Emily Darlington MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I want to start with the expression, “Do no harm.” To be clear for the people who have come to speak to me—parents and young people themselves—we are doing them harm by not giving them the treatment they need, with the wait times of six years, and potentially in respect of puberty blockers, where that is agreed with their healthcare professionals. My overarching concern is that the clinical trial was suggested in the Cass review. It was proposed and designed in conjunction with the MHRA, but then the MHRA changed its mind. Why was that? Dr Hilary Cass said: “There are no new research findings and the MHRA hasn’t presented any new evidence. It feels to me like they are responding to political pressure rather than to science.” That is what she said; I was quoting her verbatim. It was her review that the people around this Chamber wanted us to listen to and to make changes in response to, so we have to listen to her in this instance as well. The MHRA should operate without any political interference or fear of legal action, yet the MHRA itself referenced potential legal action in relation to the trial as one of the reasons why it changed its mind. That is a problem. The MHRA is there to make sure that anything from clinical trials to medical technologies and new drugs are dealt with on the basis of science and science alone.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Exactly, and that is completely inappropriate. A leader of a political party shouted “Traitor” at me when I said we should watch our language around this issue. I do not know who they think I am a traitor to, but I am certainly not one to the human race. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) has said she has received death threats; I get death threats too. This is not unique to the hon. Member. The MHRA should not be in an environment where it has any fear of any legal action; it should only look at the science. Many in the community feel that the trial has now become too political for anybody to touch and that we have forgotten about those children who, quite frankly, if we do not do anything for them, we are doing harm.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  I am not for hounding any particular individual. The only person I have referred to by name is Hilary Cass and she has been on the public record. I have been hounded for my views as well—

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise how difficult today’s statement is—it is not a position that any Labour Government would ever want to be in. I welcome the commitment from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to return to 0.7% as quickly as possible. I particularly welcome the protection and focus on women and girls, and on LGBT activity where other countries are withdrawing. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for aid match, will she continue to work with me to look at areas of expansion and ensure that generous people across the country have an opportunity to support and double UK efforts, particularly in fragile and conflict states, and on women and girls, and LGBT issues, where we are continuing the funding?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Pornography: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  2. What recent discussions she has had with the British Board of Film Classification on regulatory parity between online and offline pornography.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Pornography: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  Like many colleagues in this House and the other place, I am deeply concerned about the current unacceptable regulatory gap between online and offline pornography, and the public share that concern. The findings of recent research conducted by the BBFC indicate that 64% of pornography users believe that violent pornography contributes to violent sexual behaviour in the real world, and 80% would support new regulation. Does the Minister recognise the clear public demand for online-offline parity, and will he commit himself to introducing legislation to ensure that content that it would be illegal to supply on our high streets is no longer permitted online?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that the hon. Member is into storytelling—it may be his next job—but what did he think was going to happen to the courts system when there was a 23% cut under the last Government? It was going to crumble. Does he not agree?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am trying to understand the hon. Lady’s point. Is she saying that we should now extend jury trial to all trials, or that we should keep the status quo? Is she saying that it is sacrosanct and so should in fact be extended? I am confused.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The loan charge was a scandal that affected tens of thousands of people across this country, some of whom were on very low pay and not given a choice by their employers. At the last Budget, the Government put forward changes. What assessment has the Minister made of how those changes will impact people at the lowest end, including social care workers across the country?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my kind colleagues. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This is such a big debate. It is because we are all passionate about UK AI and the growth of the sector in the UK that it is so important, because the growing monopolies that are coming into our country are not actually helping our growth. I know that is quite a controversial statement, but it is not controversial if one thinks about how these industries are developing: they are buying up and squishing out UK inventions, growth and companies. What is sovereignty? That was the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). For me, it is UK ideas, it is UK inventors and it is UK based, but it is also about UK values. It is about using our own data protection laws and our own BSI standards, and it is about making sure that UK ideas can be sold to the world without foreign interference. I do not say that lightly. Recently, Peter Girnus, the AI security expert for Palantir, said: “The lesson was the speed: the market for military AI does not pause for ethics. It pauses for nothing.” That is a problem: Ministry of Defence contracts are going to such companies, which think that international law should be ignored in warfare. For that very reason, we have to be very sceptical about going into business with Palantir and with the many other companies that feel that they are too big to follow national law. On the Floor of the House, I raised the fallacy of Starlink being a safe emergency protocol. Why is it a fallacy? Because it can be turned off, and Elon Musk has said he hates our Prime Minister. What if there is an emergency and Musk wants to create chaos, as he has already done through his contributions to various marches in this country and through his support for that one-man band? I cannot remember what it is called now— Restore or something like that; it starts with an R. Growth comes from the development of our UK ideas, from tech that supports the UK economy, and from making sure that we see the monopoly that I referred to as a threat to our growth and not as something that we need to bow down or curtsy to. I ask the Minister: what is next? We have a great fund, but what are we investing in? Are we making sure that quantum technologies will be developed here, and will serve the UK people and the UK economy? Are we making sure that we are providing opportunities for UK firms to get the amazing contracts to work with us to make this Government the first digital Government that the UK has ever seen?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Digital ID: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  I am the mother of teenagers, and they cannot believe how difficult it is to access their data and interact with public services. They call it “cringe”, a bit like the response from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood). If we are to be a modern, digital Britain, embracing AI and building an innovation-based economy, is it not right that our public services are also built in that frame and put us in the driving seat?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The most personal form of power each of us has is the power to choose. When we mark our ballot, we exercise something profound and meaningful: our power to decide freely what kind of future we want, and that choice belongs to each of us. But today it is clear that our power to freely decide our future is under attack, not because our vote has been taken away or because of voter fraud, but because the environment in which we make up our minds is being deliberately distorted. Hostile states—especially Russia—are investing in digital tools designed to confuse, divide and destabilise us. At the same time, big tech has built systems that reward the strongest reaction: rage over fact, speed over accuracy and repetition over reflection. One seeks to weaken us, the other profits from whatever captures our attention, and together they distort the spaces in which many of us now make up our minds. We have come together to put forward amendments that would help the Representation of the People Bill to continue to maintain democracy as we expect it to. We already accept the election rules that require us to regulate spending, prohibit impersonation and enforce transparency. We choose to do that because our democracy is too important to leave unguarded, and the digital space where so many of our choices are now formed should be no different. If our duty is to protect people’s power to choose, these five things must follow. First, we must identify the crime. At the moment, lots of laws apply, but if it is not specific, it is hard for law enforcement to act. We must codify that the existing laws will apply to these digital behaviours, with a recognition that these are serious offences with serious consequences. Secondly, we must shine a light. If a video is artificially generated to impersonate a candidate, voters have the right to know. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has described his own experience in this regard. We need much higher levels of disclosure and labelling of where information comes from, so that people can better understand what they are seeing. That is why we need more regulation and transparency around political advertising, with all paid digital advertising being kept publicly available in a library so that it is open for all to see. Thirdly, we must demand that major platforms play their proper role in society. These platforms shape what millions of people see during an election and they must be accountable. These amendments would enable Ofcom to demand action from these platforms, unless they want to face major consequences, by making electoral offences a priority offence under the law. With our success in forcing Grok to take action on notification, we know that we can act to protect people. No platform is too big or too powerful.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If we were to link voting with brain development and maturity, that would mean that men get the right to vote about five years after women. Should we base it on that science?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that although the Representation of People Act 1983 makes it illegal to misrepresent a candidate in an election, that offence is yet to be tested in relation to online misrepresentation? In fact, Ofcom and many platforms do not see themselves as being bound by that legislation.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. I think we all agree, no matter what side of the House we are on, that a misrepresentation of that kind distorts the electorate’s views. The reality is that it should be taken down. I think we can all agree on that fact. Fourthly, law enforcement and regulatory bodies must have the power to act. The Electoral Commission must have more power to investigate, with real-time access to the platform data that is vital to understanding the impact of algorithmic systems and the role of inauthentic behaviour through bots. Regulators must have the power to compel major platforms to take action, including in the case of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. We need to have a standard way to let the public know about incidents when they happen. They need to be informed. Fifthly, these rules must apply year-round. One of the reasons that Meta will not take that content down is that we are not in an electoral period. These online methodologies are so powerful because they recognise the truth that we make our choices not just in the election period; we are making up our minds all the time. Let us get our election law in line with that reality. Finally, we are proposing an amendment that goes to the core of how we treat each other. We must take action to reduce the abuse of candidates. I commend Mr Speaker and his Conference for their important work on this issue, because we all know too personally where this leads. Not only have we already lost beloved colleagues and friends to violence, but we also lose the talented people who will be put off from running in the first place. This is a robust set of choices that we in the Chamber can make to protect the future that we live in together. They are not about shutting down arguments or preventing someone from speaking their mind; they are about protecting the space for each of us to make the choice freely, and for those spaces to be filled with genuine discourse and arguments.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The new clauses raise a really important point about security by design implemented within companies, and within the companies that provide cyber-security technology to them. An hon. Friend of mine tabled an amendment, which we are not speaking about today, on a similar subject. Security and safety by design is something that we talk about quite often in this area. It may not be appropriate for this Bill, but I am keen to hear how we will progress those discussions, because ultimately we do want to prevent cyber-attacks. We need to make sure that companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, major infrastructure and local government all have access to technology and infrastructure that looks at security by design in its own design right from the outset, because that is what makes us most secure. How will we take forward those discussions, and extend the idea that already exists in legislation, through the Online Safety Act 2023, about safety by design, in order to ensure that products around cyber-security have this at their heart, and deliver the prevention mechanism that I think we all want to see—especially the small businesses and organisations that are victims of such attacks?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that commitment. Would he consider setting up a meeting between GDS and those MPs who have expertise in this area, so that we can share our expertise and reassure ourselves that this is going in the right direction and at the speed that is necessary?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Young people, particularly those in the mid-teenage years, understand this issue in a way that sometimes we do not because, quite frankly, our online experience is completely different from theirs. If Members want to test that, they should open an app such as Pinterest and compare what is fed into their Pinterest boards with their child’s Pinterest boards. It is a completely different experience. If Members do not have children, they should ask younger member of staff to open the same app on the different phones, and they will see a completely different world.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very important point about how sophisticated the technology has become. When we ask companies to take action to stop outcomes, the technology exists to do that. We are not asking them to reinvent the wheel or come up with new technology. It already exists because they are even microtargeting two different sides of the road. Having discussed this with experts, parents and—most importantly—young people, what do I think we need to consider? First, we need to fully and properly implement the Online Safety Act 2023. That must be done at speed, and it requires nothing from the House. It has been a request of the Secretary of State and the Minister, and I recommend that Ofcom gets on and does that as quickly as possible. We must make safe spaces for children online. How do we do that? Part of the answer is ensuring that content is related to ratings that we already understand as parents, such as those from the British Board of Film Classifications. I have been asking YouTube what rating YouTube Kids has for about a year now. Is it rated U? Is it 12A? Is it 15? It cannot tell me because it does not do things on that basis. As a parent I want to know the rating before allowing my children on an app, because parents have a role in this as well. All apps should be rated like videogames. Roblox has a 5+ rating, which does not exist in videogame ratings. We see ratings such as 4+ or 9+, but those are made up. At the parents forum that I did after the survey, one parent said that she walked in on her nine-year-old playing “guns versus knives”—on an app that is rated 5+. The ratings on apps mean nothing, yet we have video game ratings that we as parents understand, so why are they not used? Should in-app purchases ever be allowed for young children? What is the age at which in-app purchases should be allowed in a game? We must consider the time limits for the different stages of brain development. We have guides on fruit and vegetables that recommend five a day to parents. We all know that. Schools use the same language, we use the same language, yet we have nothing to support parents in deciding how long a child should be online at different stages of brain development. I hope that the evidence that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee collects will help inform that. We need to change addictive and radicalising platform algorithms. To protect children from child sexual abuse images, we need to talk to those behind iOS and Android to stop the creation of self-generated child sexual abuse images—some 70% to 80% of child sexual abuse images are self-generated—and we need to stop end-to-end encryption sites from sharing them. We have technology that can do that. We should always keep the ability to ban in our pockets, but any ban should be for particular apps. We should not ban our children and young people from having an online experience that is good.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely do. My full sympathy goes to that family in my hon. Friend’s constituency—it is the worst thing in the world for a parent to lose a child. But we have to get this right, which is why it is right that we have a consultation. It does no child any good if we jump to a conclusion that does not actually protect children. Although I maintain an open mind, I worry about a full ban. Some children rely on social media for connection, often including those who are exploring their sexuality—LGBTQ+ people—and those who are neurodivergent. The consequences for them could be devastating, so we need to consider their views. If young people get around the ban, as they do in Australia, they are less likely to report when they see harmful content or are being targeted on social media, because they worry that they will get in trouble for breaking the law. A ban would create a cliff edge at 16. No matter the person’s maturity—I have already talked about the different brain development in young women and men—their skills or what they have been taught, there is a cut-off at 16. All of a sudden it does not matter, and they go into a world that is not safe. Younger children do not have their own social media profiles; they use their parents’ devices. Often, they start with a video of Peppa Pig, and all of a sudden—who knows where it ends up? A ban would not address that. So, what is the solution? Doing nothing is not an option—I think the whole House can agree on that.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  This week is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and we must remember the acceleration of online harms. We have heard horrific accounts of ChatGPT giving young people diets of 600 calories per day, which is just appalling. We know the suffering and pain caused by seeing images tagged with the terms “ana”, “thinspiration” and other terms that should go. The promotion of such content is now a category 1 offence, and Ofcom should be weeding it out. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is absolutely right to say that that measure should be extended to bots. I thank the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), for her fantastic speech. We have taken this matter seriously since the very beginning of the parliamentary Session, and we have done a lot of work on it. I echo her call for Ministers to look again at the recommendations in our Committee’s “Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms” report, which goes well beyond misinformation and into how the damage is done. Protecting our children and young people online is extremely important. The Online Safety Act was an important step forward, but it has not been fully implemented by Ofcom, it is not proactive enough, and it is too dependent on what social media companies themselves tell Ofcom. In the spirit of consultation—I know that we will get to that—I have done my own consultation with 500-plus 14 to 16-year-olds across my Milton Keynes Central constituency. Some 91% of them have a phone, and 80% have social media profiles. However, what will surprise the House is what young people consider social media profiles to be. We consider them to be Facebook or Instagram, while they consider them to be YouTube and Roblox—two organisations not covered by the Australian model. Additionally, 74% of those 14 to 16-year-olds spend two to seven hours online a day. Let me remind the House that, at that age, the brain development of young women is close to finished, while for young men, whose brain development does not finish until they are about 25, it is nowhere near complete. We know that from the science—just to be clear, that is not an opinion. Brain development in young women and girls happens differently, so should we therefore have different rules for young women and men? Fifty-nine per cent of the 14 to 16-year-olds have been contacted by strangers, and more than a third of that was through Roblox, which is not covered by the Australian social media ban. Thirty-three per cent have been bullied, and a third of those was on Roblox. The Australian social media ban—which I assume is what the Liberal Democrats are talking about when they say they are in favour of a ban—does not cover YouTube or Roblox, and we have not even looked at whether it is effective. A ban is a blunt tool that essentially raises the flag of surrender to social media platforms and declares that there is no way of making social media safe. That is essentially what the Conservatives did when the Online Safety Act 2023 was passed: they said, “We cannot go far enough, so we are going to roll back. It is about free speech.” No, it is not about free speech. Freedom of speech was written into law in this country and spread around the world, so we understand how to protect it and limit its harm. The Online Safety Act was a missed opportunity. It also took seven years to get through this House, but we do not have seven years to wait. There would also be unintended consequences to a ban. I had the pleasure of meeting Ian Russell the other night, and we had a really powerful discussion. My heart goes out to him, as one parent to another, given what his family have been through. He does not jump to the easy solution of a social media ban. The Molly Rose Foundation has done a brilliant briefing paper, which every MP should read, about why it does not support a ban: it wants the online world to be safe for children, but a ban does not make it so.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I welcome the Government amendments and clause 18; they are important to enabling us to share our vulnerabilities in an appropriate way with those people who may be involved. However, some of the aspects of those vulnerabilities that security services—GCHQ, His Majesty’s Government Communications Centre and others—raised with us relate particularly to not only foreign interference, but the potential for interference through technology embedded in our networks. How does the Minister see the measures working within our co-operation with different foreign nations, particularly during these volatile times?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a few questions for the Minister. I appreciate the clarity that the Bill brings to many of the services in its scope. I would like to understand how the definition of “incidents” will relate to hardware vulnerabilities that are discovered within a company, as we heard from some of the people who gave evidence to the Committee. It is unclear in the Bill. Perhaps it will be further defined in secondary legislation. I want to understand how an incident in which someone discovers a vulnerability in hardware—such as in a system-in-package—is reported, and how that information is then delivered by the regulator to other companies in the sector that may have similar technology, and to the other regulators, which may also want to flag that technology as a particular vulnerability. Is that defined as an “incident” or is it defined somewhere else in the Bill? I am a bit confused and am looking for some clarity.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister will be aware, I have spoken consistently of my concern about our reliance on hardware and tech that comes from potentially non-favourable state actors abroad. That also relates to Government procurement, which I have raised before, as the Minister will know. The Committee has already discussed how local government and Government Departments are not covered by this legislation, and how there is a separate strategy and document. Can the Minister expand on how protections against a reliance on foreign tech within critical infrastructure, in either the private or the public sector, are being dealt with in the Bill or in the strategy that has been published for the public sector? How will that be continually reviewed as our global geopolitical situation remains unstable?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I want to say on my behalf and that of many of its members how we horrified we are. This case exemplifies the systematic dismantling of Hong Kong’s judicial independence. The proceedings under the national security law do not operate within the independent or impartial judicial framework, and judges are designated by the Executive of the Hong Kong special administrative region. Trials are conducted without juries, evidential thresholds are lowered and the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence is gone. How will the Government ensure that, on behalf of not just Jimmy Lai but all Hongkongers who live in the UK, we protect them from nefarious activity and this illegal law?