We're looking at further online safety rules, says minister
Under new powers introduced by the Online Safety Act and passed under the previous Tory government, Ofcom will require internet companies to conduct stricter age verification methods to check whether a user is under 18.A new code of practice, to apply from 25 July, will also require platforms to change algorithms affecting what is shown in children's feeds to filter out harmful content.At the last election, Labour committed to "build on" the previous government's law and consider further measures to keep children safe.But it is yet to publish fresh legislation of its own, with ministers arguing the existing set of new regulations need to be rolled out first.
'Addictive habits'
Speaking to Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Alexander said the new rules would bring in "really robust safeguards" to ensure proper age verification.But she added: "We are very clear as a government that this is the foundation for a safer online experience for children, but it is not the end of the conversation".She said Technology Secretary Peter Kyle was looking at further action in a number of areas, including how to address "addictive habits" among children, although she did not provide further details."We're not going to be a government that sits back and waits on this, we want to address it," she added. Ofcom's chief executive told the programme the new rules would mean tech platforms would have to change their content algorithms "very significantly".Ms Dawes said the regulator would give websites some flexibility when deciding which age-verification tools to use, but pledged that those failing to put adequate checks in place "will hear from us with enforcement action".However, she acknowledged some newer forms of AI "may not" be covered be powers contained in the existing legislation."There may need to be some changes to the legislation to cover that," she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
FTSE 100 hovers near record highs as investors monitor tariffs, rate path
June 13 (Reuters) - The UK's blue chip index held just below its all-time high hit last week as investors assessed the trajectory of U.S. tariffs as well as domestic interest rates, while AstraZeneca gained on successful drug trial results. The blue-chip FTSE 100 (.FTSE), opens new tab was up 0.4% as of 1105 GMT, while the domestically oriented FTSE 250 index (.FTMC), opens new tab added 0.3%. AstraZeneca (AZN.L), opens new tab added 1.4% after the pharmaceutical giant said its experimental drug baxdrostat succeeded in lowering high blood pressure in a late-stage study of people whose condition was hard to control or treat. Associated British Foods (ABF.L), opens new tab rose about 3% after brokerage Panmure Liberum upgraded the retailer to "buy." The European Union and South Korea said they were working on trade deals with the U.S. that would soften the blow from looming tariffs as Washington threatens hefty duties from August 1. Meanwhile, Britain's labour market cooled sharply in June and the number of people available for work jumped at the fastest pace since the COVID-19 pandemic, according to data also watched by the Bank of England. The BoE is expected to cut interest rates next month for the fifth time since last August, with traders betting on an 89% chance of a 25 bps deduction, as per data compiled by LSEG. The country's inflation figures, due on Wednesday, will offer fresh cues on the central bank's rate path. Investors will look out for fresh notes on the nation's fiscal health when finance minister Rachel Reeves, alongside BoE Governor Andrew Bailey, gives the annual Mansion House speech to London's financial sector on Tuesday. Among other stocks, Ashmore gained 2.2% after the emerging markets-focussed asset manager reported slower quarterly net outflows. The FTSE 100 index logged its biggest weekly percentage gain in two months on Friday, led by mining and healthcare stocks.
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Woman who withheld council tax in climate protest faces losing home
A woman who withheld council tax payments for three years in protest at her local authority's continued investment in fossil fuels fears losing her home. Jane McCarthy, 74, said she made the decision after becoming increasingly fearful about the impact of climate breakdown on future generations, particularly when she learned about climate tipping points at a local meeting. 'I think that was the point at which I realised, oh my goodness, this is really urgent, really serious.' McCarthy, who has terminal cancer, said she did not take the decision to withhold the money from Buckinghamshire council lightly but said it was a matter of principle as the council continued to invest in fossil fuels through its pension fund and by using Barclays Bank. 'I really object having to hand money over knowing that it's going to be used in ways that are reckless, that are damaging my children's chances of a livable future, let alone my grandchildren,' she said McCarthy appeared at Reading county court earlier this month, resulting in a final charge order on her home, leading to fears the council could force her to sell up to repay the debt. 'It has been very stressful but for me it was a matter of conscience and also as a matter of conscientious objection, because fossil fuels are the cause of so much war as well as driving the climate crisis.' UK pensions invest about £88bn in fossil fuels, which campaigners warn is helping drive the climate breakdown. Experts also warn such investments put pension savings at risk because those investments will either become stranded if countries meet their emissions targets, or runaway climate breakdown will wreak havoc with the global economy and wipe out any potential returns. Campaigners are hoping that the pension schemes bill currently going through parliament will change the way pension funds are managed, ensuring pension trustees take relevant system level risks, including climate change into account, when deciding where to invest. Claire Brinn, senior UK policy manager at the ShareAction campaign, said there was a 'lack of clarity' over trustees' legal and moral obligations when investing funds at the moment. 'This creates uncertainty for trustees over the legal scope for taking into account systemic considerations, whether macroeconomic or environmental, or even their members' living standards and views.' She said clarifying this 'fiduciary duty' would be a 'a simple legislative change that will empower pension funds to consider people and planet and secure our future prosperity and security.' McCarthy says her debt to the council now stands at about £5,000 including costs. She said she would be more than happy to pay the withheld tax to local charities or good causes. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion 'I do want to pay it … I would love to just talk to the council about what charities I could support in Buckinghamshire but I am sure that is very unlikely, a fantasy.' She added: 'For them to apply for the sale when it's only a debt of about £5,000 feels so disproportionate but that is what could happen.' Robert Carington, Buckinghamshire council's cabinet member for resources, said it was 'duty bound' to collect tax to pay for essential public services. 'While the council acknowledges the personal views held in this case, they do not constitute a valid reason for not paying council tax. Payment of council tax, like any other tax, is not a personal choice. People are legally bound to pay it and the council has a legal duty to recover council tax. We are therefore pleased that the court has found in the council's favour and that this matter has been brought to a conclusion.' He added that the council was committed to a 'greener future' and its pension fund investments were only in projects or corporations that had set a target 'to be net zero by 2050 at the latest'. The council declined to say what it planned to do next in its efforts to recover the withheld tax.
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
MPs vote in favour of measures to decriminalise abortion in move to make biggest law change in more than 50 years
MPs have voted in favour of measures to decriminalise women terminating their own pregnancies in the biggest change to the law on reproductive rights for half a century. Women will no longer face prosecution for aborting their own baby for any reason and at any stage up to birth under the proposed legislation, which was backed by 379 votes to 137 on Tuesday night. Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP who put forward the amendment, said it will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. She told the Commons the current 'Victorian' abortion law in England and Wales is 'increasingly used against vulnerable women' and said her amendment was a 'once-in-a-generation' opportunity to change the law. Ms Antoniazzi's amendment will be the biggest change to the law concerning women's reproductive rights since the 1967 Abortion Act. It will alter the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act - which outlawed abortion - meaning it would no longer apply to women aborting their own babies. MPs and pro-choice activists welcomed the abortion vote and said it will finally put an end to the prosecution of vulnerable women for ending their own pregnancies. But anti-abortion campaigners and MPs opposed to the reforms said the move allows women to end the life of their unborn child right up to birth, and for any reason, without facing repercussions. Under Ms Antoniazzi's amendment women will no longer be prosecuted for an abortion when it relates to their own pregnancy, even if they abort their own baby without medical approval or after the current 24-week legal limit. However it maintains criminal punishments for doctors who carry out abortions beyond the legal limit and abusive partners who end a woman's pregnancy without her consent. Ms Antoniazzi listed examples of women who have recently been investigated or prosecuted for having an abortion, adding: 'Just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice. It is cruelty, and it has got to end.' 'Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage,' she said. Six women have appeared in court in the last three years charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy - a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment - while others remain under investigation. Tory MP Rebecca Paul said she was 'disturbed' by the decriminalisation amendment, which will mean that 'fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences'. 'The reason we criminalise late term abortion is not about punishment. It's about protection,' she added. 'By providing a deterrent to such actions, we protect women. 'We protect them from trying to perform an abortion at home that is unsafe for them. We protect them from coercive partners and family members who may push them to end late term pregnancies.' Conservative MP Rebecca Smith told the Commons she the amendment risks 'creating a series of unintended consequences which could endanger women rather than protect and empower them'. 'If offences that make it illegal for a woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would de facto become possible up to birth for any reason, including abortions for sex selective purposes.' Meanwhile Dr Caroline Johnson, a Tory MP and consultant paediatrician, said the proposed legislation creates a 'situation where a woman is able to legally have an abortion up until term if she wants to'. She tabled a separate amendment that would have made it mandatory for women seeking an abortion through the at-home 'pills by post' scheme introduced during the pandemic to have an in-person consultation with a doctor before they are prescribed the drugs. However this was rejected last night as 379 MPs voted against it - the same number who backed decriminalising abortion. Another amendment, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, had also sought to repeal sections of the 1861 Act, decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks, and ensure that late-term abortions did not result in prison sentences. Ms Creasy's amendment would have gone go further in making it a human right for women to access abortion so that parliament could not, in future, roll back abortion rights as has happened in other countries. However, Sir Lindsay only selected Ms Antoniazzi's to be debated by MPs this evening, which had more than 170 backers last night - compared to over 110 for Ms Creasy's. During a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon. Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several high-profile Cabinet ministers, including Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, were among the MPs who backed the amendment in the free vote. Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant. Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. The measures to decriminalise abortion, which still need to complete their legislative journey through both the Commons and the Lords before they can become law, were welcomed by leading abortion providers and physicians. Heidi Stewart, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, BPAS, described it as a 'landmark moment for women's rights in this country'. She said: 'There will be no more women investigated after enduring a miscarriage, no more women dragged from their hospital beds to the back of a police van, no more women separated from their children because of our archaic abortion law.' It was welcomed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, with its president Professor Ranee Thakar describing the vote as a 'victory for women and for their essential reproductive rights'. And the British Medical Association also welcomed the vote as a 'significant and long overdue step towards reforming antiquated abortion law'. But Alithea Williams, from the anti-abortion campaign group the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said she was 'horrified that MPs have voted for this extreme and barbaric proposal'. She added: 'This change has been made after only a few hours debate, with little notice. It was not in the Government's manifesto, and it certainly doesn't reflect public opinion. 'We call on the Lords to throw this undemocratic, barbaric proposal out when it reaches them. We will never accept a law that puts women in danger and removes all rights from unborn babies.' How using medicines led to charges under 'outdated and harmful' laws Six women have appeared in court charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy in the past three years. These included Nicola Packer, 45, who was cleared last month by a jury of 'unlawfully administering' herself with abortion pills at home during lockdown in 2020. Under emergency legislation in the pandemic, which has since been made permanent, the law was changed to allow the tablets to be taken in a system known as 'pills by post'. This let women access the medicine with no visit to a clinic up to a legal limit of ten weeks, compared to the normal limit of 24 weeks when assessed by two doctors. Ms Packer had taken prescribed abortion medicine when she was about 26 weeks pregnant. She told a court in London she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than ten weeks. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said Ms Packer's trial demonstrated 'just how outdated and harmful' that existing abortion law was. Another of these women is Carla Foster, 47, who was found guilty in June 2023 of illegally obtaining abortion tablets when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant. Ms Foster, from Staffordshire, was given the pills after claiming in a remote lockdown consultation she was only seven weeks pregnant. A court heard she had lied to a nurse on the phone about how far along she was to obtain the drugs, after searching online: 'I need to have an abortion but I'm past 24 weeks.' She pleaded guilty to a charge under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act and got a 28-month sentence, with half to be spent in jail. This was reduced to a 14-month suspended sentence on appeal with a judge saying the case called for 'compassion, not punishment'. Ms Foster would not have faced prosecution under changes to laws approved last night.
