Emily Darlington MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  It has been an absolute privilege to be in the House today and to listen to everybody’s personal reflections on Jo’s time here and on how they have been impacted. I want to talk about Jo as a friend of mine for years and years. We met in the Labour movement, and we kept finding ourselves in the same meetings—ones that focused on international development, but, most of all, meetings that focused on women. In fact, we became closest and bonded the most when we both became pregnant at the same time. Let me talk about the time when we were all processing having lost the 2010 election. Jo and I have always been people of action, and we have not been shy in coming forward; we both have that very much in common. I had started my own business, and she came barrelling into the office one day and said, “How are we going to organise? We cannot live like this. It is awful.” The solution, as is most often the case, was women. We hatched a plan on how we would revitalise Labour Women’s Network and ensure that Jo took over as chair. I then stood up out of my chair and, at three months’ pregnant, I already had an enormous bump. She said, “You’re pregnant! That is so exciting—so am I. How pregnant are you?” I said, “Three months. How pregnant are you?” She said, “Three months too.” You would not know it. She was this tiny little thing with a perfectly flat belly, and I thought, “That is three months’ pregnant, and I already look like this!” Our plan for Jo to take over as chair of LWN was very successful, and that success continues. What she was committed to bringing back to the Labour movement—what we organised and committed to—was hope. She brought a way of rebuilding our movement after that loss and a way of ensuring that women were at the heart of that. Not long after that, we both gave birth. I looked enormous, like a beached whale, and I gave birth to an 8 lb baby. Jo was tiny throughout, and she gave birth to a 10 lb baby—I do not know where she put that baby in her small little body, but oh my goodness! Still then, we were at meetings and we were determined to breastfeed at party conference, because, frankly, the thing that both our children had in common was that they were veracious eaters—

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  As are mine, and they were only a few days apart. The other thing we did was bring together our two NCT groups and try to radicalise them to the Labour cause—some more successfully than others. We dragged them to LWN fundraisers. We ended up organising many women with their babies and their buggies coming on to the Terrace of the House of Commons. We were determined that these women who we had bonded with so much in our pregnancies—the time, and then the feeding, the burping and the sleepless nights—were going to become part of our revolution. We were both behind-the-scenes women; we liked to work and build up other people. But in the run-up to the 2015 election, we called each other back and forth, asking, “Are we going to do this? Are we going to stand in this election?” We had asked everybody else to stand, because that is what we do, and finally we asked each other and said, “Look, I’ll do it if you do it,” because we were not confident. We were confident in other women; we could see all those qualities in other women, but we were not confident that we were the ones to take that forward. That is such a woman thing to do—we look at others and see all their amazing characteristics and abilities, but we struggle sometimes to see them in ourselves. We made a pledge to each other that we would stand in the 2015 election—she in Batley and Spen, and me in what was Milton Keynes North at the time. We would check in with each other regularly. We were each other’s secret lifeline, in this world in which we had encouraged other women to go where we had never been before. After that election, Jo won and became the MP for Batley and Spen, and I went off to Kenya, because I thought, as you do, “If I can’t make a difference here, I can go and make a difference elsewhere.” We had completely swapped paths: she had spent time in Kenya while I was a special adviser in the Labour Government, and now she was representing our views and ideals here and I had gone off to Kenya to see what I could do. Everywhere I went, people would say, “Oh, you’re from the UK—do you know Jo?” I would proudly say, “Of course I know Jo. She’s my friend. She’s doing an amazing job in the House of Commons.” I fell pregnant again when I was out there—Jo had already had her second child—and one day I got a phone call from a mutual friend of ours who was also in Kenya, and he asked me, “Have you heard the news?” I literally had to sit down because I thought, “I’m going to collapse, and this baby is going to get squished. I need to sit down and take this in.” I just could not believe it. Because so many people in Kenya knew that I had known Jo, I was inundated with messages saying, “What are we going to do?” None of them said, “Isn’t it so sad?” They said, “What are we going to do?” That is so Jo. The high commissioner in Kenya gave us his property for an evening, so the first thing we did was hold a reception event in remembrance and celebration of Jo, simultaneously with the one being held in London. There remains a book of remembrance at the high commission in Kenya of all the people whose lives she touched in Kenya across those many institutions, charities and other places, and some people who just knew about her but had been inspired to come. Not long after that, Brendan reached out to me and to other friends of his and Jo’s in Kenya, saying, “Look, it’s become too much for myself and the kids in the UK, and we can’t get a break because of all the media focus. Can we come out and spend some time with you guys?” I very much understood that our job in that situation was to surround those two amazing children with joy, so we spent a lot of time driving around, singing musicals at the top of our lungs—it is a shared passion between our two families, and her children and my children knew all the words. We brought them to see the tree that the children had planted in Karura forest in memory of Jo. For those who do not know Karura forest, it is the forest that is right in the middle of Nairobi, and that tree stands there today. Now I am in Parliament. I sit on the Government Benches every day and, because of the strangeness of this place, we now look at Jo’s crest every day. She is a constant reminder. I do not know if anybody else is like this, but I have a series of amazing women in my life who have passed and with whom I have conversations, whether it is my grandmother, my mother-in-law or Jo. I think, “What would that conversation be? What would they say?” The conversation I have with Jo is, “How do you raise children and protect them when you are a Member of Parliament?” You try to laugh off your home security and your personal security; you make jokes about them. Sometimes you go to events with them, so you have this guy with these big guns—big muscles—walking along with you. The children ask, “Who’s this?” So you say, “Oh, it’s just a friend of mine.” “Do you know his name?” “No, but he’s a friend of mine, and he’s going to follow us around as we go to an event in the constituency together.” I think, “What would Jo think of where we are today?” We talked a lot about how women of all backgrounds needed to be in this place, because it was the only way we were going to make our politics better. That is something that so many of us have fought to achieve, yet we have brought women to this place and told them, “You need to put up with the crap we are putting up with”—apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; that was not the best language. It is everything from social media to what we do to protect our children and the fact that we cannot be as open and available as we all want to be. I get criticised all the time for not having my surgeries in the middle of an Asda, and I keep saying, “I can’t. Yes, you need an appointment; you cannot just come in and see me. You cannot just walk into my office, because of my team”—who, again, are a bunch of amazing women. What does that say about our politics? We would all love to be more open and inclusive. We would all love to feel safe to pop up anywhere in our constituency, but we cannot. It goes against everything that Jo and I believed a good MP—a good public servant—should be, and I struggle with it all the time. I think Jo would love Milton Keynes, not just because we are quirky and weird, and she was a bit quirky and weird—we have new technology delivering groceries—but because we are a city that is not afraid to stand up and say that diversity is our strength. Diversity is what makes us the capital of innovation in this country. Diversity is something we celebrate throughout the summer, with festivals for diaspora communities, and everybody is included. We will be doing the MK Great Get Together. It is a picnic where everyone is invited. Bring a blanket; if you can bring food, bring food. If you have enough to bring food for others, bring food to share with others. Share the best cooking from your mum, share the best cooking that you know from your communities, and let us come together and celebrate our amazing city of Milton Keynes. I want to finish with the fact that I knew Jo best as a mum, and I want her to know that while her legacy lives on in so many places, it also lives on in our joint NCT groups that have come together. We continue to have girls’ nights out and girls’ weekends away. The dads have a beer club, but they are not as good at organising themselves. We still have joint birthday parties. We still go away at Whitsun recess to a Eurocamp somewhere. Her voice and her memory are never forgotten in those spaces. Inevitably, as we are sitting there as a bunch of mums drinking wine, her name comes up. Inevitably something triggers it—it could be about anything. She was a brilliant mum, and she did what all brilliant mums do, which is to try to be an example to their children and to be supportive of all the other mums. Faye, Tracey, Karin, Sarah, Hannah and Claire and others from our NCT group asked me to say this on their behalf: her passion brought people together, not just in the country, but as mums. Her sense of community and of cohesion that she expounded is why her death felt even more traumatic. I want to thank her sister and my friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), for always letting us remember Jo with positivity, not anger, and with a gumption to go. That does not mean we are all going to do a run with my hon. Friend. [ Laughter. ] God knows what your parents fed you for breakfast, but whatever it was, it should be in those free breakfast clubs that we have across the country, because boy are you two amazing. You are supporting us to be the amazing MPs that we can be, and we are all supporting that next generation to say, “This is not what politics is about. This is not what our country is about.” We are better than this, because we are more united and we have more in common than that which divides us.

• 20 May 2026 · Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  One of the best ways to make sure that any AI developed contributes to innovation and growth is to set very high standards. We are lucky to have the British Standards Institute—the oldest standards institute in the world—and I am very lucky that it is based in Milton Keynes. Will the Minister join me in wishing it a huge happy birthday in this momentous year for it? What kind of engagement has he had with it on its work to set reassuringly high standards for AI’s development?

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a good point, and I agree with him. In Milton Keynes, we did not privatise our social housing stock; we had 12,000 in the housing revenue account. The reality is that the reforms done under the Conservatives during the 1980s destroyed council housing stock across the country. The wall that has been put between the housing revenue account and the council’s account means that authorities cannot invest in building new housing to reduce their use of temporary accommodation. Things like that need to go. We also need to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are not the ones evicted from their homes with their children. It is the perpetrators who need to leave. For the first time we are bringing forward legislation that will make sure that that happens. Stability for children and victims needs to be at the absolute forefront of our minds. Rather than move them around the country to protect them, we need to intervene to get the perpetrator away and to protect them from the perpetrator. We are banning conversion practices. It should have been done before, but it is finally going to be done under this Government. The removal of peerages Bill is so important, too. People will also know my views on the digital access to services Bill, which will be vital in order to modernise our public services. I want to talk about security, which is the theme that runs through the King’s Speech. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) that when we talk about security, we need to talk about domestic, defence and development, because they all go hand in hand. We need to see the tackling state threats Bill in the light of the horrible events that we have seen against our Jewish communities in recent weeks, and in the context of our democracy. That is why we need to do more to protect democracy through the Representation of the People Bill, which is coming back in this Session. The most personal form of power that any of us hold is the power to freely choose who we vote for. That power is fundamental to democracy, but today it is under threat from foreign states that want to cause us chaos, tech bros who do not share our values, and opportunists looking to make money from division. They are not taking away our right to vote, but they are distorting the national conversation and undermining genuine voices. Deepfakes stop us being able to trust what is real. Bot armies spread disinformation. Algorithms that prioritise engagement over truth amplify all of that, and foreign actors exploit it. This is a make-or-break moment for the security of this country’s democracy. We cannot shy away from what is at stake. Democracy does not require agreement, but it does require us all to live in a shared reality. Every Member of this House has seen misinformation, disinformation, bot activity or deep fakes in action—in fact, many of us have been victims of it. If we do not act, we are putting our democracy in the hands of tech bros in other countries who do not share our values—in fact, some have even called for riots on our streets—and who cannot be trusted with Britain’s future. The Representation of the People Act 1983 was not designed for a world of deepfakes of politicians, micro-targeting, political advertising, and algorithms with agendas. I am thrilled that this Government are reforming it, and I will be re-tabling my seven amendments to the Bill on Report. I want to see clear laws that recognise and define digital manipulation as a serious offence against our democracy. I want increased powers for the Electoral Commission to demand back-end, real-time access to social media platforms when manipulation is suspected. I want mandatory labelling of AI-generated content and a political advertisement repository so that voters can separate what is real and what is not, and see where political content comes from, who is funding it and what they are saying in different parts of the country to different voters. I want to see a critical incident protocol, independent of Government, which can be triggered in response to a significant risk to the integrity or security of our elections. I know this is controversial, but elections do not just happen for six weeks every five years now, so our election laws should also apply all year round. The six-week campaign is a thing of the past—we cannot keep regulating for a world that does not exist. Anything that people see relating to our democracy, whether it is a year out from an election or two weeks out from an election, should meet our electoral standards. This is not about limiting debate or controlling outcomes; it is about safeguarding the conditions in which each and every person makes their choice. It is the only way our democracy survives. I am pleased that we are pursuing a serious agenda—an agenda that is about our security and the security of the everyday lives of our constituents. In Milton Keynes, the 35 Bills in this King’s Speech, on top of the 50 that we passed in the last Session, are making a real difference to everyone.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, you and I agree that all women and girls should be safe on this estate, whether they are MPs, staff or visitors. We have been working together to ensure that we become the first White Ribbon-accredited Parliament in the world. What progress is being made to ensure that that accreditation is in place for this House by the next International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, so that we can all celebrate that this is a safe place for every woman and girl who chooses to work or visit here?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Rycroft review and I very much enjoyed speaking to Philip Rycroft during the process. Beyond crypto and other financial donations, he says we need to tackle deepfakes, bots and disinformation; create a political ad library; and put in place greater investigatory powers for the Electoral Commission and an incident protocol should there be a major election incident. My amendments deal with all those points. Will the Secretary of State undertake to urgently meet me to see how we can take my currently named amendments and make them Government amendments at the Bill’s next stage?

• 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?

• 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

  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.

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

  More

  Q A huge thank you to the panel. Many of my colleagues have already asked the question, so I appreciate you talking about the futureproofing in quantum, the international regulatory environment and the use of standards alongside regulation to drive up quality. You all have a huge amount of UK clients, and I want to ask you about how good cyber culture gets embedded, and what the role of the Bill is within that. To pick up on Ben’s point around the security by design within his own firm, do you think that is well understood among your colleagues in the UK? How do we get the balance right between what is in the regulation and what should be done through a standards model, working with the British Standards Institution and others? Dr Ian Levy: The previous set of witnesses talked about board responsibility around cyber-security. In my experience, whether a board is engaged or not is a proxy indicator for whether they are looking at risk management properly, and you cannot change corporate culture through regulation—not quickly. There is something to be done around incentives to ensure that companies are really looking at their responsibilities across cyber-security. As the previous panellists have said, this is not just a technical thing. One of the things that is difficult to reconcile in my head—and always has been—is trying to levy national security requirements on companies that are not set up to do that. In this case I am not talking about Amazon Web Services, because AWS invests hugely in security. We have a default design principle around ensuring that the services are secure and private by design. But something to consider for the Bill is not accidentally putting national security requirements on those entities that cannot possibly meet them. When I was in government, in the past we accidentally required tiny entities, which could not possibly do so, to defend themselves against the Russians in cyber-space. If you translate that to any other domain—for example, saying that a 10-person company should defend itself against Russian missiles—it is insane, yet we do it in cyber-space. Part of the flow-down requirements that we see for contracting, when there is a Bill like this one, ends up putting those national security requirements on inappropriate entities. I really think we need to be careful how we manage that. Matt Houlihan: Can I make two very quick points?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their leadership on defending Ukraine not just in wartime but in peacetime, which will really reassure the many Ukrainian families who have sought refuge in Milton Keynes and across the UK. I would like to ask the Secretary of State’s advice. It is clear that Russia is challenging not just Ukraine, but the UK. It is carrying out incursions into our airspace and our waters, using cyber-attacks to undermine us and using social media to undermine our democracy. What advice would the Secretary of State give the British public on creating vigilance against the Russian attacks we are seeing increasing, over and over, on the UK?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on social media, and I hope we can meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is responsible for elections, ahead of the publication of the elections Bill to see what we can do about those protections. The Secretary of State has announced a very good review. Will the money that is coming into this country, particularly related to changing our politics on abortion rights, trans rights and other areas, be within scope of the review?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Africa: New Approach · Hansard source

  More

  Although I do not disagree with any of the principles set out in the strategy, I am disappointed by its level of ambition and detail. It does not reflect what we did when we were last in government with the Commission for Africa, which was an all-encompassing report looking at how we work together at the university level as well as on skills, trade, women and girls—all those issues—and build democracy. Unfortunately, it also does not address the real risk from Russia and China’s role in Africa. We have 21 Commonwealth countries in Africa, and they are telling us that they desperately need us as a partner so that we can bring the stability and prosperity to the continent that we all want to see.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate what the Minister says—that these powers are in legislation—yet the process is still the social media platforms marking their own homework. We are in a vicious circle: Ofcom will not take action unless it has a complaint based on evidence, but the evidence is not achievable because the algorithm is not made available for scrutiny. How should Ofcom use those powers more clearly ahead of the elections to ensure that such abuse to our democracy does not occur?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree and I am going to come to that. I recently met the NSPCC, the Internet Watch Foundation and the police forces that deal with this issue, and they told me that there are easy technological fixes when someone uploads something to a site with end-to-end encryption. For those who do not know, we use such sites all the time—our WhatsApp groups, and Facebook Messenger, are end-to-end encryption sites. We are not talking about scary sites that we have not heard of, or Telegram, which we hear might be a bit iffy; these are sites that we all use every single day. Those organisations told me that, before someone uploads something and it becomes encrypted, their image or message is screened. It is screened for bugs to ensure that they are not sharing viruses, but equally it could be screened for child sexual abuse images. That would stop children even sharing these images in the first place, and it would stop the images’ collection and sharing with other paedophiles. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) is absolutely right: 63% of British parents want the Government to go further and faster, and 50% feel that our implementation has been too slow. That is not surprising; it took seven years to get this piece of legislation through, and the reality is that, by that time, half of it was out of date, because technology moves faster than Parliament.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I agree; my hon. Friend makes a very important point about the slander that happens online, the lack of basis in reality and the lack of ability to address it. If somebody posts something about someone else that is untrue, platforms will not take it down; they will say, “It doesn’t breach our terms and conditions.” Somebody could post that I am actually purple and have pink eyes. I would say, “I don’t want you to say that,” and the platform would say, “But there’s nothing offensive about it.” I would say, “But it’s not me.” The thing is that this is happening in much more offensive ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made the point that what happens online is then repeated offline. We have even seen deaths when children try to replicate the challenges that they see being set online. With AI-generated material, those challenges often are not real. It is the equivalent of somebody trying to repeat magic tricks and dying as a result, which is quite worrying. The Online Safety Act is not perfect; it needs to go further. The petitioner has made a really important point. The lack of proper definition around small but non-harmful sites versus small but harmful sites is very unclear, and it is really important that the Act provides some clarity on that. We do not have enough protections for democracy. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I am a member of, produced a really important report on misinformation and how it led to the riots two summers ago. Misinformation was used as a rallying cry to create unrest across our country of a sort that we had not seen in a very long time. The response from the social media companies was variable; it went from kind of “meh” to really awful. The platforms say, “We don’t police our content. We’re just a platform.” That is naive in the extreme. Quite frankly, they are happy to make money off us, so they should also know that they have to protect us—their customers—just as any other company does, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton said. The radicalisation that is happening online is actually shifting the Overton window; we are seeing a more divided country. There is a fantastic book called “Man Up”—it is very academic, but it shows the rise of misogyny leading to the rise of every other form of extremism and how that links back to the online world. If this was all about Islam, this House would be outraged, but because it starts with misogyny, it goes down with a fizzle, and too often people in this House say, “This is all about free speech.” We know that misogyny is the first step on a ladder of radicalisation that leads people to violence—whether into violence against women or further into antisemitism, anti-Islam, anti-anybody who is not the same colour, or anti-anybody who is perceived not to be English from Norman times. The algorithms provoke violent and shocking content, but they also shadow-ban really important content, such as information on women’s health. Platforms are happy to shadow-ban terms such as “endometriosis” and “tampon”—and God forbid that a tampon commercial should feature red liquid, rather than blue liquid. That content gets shadow-banned and is regularly taken down and taken out of the algorithms, yet the platforms say they can do nothing about people threatening to rape and harm. That is not true; they can, and they choose not to. The public agree that algorithms must be part of the solution; 78% of British parents want to see action on algorithms. My hon. Friends are right that the Online Safety Act and Ofcom could do that, yet they have not done so—they have yet to create transparency in algorithms, which was the Select Committee’s No. 1 recommendation. [Sir John Hayes in the Chair ] Finally, I want to talk about a few other areas in which we need to move very quickly: deepfakes and AI nudifying apps. We have already seen an example of how deepfakes are being used in British democracy: a deepfake was made of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) saying that he is moving from the Conservatives to Reform. It is a very convincing three-minute video. Facebook still refuses to take it down because it does not breach its terms. This should be a warning to us all about how individuals, state actors and non-state actors can impact our local democracy by creating deepfakes of any one of us that we cannot get taken down.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. They seek to promote chaos and the destruction of British values, and we need to fight that and protect those values. The AI nudifying apps, which did not even exist when the Online Safety Act came in, need a very fast response. We know that deepfakes and AI nudifying apps are being used overwhelmingly against classmates and colleagues. Think about how it destroys a 13-year-old girl to have a fake nude photo of her passed around. The abuse that we politicians and many others receive from fake and anonymous accounts needs to be addressed. Seventy-one per cent of British people consider this to be a problem, and we need to take action. AI chatbots are another thing that was not foreseen in the development of the Online Safety Act, and therefore it is far behind on them, too. The Online Safety Act is in no way perfect, but it is a good step forward. We must learn the lessons of its implementation to go further and faster, and listen to British parents across the country who want the Government’s help to protect our children online—and we as a Government must also protect our democracy online.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this important debate. It would be remiss of me, as the MP for Milton Keynes Central, not to acknowledge the opportunities of AI. One in three jobs in Milton Keynes is in tech, often in the edge technologies or edge AIs that are driving the economic growth we want. However, we will not see take-up across businesses unless we have the safest AI, so we must listen to the British Standards Institution, which is located in Milton Keynes and is working on standards for some of these things. Nevertheless, I have many concerns. The Molly Rose Foundation has raised many issues around AI chatbots, not all of which are included in current legislation. It has documented how Alexa instructed a 10-year-old to touch a live electrical wire, and how Snapchat’s My AI told a 13-year-old how to lose their virginity to a 31-year-old—luckily, it was an adult posing as a 13-year-old. We have seen other examples involving suicide, and Hitler having the answers to climate change, and research has found that many children are unable to realise that chatbots are not human. AI algorithms also shadow ban women and women’s health, as others have mentioned. The tech is there to make AI safe, but there is little incentive for companies to do so at the moment. The Online Safety Act goes some way, but not far enough. Our priorities must be to tackle the creativity and copyright issues; deepfakes and the damage they do, in particular, to young girls and women; and the misinformation and disinformation that is being spread and amplified by algorithms because it keeps people online longer, making companies money. We must also protect democracy, children, minorities and women. How do we do that? I hope the Minister is listening. For me, it is about regulation and standards—standards are just as important as regulation—and transparency. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has called for transparency on AI algorithms and AI chatbots, but we have yet to see real transparency. We must also have more diversity in tech—I welcome the Secretary of State’s initiatives on that—and, finally, given the world we are in, we must have a clear strategy for the part that sovereignty in AI plays in our security and our economic future.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday was the UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, known as White Ribbon Day in Milton Keynes and many other places. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your commitment to make this House the first national White Ribbon Parliament in the world. Will he join you, me and many Members across this House in making the White Ribbon promise to never use, excuse or remain silent about men’s violence against women?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate and making such a great contribution, drawing on her personal experiences before widening it out to London, the country and the world. This issue does not have borders and is not limited to a single socioeconomic class, religion or area of the country. I congratulate the Minister on the success of her domestic abuse protection orders, which hit 1,000 this week, in keeping survivors protected while they are at their most vulnerable. I thank Treasury Ministers for their financial inclusion strategy, which is starting to address economic abuse, and Ministry of Justice Ministers for tackling the ongoing abuse in family courts. We are all looking forward to the VAWG strategy: its publication and its ambition to halve violence against women and girls. That is a goal we can all get behind. Although it is the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, we in Milton Keynes call it White Ribbon Day. I will focus on why that is and on prevention. Milton Keynes is the first White Ribbon city. White Ribbon is very close to my heart because it was started by men in Canada after the shooting at an École Polytechnique. A man went in and shot women engineering students because he had not got a place at engineering school. Like many of us here today, those men in Canada were sick and tired of the rhetoric that women were somehow at fault—maybe they should have locked the door of the classroom; maybe they should have behaved differently. They recognised that the problem was started by men and needed to be solved by men. What does it mean for Milton Keynes to be a White Ribbon city? It means that more than 160 companies, organisations and charities have become White Ribbon accredited: from the YMCA to the MK Dons; from big corporations to small, niche ones; from voluntary groups to the city council; and from the police to the fire service. Thousands of individuals have also signed up, together making the pledge to never commit, excuse or remain silent about male violence against women. We all know that this is not all men; the difficulty is that too often the majority of men, who would never consider committing or excusing such abuse, remain silent. The issue is about empowering them to be active bystanders and to know how to comfortably walk into a situation that does not feel right and call out their friends’ behaviours in pubs, changing rooms and other places. Alternatively, it is about empowering them to talk to a co-worker who used to be a fantastic, performing female colleague, but who has all of a sudden gone quiet: to know that there is a reason why and what to do with the answers. We need to do this not only in Milton Keynes, but right across the country. MPs from across the House have signed up to White Ribbon. I thank Mr Speaker and the Madam Deputy Speakers for their commitment to making us the first White Ribbon Parliament in the world, setting an example for the country. I know they are progressing on that as quickly as they can. Parliament is a workplace, not a lifestyle. We have seen incidents right across this Estate that, unfortunately, do not bring it pride. The catering staff, the MPs and everyone else who works on the Estate need to feel safe, as do the visitors who have meetings and tours here. Members of Parliament must be held to the highest standards because we are setting the example against the misogyny promoted online. I conclude by talking about the Online Safety Act 2023. There is a huge campaign against the Act, but it is making real progress. It does need to make further progress in some areas—not just releasing guidance on how platforms can help protect women, but also making it mandatory, doing work on deepfakes, addressing the 850,000 consumers of child sexual abuse imagery and tackling the grooming of children on gaming platforms and on end-to-end encrypted sites. We can and must do more, and this is the moment. We have the Government commitment, we have personal ministerial commitments in different Departments and we have the cross-party commitment. We have the commitment and demand from voluntary groups, mums and dads, and our sisters and daughters. Today is the day we make that change.

• 18 Nov 2025 · China Espionage: Government Security Response · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank the Minister for the strength of his message about our efforts to stop the transnational repression of our constituents, including the Hongkongers in Milton Keynes. Can we continue to have a dialogue about how my constituents continue to feel unsafe in the UK? I want to raise an issue that goes alongside the Speaker’s Conference, which is how we protect and defend our democracy in the online world, particularly from foreign state actors and their proxies and non-state actors who use the online environment to destabilise our democracy. Will the Minister meet me to talk about the amendments that I am preparing for the elections Bill to ensure that we protect ourselves from online threats just as much as we do from offline threats?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The first duty of Government is to keep their citizens safe. We do that with the police and our court system; and, although they are not perfect, we could not do it without them. The online space is an integral part of our modern lives, and we need to treat it as such, because what happens online does not stay online. Online safety naysayers want us to think that regulating the online space is a conspiracy to end freedom of speech. Some, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), try to make that case, while his online followers send women and members of minorities death and rape threats when they speak freely, and that includes Members of this House—like many women MPs, I receive at least one a week. Rather than taking away free speech and democracy, we are ensuring that everybody has a voice, so that people, including the alleged victims of Andrew and Tristan Tate, can one day have an online profile again, without getting their home addresses splashed all over the internet and being doxed, as young people like to call it. Democracy should be about ideas and debates, yet the online environment that some Members of this House want is one where people can make deepfakes, misleading the electorate; where they can threaten women with rape, to shut up those they do not agree with; and where they can make £300,000 by making 128 Facebook pages, spreading racist and AI-generated misinformation, which is then amplified by members of the Reform party—monetising hate, as the piece in The Times exposed this morning. Without an extension of our election laws to online spaces, single platforms or platform owners with specific political or financial agendas can continue to spread lies and misinformation, even going so far as to incite violence in another country. That is not democracy; that is not free speech. It is up to this Government to ward against it and ensure that our laws and sentencing are appropriate. As I said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. In real life, a 12-year-old cannot go to the cinema to see a film if it is rated 15, and pornography is put on the top shelf at the newsagents, out of reach. Kids cannot buy a video game that is adult-only rated without identification. Online, however, our kids can find any kind of graphic or sexual content, of any level of extremity, as easily as they can text their friends. The Online Safety Act is there to protect everyone. It is there to put porn back on the top shelf and out of reach of kids. It works to prevent 10-year-olds from finding graphic depictions of violence, being encouraged to become violent themselves or being groomed by strangers. Those who want to scrap the Act and the sentencing that goes along with it actually put at risk our free speech—the free speech of those who are intimidated every day for trying to express their views online—and, even more so, they put at risk our democracy. Let us bring back common sense and protect this country.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Official Development Assistance Reductions · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Desmond, for chairing the debate, which I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing. The huge amount of consensus from all parties shows that this is not a big-P political issue; it is about how we make the world, and the UK, more secure. Development is about UK security. I agree that the new global reality means that we have to increase our defence spending, but we should be looking at how to increase our development spending at the same time, because the two serve each other. China and Russia have their own agenda, which is in conflict with our values of democracy and human rights. Their agenda is to destabilise the international rules-based system; they want to exploit, not support. I saw that with my own eyes when I lived in Kenya, where they promised roads in exchange for minerals, and also seemed to kill a bunch of elephants for their ivory on their way out. The BBC World Service is being picked up at every opportunity, every time we step back. For so many around the world, it has been their only link to the outside world and to free and fair reporting. When we withdraw, desperate countries that need the infrastructure spend have only Russia and China to turn to, and that comes with a very heavy cost. It is destabilising our Commonwealth, which the King leads and for which we have a huge moral responsibility. Countries’ economies are collapsing and famine is returning. That drives migration, as people flee war looking for work and safety, and millions are dying. We have an opportunity to change that. Malaria has been eradicated from many countries, HIV treatment is on the cusp, based on UK science, and polio has almost been eradicated. We could protect millions across the world, as well as in the UK—because we know that viruses know no borders. We are co-hosting the Global Fund replenishment, yet last time, under the Conservatives, the UK was the only country to cut its commitment. We risk global embarrassment by cutting it further at a time when the world needs global leadership again from the UK. Even the US is not cutting its commitment. There is a huge job ahead to rebuild Gaza and, now, Jamaica. We could demonstrate our generosity by using aid match—I should declare that I am the chair of the APPG for aid match—to show the public that, for every pound they contribute, the Government contribute too in helping to rebuild Jamaica and Gaza. This is the time not for short-termism just to make the balance sheet work, but for long-term thinking—it is in our Labour values and our Labour history. The world needs the UK to lead. The Prime Minister said that this was one of the hardest cuts that he had to make and that it would be temporary, so what is the route out of the cut and how will we rebuild over the coming years to ensure that development spending is seen as spending on UK security, alongside our defence spend?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s clarity on tackling the threats that China poses, including the transnational repression of Hongkongers in the UK. That will be a real reassurance to the many British nationals overseas who live in Milton Keynes. I would like him to go into further detail, particularly in the context of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia’s interference in Brexit and the Nathan Gill case that has just completed, with eight counts of bribery coming from Russia. At the time of taking those bribes, he was a close colleague of some MPs on the other side of the House. How will the new elections Bill stop interference through political funding, which we are seeing gaining more and more ground here in the UK, creating a real threat to our democracy?