Government seeks sweeping powers to tackle online harms

Looks to speed up legislative response but critics warn of unintended consequences

The government has proposed new legislative amendments that would give ministers far-reaching authority to change online safety rules without the need for full parliamentary approval.

The move, introduced by Labour, is intended to allow quicker responses to emerging online harms, particularly those linked to AI. But critics say the proposals risk weakening democratic scrutiny and could grant excessive power to ministers.

The first amendment, tabled last week and attached to the Crime and Policing Bill, would allow senior ministers to amend the Online Safety Act (OSA) in order to "minimise or mitigate the risks of harm to individuals" caused by illegal AI-generated content.

A second amendment [pdf] to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill goes further, giving ministers the power to modify existing primary legislation in order to limit children's access to specific online services.

If passed, the measures would allow changes to be made through statutory instruments rather than new primary legislation, a process that limits debate and scrutiny in Parliament.

Such provisions are commonly known as "Henry VIII clauses", a controversial legislative mechanism that allows ministers to amend laws without the usual parliamentary process.

Keir Starmer has defended the proposals, arguing that the pace of technological change demands a more agile legal framework.

Last month, the government outlined plans for a broader crackdown on social media and AI platforms, including measures aimed at preventing chatbots from generating harmful material and eliminating illegal AI-created content.

"No platform gets a free pass," Starmer said, after the government criticised Elon Musk's social media platform X over the spread of deepfake nude images.

"Technology is moving really fast, and the law has got to keep up," he added.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said it wanted to move "at pace" following a consultation examining stronger protections for children online.

One option under consideration is a ban on social media use for under-16s, an idea gaining traction internationally after Australia introduced such a policy late last year. The government announced a consultation on this issue last week.

Concerns over executive overreach

Digital rights groups and civil liberties campaigners have raised concerns about the potential long-term consequences of granting ministers broad authority.

Anna Cardaso, policy and campaigns officer at civil liberties organisation Liberty, warned the changes could create risks beyond the current government.

"When you create a law, you have to think about what a future government could do with those powers," she told Politico, adding that expanding executive authority during a period of rising populism internationally was "very worrying".

James Baker, advocacy manager at the Open Rights Group, said future governments might interpret "harm" very differently.

He pointed to policies in the United States where some political leaders have attempted to restrict online content relating to LGBTQ+ issues and reproductive health.

‘Lipstick of discretion on a legislative pig’

Neil Brown of tech law firm decoded.legal told Computing that the original proposed amendment had been even more sweeping, effectively an absolute ban on under-16s from accessing many sites including, potentially, Signal and Wikipedia.

While the latest proposals are more nuanced, giving the Secretary of State discretion over the scope, that in itself is problematic, he said.

“Discretion and statutory instruments should be reserved for implementation details, not for policy decisions which affect millions of people in the UK,” Brown commented, describing the changes as “smearing the lipstick of discretion on a legislative pig.”

He added: “The sensible approach would be to go back to the drawing board and clearly understand and articulate the problem to be solved.”

Legal experts say the broad powers proposed could lead to increased litigation.

Oliver Carroll, legal director at law firm Bird & Bird, said giving ministers wide discretion over regulation could trigger court challenges from both campaign groups and technology companies.

Questions have also been raised about whether restrictions introduced through these powers would comply with the Human Rights Act, particularly regarding privacy and freedom of expression.

The amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill is expected to be debated in the House of Commons this week, where Labour's large majority makes it likely to pass.

Both amendments will also need approval from the House of Lords, where peers may seek closer scrutiny of the government's expanded powers.