UK government seeks broad powers to rewrite online safety rules without full parliamentary debate
The UK government is seeking to grant ministers wide-ranging powers to amend the Online Safety Act through provisions tucked into two unrelated bills. The move would allow officials to add roughly a third of the regulatory regime using Henry VIII clauses-mechanisms that limit Parliament to a simple yes-or-no vote rather than full debate or amendment.
In March, the government proposed edits to the Crime and Policing Bill and the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to enable these changes. The amendments would let ministers alter the act more quickly and with reduced parliamentary scrutiny.
The immediate trigger: Grok and deepfakes
The push follows admissions by Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, that it lacked power to address Elon Musk's chatbot Grok being used to create non-consensual sexualised images of women and children. The regulator found gaps in how the Online Safety Act applies to chatbots.
The government announced it would "move fast to shut a legal loophole and force all AI chatbot providers to abide by illegal content duties."
Why experts are concerned
The proposed changes grant ministers unfettered power to alter legislation that took years of negotiation to pass. Lorna Woods, law professor at Essex University and legal adviser to the Online Safety Act Network, said the amendments essentially introduce a third of the act without proper oversight.
Three core risks emerge from this approach:
- Parliament loses the ability to debate or amend proposed rules, weakening democratic legitimacy and making it easier for tech companies to challenge decisions or lobby ministers directly rather than engage with lawmakers
- The scope of the two bills is limited, potentially yielding "warped" and partial solutions-for example, chatbot rules tied to the Crime and Policing Bill would focus on illegal activity, missing broader harms like mental health and addiction
- The move sets a precedent that future governments can bypass standard parliamentary processes for regulatory changes
Javier Ruiz Diaz, technology and human rights lead at Amnesty International UK, called the approach "desperate." He said shortcutting the process leaves "holes for companies to exploit."
Owen Bennett, former head of international online safety at Ofcom, raised concerns about public trust. "You lose that when you start giving power to the minister of the day to amend the Act," he said. "That sets a worrying precedent."
The context: A complex act under pressure
The Online Safety Act, passed in 2023 after years of debate, is widely described as complex and internally inconsistent. At around 300 pages, it represents the most wide-ranging effort by a Western government to regulate online safety.
The government faces pressure to act quickly. Online threats "are emerging at extraordinary speed," said Elena Martellozzo, lecturer in criminology at Middlesex University. The government is also under strain ahead of local council elections to demonstrate results.
But speed comes with costs. Catherine Allen, founder of Limina Immersive, explained the act's original design: "It gives you the house and then the furniture can be put in later." New technologies could be addressed through amendments. The proposed shortcut undermines that deliberative approach.
Broader patterns of executive control
These amendments fit a wider pattern of the government using its powers to direct regulators, said Ruiz Diaz. The UK has faced criticism for pressuring its competition watchdog and recently appointed an ex-Big Tech executive to lead it, sparking concerns about conflicts of interest.
Elena Abrusci, senior lecturer in law at Brunel University, expressed hope that institutions like Ofcom and the Equality and Human Rights Commission would oversee the changes. But she worried the "very broad powers may impede proper accountability."
For government professionals involved in policy development, understanding these mechanisms matters. The tension between speed and democratic process shapes how regulation takes effect-and whether it will withstand challenge.
Learn more about AI policy frameworks and decision-making to better understand these regulatory dynamics.
Your membership also unlocks:
