquid that must then be piped out. That intense thermal exhaust can raise temperatures by up to 9°. Surface warming can impact areas up to six miles away. As I said, the proposed site is just 20 metres from a care home, 500 metres from a hospital that serves approximately 300,000 people and is in a residential area full of families with children. The proposal is outrageous.

The noise being produced by the data centre will be constant. It will include infrasonic noise, the long wavelengths of which travel vast distances and can penetrate walls and glass, even defeating ear protectors. That pollution can cause serious physical and psychological harm and distress. Surely there will be consensus in this Chamber when I say that technology should not come with a health warning to people, families and communities. I would like to think that legislators at every level of government consider that to be the baseline for any of their decisions.

Of course, technology will play an increasing role in our society, but proposed developments like the one in Larbert rightly have people worried. Its proximity to the hospital, care home and many houses shows that people are right to be concerned. It is shameful that tech companies do not seem to be bothered about that. Technology cannot and must not be an industry that exploits people, communities and our environment for profit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing the debate and for his thoughtful contribution. He not only highlighted the dangers of content and addiction but made a power analysis when he talked about the threat to democracy of big tech companies. They have a supranational status now, and states are struggling to tax or regulate them—or to enforce the regulations that they have against them. That is a real challenge to democracy that we need to face up to across the House.

At the heart of this is the fact that tech companies have simply been allowed to get too big. We have had a laissez faire attitude towards their growth over the years, which is based on confused economic principles. Yes, we want frictionless free trade, but is a market really free if it has been captured by a handful of firms? I thought that traditional economic theory already warned us about that, but we seem to have become more naive about it in the last decade or so. Looking at the power analysis in the global market, this is really about the hegemonic role of the US. If we look at pension funds, for example, more of UK pension savings now go into Apple than into all UK firms combined. We can see how the problem accelerates over time. We wonder why our brilliant tech start ups are not able to grow; it is because when they reach the point when they need more capital, all the capital is in the US. We get Google buying out DeepMind and the cycle continues. They get bigger and bigger, and we get weaker and weaker. For far too long, we have had an economic strategy that is naive about what happens in a free market if there is a hegemonic power in it. That power has to be challenged.

Members have touched on this today, but the answer lies in a greater focus on tech sovereignty. It is not about gaining tech independence; we are not suddenly going to invent our own Facebook, ChatGPT or Amazon tomorrow—it would be naive of us to try—but about establishing our own niches within the global markets so that we claw some of that power back. It is about pooling our sovereignty and working with like minded states, perhaps those in the EU, and collectively using our power to enforce tax, regulations and other legal limits on the activities of tech companies.

I did not have time to raise this issue in my speech. The National Security and Investment Act 2021 established the National Security Investment Unit, which was the right move. If a particularly sensitive company with strategic assets or a technology that affects UK interests is to be sold or receive outward investment, it has to be cleared by the Government. That is a welcome change, but it is rather perverse or even ironic that, when the situation is reversed, there is very little scrutiny.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is another item on the list of things that we have ignored for far too long. Ultimately, we need to shift the balance of power. As he said in his speech, the power has been shifted too far in favour of a handful of tech giants. This is not just about economic power; it is about our national security, the delivery of public services and, ultimately, our independence in the world and our ability to shape our destiny. I thank him for raising this important issue, and I hope we can have more discussions about power, as well as the impact of that power.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

We live in an age in which a handful of technology companies shape how we communicate, shop, work and receive news, and increasingly how the Government deliver public services. There is no question but that technology has brought enormous benefits to us. It has enabled new businesses, accelerated scientific discovery and created opportunities that previous generations could not imagine, but Parliament has a responsibility to ask a fundamental question: who is shaping whom? Is technology serving society or is society being reshaped to serve the interests of technology companies?

Today, a small number of global technology corporations possess unprecedented economic power to influence markets. Their algorithms shape public debate and their infrastructure underpins our essential services. That concentration of power raises important questions about sovereignty. The Government are elected by the British people and this Parliament makes laws, yet too often we find ourselves adapting public policy to the priorities of global firms, rather than expecting those firms to adapt to the rules of our society.

The rise of artificial intelligence makes those questions even more urgent. AI has extraordinary potential in healthcare, education, public administration and so forth, but it should raise concerns about issues such as transparency and accountability, which affect employment and the concentration of power. That means that there is a need for stronger competition policy when markets become overly concentrated. It means that public data is used in the public interest. It means protecting our citizens from harmful online environments. It also means supporting British innovation so that the next generation of technological advance creates prosperity across our country, rather than a dependence on overseas monopolies.

Britain should choose democracy, accountability and innovation in the service of society. That is the task before us. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this debate. It is a debate that this House must not shirk.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this timely debate and on his interesting and balanced speech.

In today’s digital age, a small group of technology giants wield extraordinary influence over the infrastructure, services and processes that shape our online lives. Although not all their market positions constitute illegal monopolies, their collective market power enables them to set the terms of digital engagement for billions of people worldwide. That concentration of power has profound implications for the rights to privacy, non discrimination and access to information. It also has the power to undermine our democratic processes fundamentally, which is one of the points that the right hon. Member made in his opening remarks.

The platforms have become so embedded in daily life that meaningful participation in society often depends on using their services. That gives them enormous power to influence public discourse and to curate the information that we receive. We have in effect subcontracted our right to information to a handful of big tech gatekeepers. Nowhere is the danger posed to society greater than on the issue of AI.

Without doubt, AI is a transformational technology that will bring many benefits to our society, but in order to realise those benefits fully, it is important to put up safeguards to ensure that those technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole, rather than simply as a vehicle by which large tech companies can make even greater profits. Without robust regulation, we risk steering society towards an unpredictable and turbulent future that does not work for the public.

I have already raised with the Government the prospect of considering some form of employment levy, for example, on companies that replace large scale workforces with AI. Tax is crucial to this debate, and I want to finish on it. Complicated corporate structures, offshore schemes and favourable tax systems allow companies such as Amazon and Apple to boost their bottom line. Given the lack of transparency about where companies make their money and pay their taxes, it is difficult to get an accurate picture of what is going on. Big tech is here to stay, but how we regulate it, tax it and control it are the big questions that our Government and society as a whole need to face.

I thank all Members who have spoken so far for their co operation. We now move on to the Front Bencher contributions, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this important debate and for raising the very real issues of the impact of big tech on democracy.

Big tech has in many cases become synonymous with US tech, but that is not something that we should accept. The UK’s technology ecosystem is worth nearly £1 trillion. It is the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world and the most valuable in Europe. The UK has a long history of technological innovation, from the industrial revolution to the creation of the world wide web. That legacy is still very much alive today, but we must continue to foster it.

The shortage of STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—skills in the UK has been a concern for the past two decades, along with scale up funding. Start ups in the UK repeatedly say that their main challenge is finding funding to scale up, and that that is hindering the UK’s chance of having a thriving technological ecosystem with as large an impact as that of America. If we look at our pensions, for example, foreign pension funds invest 16 times more into UK start ups than our own pension funds do. Overseas funds recognise the talent that we create, so why don’t we? Why are we allowing our brilliant British start ups to be sold abroad?

Backing British technology has never been so important, as we have heard in the debate, because big technology exists in every corner of our society. Even the Government run their computer systems on overseas cloud providers. As alluded to, the NHS data system is run by Palantir. The online systems used every day by workers across the UK’s economy are run by big tech companies, neither owned nor run from the UK. That is a question of not only economic security but, increasingly, national security.

We cannot ignore the risks posed by overreliance on foreign technologies. That became apparent when the US Government switched off, across the globe, access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5. While Fable 5 may only have been a feature for a day, a worrying precedent has been set for the US’s role in turning off international access to its big tech. What if that tech had been powering public services, such as our NHS records, when it was suddenly cut off? This must be a wake up call.

Our reliance on the technology that fuels our economy and underpins our services shows how desperately we need a digital sovereignty strategy to support British tech. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to take the risk, which is why we tabled and voted in favour of a digital sovereignty strategy during proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. We would have required the Government to establish a digital sovereignty strategy that placed British tech procurement at its centre. In an increasingly unstable world, the case for British digital resilience, technology and sovereign capability has never been stronger, but the Labour Government voted the proposed strategy down. I ask the Minister to explain what his alternative strategy is.

Unfortunately, we cannot talk about big tech’s role in society without also thinking about the online harms. The world is increasingly moving towards the regulation of social media, and the Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government finally took on that issue, but the fine print really matters. The burden of safety must be on big tech, not on parents. The Liberal Democrats are clear that we must implement film style age ratings based on harm, addictiveness and mental health impact. That is supported by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and over 40 charities.

Social media companies must also play a stronger role in tackling misinformation. The UK Government must introduce stricter regulations for social media companies to ensure that they challenge harmful misinformation and reduce its spread across their platforms. Social media companies must issue fact checked corrections to scientifically inaccurate posts and ensure that those are seen by everyone who shared or saw the original inaccurate posts. They must also change their algorithms to de promote misinformation and fake news.

I recently witnessed the devastating and real life impact of unregulated dis and misinformation in Epsom and Ewell when riots took place there in April. In analysing the social media around those riots, the Council for Countering Online Disinformation found that 62 right wing UK accounts produced 70% of the misinformation. It also found that 42 video posts containing misinformation reached 4.2 million views, accounting for nearly 25% of misinformation views, despite accounting for less than 1% of all Epsom misinformation posts. That false information reached at least 21.8 million views between 11 April and 23 April. It was also promoted by X’s algorithm and, alarmingly, it continued to sit in X’s trending tab for at least two consecutive days after it had been clarified by the police that the events in question never took place.

Social media is not the only cause of online harms. Despite their transformative potential, evidence shows that AI and bots are also a cause of harm online. NBC News reported that 57.4% of search requests online are now initiated by bots, compared with 42.6% coming from humans—a terrifying reality where bots are outpacing and outnumbering humans online. At the same time, 70% of people are unable to correctly identify real and fake AI generated content online. Those online harms have been driven by big tech, and current legislation does not actively prevent them.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content online. We would also introduce a digital Bill of Rights to protect everyone’s rights online, including the right to privacy, free expression and participation. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically. That is why we would establish a cross sector AI regulator that combines flexible, ethical oversight and technical expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with the rapid advances in technology.

The AI legislation promised in Labour’s manifesto and the 2024 King’s Speech has not yet materialised. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she has five minutes to sum up the debate, and she is on six and a bit. Can she swiftly get to her last sentence?

Absolutely. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed to cost Britain its technological future or the safety of our children. The Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government on the positive role that British big tech can have, while holding the Government to account. Getting that right is not politics; it is essential for Britain’s future.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this important debate. I know that we share a common interest in this area. I also congratulate him on bringing a debate about the big picture stuff. It is important that we get there, and I compliment hon. Members for rising to meet that challenge.

The United Kingdom is home to Europe’s largest, and one of the world’s most dynamic, technology ecosystems. The digital and technology sector contributes an estimated £207 billion in gross value added to the UK economy and supports around 2.6 million jobs. It represents a vital pillar in our national prosperity that drives productivity, fosters high skilled employment and enhances our global competitiveness. From artificial intelligence and cyber security to fintech and advanced manufacturing, British innovation in technology continues to shape industries both at home and abroad.

We fully recognise the substantial benefits that large technology companies bring. These firms deliver cutting edge innovation, significant investment, world class infrastructure and services that millions of people and businesses rely on every day. Their scale enables rapid advancement in areas such as cloud computing, mobile technologies and data analytics, which in turn support broader economic growth across sectors.

At the same time, we must remain vigilant and ensure that market concentration does not inadvertently stifle competition or limit opportunities for emerging British firms. In key areas, a small number of global players hold dominant positions. Together, Apple and Google account for virtually the entire mobile operating system market in the UK, with iOS and Android combined making up nearly 100% of the share. Similarly, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft together command a very significant portion—often estimated at between 60% and 80%—of the UK’s cloud computing infrastructure market.

That concentration brings clear efficiencies and capabilities, but it also highlights the need for effective oversight. We support a proportionate competition policy that promotes fairness, encourages new entrants and prevents any single player from abusing market power. Open and competitive digital markets are essential if we are to retain more economic value within the UK, nurture home grown talent, and build a resilient and diversified digital economy.

As Conservatives, we have long championed the importance of robust yet balanced digital competition enforcement. Regulation should protect consumers and smaller innovators without creating unnecessary bureaucratic barriers that slow growth. The Competition and Markets Authority has an important role to play in this regard, alongside evolving frameworks such as the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Our approach prioritises evidence based intervention that fosters innovation while maintaining the attractiveness of the UK as a place to invest and scale business.

This principle extends to other critical areas, including online safety. Timely and decisive action to protect children and other vulnerable users online is essential, and we have constantly advocated for stronger practical safeguards, working alongside parents, campaigners, experts and the industry, because protecting the most vulnerable must remain a priority. The Leader of the Opposition did not flinch from standing with parents and carers when the time came to be robust. Constructive collaboration between Government, technology companies and civil society will achieve better long term outcomes than purely reactive measures.

More broadly, the influence of technology touches every aspect of modern life. From boosting productivity in traditional industries to enabling breakthroughs in healthcare and climate solutions, the sector’s potential is immense. However, realising that potential requires the right conditions: access to talent, supportive infrastructure, access to finance for scale ups, and a regulatory environment that rewards innovation rather than entrenching incumbents.

At its core, this debate asks us to consider what kind of digital economy we wish to build for the future. We believe that Britain should aim for an economy in which a diverse range of innovative companies—from start ups in our world class universities and tech clusters to established firms—can compete, grow and deliver benefits to consumers and society on merit. This vision rests on a strong competition policy that prevents the abuse of market power while actively encouraging the investment, dynamism and entrepreneurship that drive long term growth.

We also recognise the global nature of technology. International co operation on standards, data flows and emerging issues such as artificial intelligence will be increasingly important. The UK’s position as a leading tech nation gives us influence on the world stage, and we should use that influence to promote open markets, ethical innovation and high standards.

The success of our technology sector is central to delivering the economic growth and opportunity that our country needs. By championing competition, supporting innovation and maintaining a balanced approach to regulation, we can ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of the global digital economy, creating jobs, driving prosperity and harnessing technology for the benefit of all. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on the Government’s current thinking regarding the role of large technology companies, and on how together we can best support a thriving, competitive and innovative UK tech sector.

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy, but it is a particular pleasure when we are discussing questions of digital markets and regulation, because I know that you bring expertise in and experience of these issues.

I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this debate. He has held me to account in the main Chamber, we have spoken in the corridors of Parliament, and I am delighted that he has now convened a much broader debate on the role of big tech in society. I am grateful to him and to all other hon. Members for their contributions to this important discussion.

This debate gets to the heart of what I consider the central question in our politics, our economy and our national security: how we ensure that the extraordinary power of modern technology serves our society, strengthens our economy, protects our citizens, and is grounded in British values.

Given the time we have, I will do the courtesy of responding to individual Members first before talking more substantively on the common issues. The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) raised the central question: are we on the side of British values or shareholder values for firms located abroad? It is pretty clear, whether on questions of online safety legislation, where we have the most robust regime anywhere in the world, or on questions of the most innovative set of sovereignty interventions anywhere in the world, that every single decision that this Government have made on technology has been on the side of British values, in the spirit of collaborating and never capitulating.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) raised the two magic words: open source. I made a speech a few months ago talking about my passion for open source, not least because aspects of its Welsh grounding—Raspberry Pi, developed by a Welsh founder, is now opening up opportunities for kids in living rooms across the world to develop bits of software.

There are three things we have therefore done on open source that make Britain the best place in the world for open source talent: first, a particular focus on talent, not least a major hackathon we have partnered on to invite the world’s best talent to come and build open source here; secondly, a series of offers of compute, direct involvement in Government strategy on open source and, to the extent it is helpful, personal mentoring from me for winners of public service development on open source; and thirdly, just this morning, significant funding of £30 million for a serious national lab, led by University College London, focused in particular on open source models. Britain is at the frontier of open source AI, and this is the right thing to have done for our sovereignty aspirations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport raised an important point about kids’ experiences on social media and the impact on educational attainment. That is exactly my personal motivation behind the significant action we are taking to ban social media for under-16s as well.

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) raised a series of questions, and I will address two of them in particular. He asked about compliance with social media bans. There are three things we have done to ensure we learn the lessons from elsewhere: more robust age checks; ensuring that enforcement is out of the gate on day one rather than delayed, so that companies feel the heat of enforcement early on; and to acknowledge that this will not be a 100% overnight compliance issue, but a long term societal shift in culture, as previous regulations have created. That is the right thing to do.

The hon. Member for Yeovil asked about wider opportunities that the Government will support to offset some opportunities that young people might lose as a result of the ban. There are exemptions for both education services and music streaming. Really importantly, on the day that we announced the social media ban for under-16s, we announced 180 youth hubs across the country. That means more than £500 million spent on arts, music and culture opportunities for young people, right across England. There was a series of contributions from Members with that point in mind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro Addy) raised very important points about concentration. I will not speak overtly about an individual company, but I will flag that I understand from the relevant Department that a supplier contract for the NHS federated data platform will be reviewed in line with standard contract management processes this year, on the question of its extension. I am sure that her contributions will be regarded in that context.

I normally hold the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) fondly in my mind in our parliamentary debates, so I was sorry to hear her take a more political, point scoring approach to questions of online safety. I was sad that she called putting the voices of Welsh kids and families at the heart our decisions “dilly dallying”. Thousands of young people and families in Wales contributed to the decision on a social media ban. This is a historic decision for the people of Wales, whose voices fundamentally shaped it. That is not tiptoeing; it is running fast but together towards the solutions that matter.

On the hon. Lady’s particular questions, we are preparing legislative options alongside securing significant progress on blocking children from taking, receiving and sharing nude images. We have already secured more progress than any other country on this question. On her point on proactively dealing with national security concerns, the British Government are building capabilities, not least through the Security Institute and across our intelligence agencies, that are unparalleled in terms of ensuring that our national security is a priority on questions of technology.

On when this Government will face up to tech platforms, I gently suggest to the hon. Lady that again and again this Government have taken the side of people, not platforms—of British families, including Welsh families, not foreign tech billionaires. I would encourage her to join us in that mission.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) raised concerns about a particular data centre. I am not fully abreast of the plans on that particular site, but I am very conscious of the concerns he raised. I simply point out that, in theory, there are ways in which data centre investors ought to make sure that what they are doing supports our important clean energy and power goals. In particular, I reflect on the fact that in Lanarkshire there are significant sites that have pulled forward clean energy generation in solar and battery as a result of data centre investment, rather than instead of or in trade off with it. Again, we are focused on ensuring that both those aspirations are met, as they are in north Wales where our data centre investments are pulling forward the future of small modular reactor nuclear in this country.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), raised an important point about pension funds under allocation to British equities, in particular to British technology and AI equities. That has been a huge focus for the Government, not least through the Mansion House reforms and the increased deployment pace at the British Business Bank, which is now deploying more than £2 billion a year in this area, but also through the half a-billion sovereign AI fund, which is focused on building deep British capability.

The point the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised about the balance of power is central. In response to the ask for a sovereignty strategy, we are not only talking about it—we are delivering it. We have defined the single most important question: where does Britain stand on the balance of power? Do we have strategic leverage to secure ongoing access to critical inputs? There are three tests we are focused on. The first is having enough critical inputs—NVIDIA graphic processing units, for example—to be able to play our way in the world. The second is having a diverse set of sources so that we have bargaining leverage in that context; one of the first things I did was meet SambaNova, Cerebras and Groq to diversify our engagement with chip companies. The third really important test is, where British strengths and economics allow, to build full fat British capability. We have done that with our hardware plan—more than £1 billion supporting companies such as Fractile, OLIX, Salience Labs and others. That is the crux of our sovereignty strategy: a clear definition, a clear plan across every part of the stack on AI, and delivery alongside that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) brought a deep degree of expertise on technology to this debate and asked the central question: do we shape technology in the artificial intelligence revolution, or is it the other way around? His point about stronger competition, which was also raised by the shadow Minister, is important. The CMA has been acting in an area of collaboration between the previous Government’s aspirations on digital competition and this Government’s. I look forward to the enforcement of remedies across both mobile and business software when it comes to AI.

My hon. Friend also raised questions about online safety. I hope he feels that the significant actions that the Government have taken—banning social media for under 16s, being one of the first countries to bring AI chatbots into regulatory scope to make sure that they are not producing illegal content, and banning romantic chatbots—have been pioneering and show that we are always on the side of the British public.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan Jordan) raised incredibly important points about how we ensure that the security of AI is central to the questions we ask in public policy. Across every aspect of Government, we are building a Labour vision for that. We are building state institutions that will last the test of time and ensure that we are kept safe from some of the risks of AI.

I am conscious of time, so I want to give the Minister the opportunity to answer the questions I asked: who owns the data, who controls the data, and what does that mean for democracy and the balance of power?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am personally interested in how we rest more agency and control in the hands of the British public and the British state when it comes to data. There are clear rules and regulations about both privacy and individual data consents that apply, but I want to go further still by building infrastructure that equips individuals to have greater control over their data.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole’s points, through the AI Security Institute we have the best capability in the state to keep evaluating, understanding and mitigating risks. Through the AI Economics Institute, we have a deeper understanding of the impact of AI on jobs than pretty much any other country. We want to go further on that, including looking at a range of economic levers to mitigate some of the risks. Through sovereign AI we are investing in British capabilities, through the Alan Turing Institute we are investing in national security relevant AI, and through labs that were funded just this morning we are making sure that British capability, rather than foreign capability alone, determines the future of AI.

The debate must finish at 5.50 pm, so the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has a minute to wind up his debate.

Just a minute: no deviation, repetition or hesitation—never from the Minister, who was completely direct, cogent and excellent as ever. But the question remains for all of us: who owns and controls the data and what does that mean for democracy? That is not a party political point. Is that control and oversight of the governance sat in an office in San Francisco or elsewhere, or is it in a Minister of the Crown’s office here in Whitehall? That will be an ongoing debate that goes to the fundamentals of why we are all here. The people must have the power, not large corporate entities. I think we all agree that we need to see more competition. Tech is a force for good, but we need to ensure that it has oversight.

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).