Emily Darlington MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 May 2026 · Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I met some survivors of vulval cancer this morning. Even though they included a former midwife, a health advocate and other people who were well-informed, they told me about their struggle they experienced when advocating for themselves and to be taken seriously by their GP. They knew something was wrong with their vulvas, but they could not get through to their GP. Luckily, they all did; they are all doing well and have responded to their cancer treatment, but they might have been able to advocate effectively sooner had they been able to access more information than they found online. There are more women out there in exactly the same situation. Words such as “tampon” are being suppressed by big tech platforms. “Shadow-banning” is the term for when users can still technically post but their visibility is secretly throttled. Their posts stop appearing in feeds, their reach collapses, their engagement disappears and their followers cannot find them. In the examples I have seen, the user is never clearly informed about it. That is censorship without accountability, which is harming education, charities and businesses, reinforcing stigma and, in some cases, putting women’s lives at risk. We need to call that what it is: algorithmic sexism. Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has removed or restricted dozens of accounts belonging to abortion providers, women’s health campaigners and reproductive health organisations across the world. These takedowns began last October and have affected more than 50 organisations globally, some of which support tens of thousands of women. Repro Uncensored, a non-governmental organisation that tracks digital censorship focused on gender, health and justice, documented 210 instances of account removal and severe restriction this year, compared with 81 last year. That is not random moderation, it is escalation. The Sex Talk Arabic, a UK-based Arabic-language sexual health platform, says it receives warnings from Meta almost weekly. The organisation’s former director, Fatma Ibrahim, said that Meta repeatedly informed it that posts about sexuality, reproductive health and sex education would not be recommended to others because they supposedly violated the platform’s rules. Then the warnings escalated, and Meta began to simply remove its posts. Examining Meta’s community guidelines allows us to understand why these organisations are so alarmed. Meta says that it allows nudity for “educational”, “medical” and “awareness-raising content”, but that is clearly not what is happening in practice. Under its policies relating to “adult sexual activity”, which it supposedly bans outright, Meta includes “menstruation” alongside “dismemberment”, “cannibalism” and “bestiality”. Something that every woman does monthly—an involuntary biological process connected to the menstrual cycle that is experienced by billions of women—is grouped alongside acts of violence and abuse. What does that tell women about their bodies and how they are being understood by these systems? This morning, I met representatives of the Eve Appeal, the UK’s leading gynaecological cancer charity, who handed me a letter that they wrote to Meta after attempts to reach it by other avenues failed. They told me that they are extremely concerned about the suppression of some of their content. Last month, The Eve Appeal shared a medically accurate illustration of vulval anatomy on Instagram. It was not pornography or explicit material, but a labelled, educational diagram intended to help people understand their vulva, recognise changes in their cervix and identify symptoms of vulval cancer. The post had a Patient Information Forum tick, the gold standard for health information content. The Eve Appeal has posted the same content three or four times over the last five years, but last month, Instagram removed the post for alleged “nudity or sexual activity”. The Eve Appeal’s account received a warning and its appeal was rejected. Eventually, the post was reinstated, but it was hidden under a “sensitive content” screen, warning users that the image “may be upsetting”. I have seen the image, and it is literally a line drawing. The Eve Appeal received no explanation, and the sensitive content warning has stifled engagement on its post. One of the Eve Appeal advocates, Zoe, told me, “When I was diagnosed with vulva cancer, I was clueless. Why? Because I was taught the whole thing was a vagina. The use of pictures with labels of anatomy and names would have been a great help. Penis, prostate, balls, breasts, ovaries, cervix and womb are not taboo, however vulva and vagina, the two rarest of the gynaecological cancers, are being censored and dismissed.” The Eve Appeal’s educational posts are designed to save lives. Hiding women’s anatomy behind “sensitive content” warnings does not protect women; it silences them. Such policies can even put lives at risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who could not make it here today, has been raising awareness of another extraordinary case involving Thames Valley Air Ambulance. The charity launched a campaign highlighting that one in three women suffering cardiac arrest do not receive CPR before emergency crews arrive. Why? Because bystanders are often hesitant to touch women’s chests, remove bras, expose nipples or remove clothing in an emergency. Thames Valley Air Ambulance created an educational content video using a female CPR mannequin to demonstrate how to apply defibrillator pads correctly. Facebook removed the post and Instagram temporarily deleted it. The reason? The female mannequin breached community standards. Again, after appeal the content was restored with a blurred sensitivity warning. The charity responded: “If we can’t even share an image of an educational use manikin online without it being deemed ‘inappropriate’, how are we expected to normalise removing a real person’s bra to…save their life?” As you can imagine, similar content with a male mannequin is never removed or shadow-banned. Education campaigns like those save lives, yet the algorithms of big tech treat them as indecent. While charities are struggling to share lifesaving information, women’s health businesses are also being throttled. The global femtech market is projected to exceed $97 billion by 2030. It should be one of the great growth sectors of the future; instead, female-led health businesses are facing relentless moderation barriers. Bodyform’s Vagina Uncensored campaign was censored 22 times in one month across Meta, TikTok, Instagram and X. One advert containing the words “menstrual cycle” and showing a sanitary towel with blood was rejected by Meta unless it carried an 18-plus warning. To remind people, periods start much younger than 18 years old and the questions start even earlier than that. Apparently, period products are considered inappropriate for under-18s despite the fact that the vast majority of girls begin menstruating well before that age. Sixty-four per cent. of women’s health businesses have lost revenue because of those restrictions. Some businesses report losses of half a million pounds a year. One company said their app downloads collapsed from 250 per week to just 50. Another said years of content creation vanished overnight. Smaller femtech start-ups are the hardest hit. Hanx, a women’s sexual wellness company, said nine out of 10 of its adverts were rejected in the early days, and even now 34% of all its adverts are rejected. Meanwhile, treatments for erectile dysfunction are explicitly permitted under Meta’s advertising rules; women’s libido products are not. Tommy’s, the pregnancy and baby charity, had a video flagged as inappropriate because it included the word vagina. The video featured a researcher studying the vaginal microbiome to better understand infections linked to premature birth and miscarriage. Again, educational, evidence-based medical information was treated as inappropriate content. Ordinary women are seeing this happen every day. Influencer Charlotte Emily has more than 90,000 Instagram followers—something I think every politician in this room would like. She said that posts about periods, body image, menopause and women’s health perform dramatically worse than her fashion or lifestyle content. She said that simply using the word “period” instead of euphemisms like “Aunt Flo” reduces visibility. Think about the message that sends to young girls online: that medically accurate language about their own body is unacceptable and that they should hide behind euphemisms and embarrassment. This is not accidental. Words connected to women’s healthcare are treated as suspect content when they should be treated as healthcare education. That is the same prejudice that women have faced for centuries, simply translated into code. Victorian doctors dismissed women’s suffering as hysteria; today’s algorithms suppress the words that women search when they need to find out whether what is happening to their body is normal. The technology has changed, but the sexism has not. This censorship has consequences far beyond embarrassment or inconvenience. When trusted information is hidden, misinformation flourishes. The Government have now acknowledged that poor-quality online health information harms women’s outcomes—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for his work on that—particularly around reproductive health, contraception, miscarriage, menstruation, menopause and infertility. I am glad to see us acknowledging that, but tackling misinformation means nothing if accurate information is suppressed in the first place. If charities are hidden, educators are shadow-banned, doctors are down-ranked and medically approved content about the uterus, cervix, vulva and vagina is blurred, conspiracy theorists and grifters fill the vacuum and women suffer. I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to mention that Essity surveyed about 4,000 adults and found that two thirds look online for health advice, while half rely on social media for health and wellbeing information. Among young people, that number is even higher. Overwhelmingly, the public reject this censorship. Nearly eight out of 10 adults said that words such as “vagina”, “period”, “boobs” and “menopause” should not be restricted when used educationally. The public understand what platforms apparently do not: women’s anatomy is not obscene, women’s health is not inappropriate and education is not pornography. So what must happen now? First, big tech companies must stop hiding behind opaque moderation systems. They must explain how their algorithms operate, why women’s health content is disproportionately targeted and how appeals are reviewed. Secondly, the Government must stop allowing this issue to fall between policy silos. This is simultaneously a health issue, a women’s equality issue, an online safety issue and a digital regulation issue. It requires co-ordinated action between departments, regulators and the affected organisations. Thirdly, platforms should work directly with clinicians, educators and trusted charities to establish verified pathways for evidence-based health content. Finally, we need a cultural shift. Women and girls deserve to talk openly about periods, menopause, infertility, miscarriage, sex, orgasms, puberty and breastfeeding and every other aspect of their health without shame. They deserve medically accurate information without censorship. Ultimately, this debate is not only about algorithms. It is about power: who gets heard, who gets visibility, whose bodies are treated as acceptable and whose health is considered legitimate. Right now, the message that many women receive online is this: “Your body is inappropriate. Your anatomy is shameful. Your health is controversial.” It is also about autonomy. If we can make informed choices, we have autonomy, but until big tech changes course, women will continue to pay the price in lost education, lost opportunity, lost trust and, in some cases, lost lives. The technology companies have the money and they have the ability; what they lack is the will. It is about time they found it.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I declare an interest: I have adenomyosis. It took more than 30 years for it to be diagnosed. The average diagnosis time is nine years and four months. For ethnically diverse communities, it is over 11 years. My story is not unusual. From the age of 14, I repeatedly went to the GP saying, “This isn’t normal.” That is like the 47% of sufferers who visited their GP more than 10 times before a diagnosis, while 70% visited more than five times. We all know what they were told: “You’re making a fuss about nothing”, “It’s normal”, and as we just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), “All you need is a hot water bottle and some painkillers.” Like so many other young women—80% of them—I was put on the contraceptive pill before any further investigation, and well before I was sexually active. This continued for many years. I once convinced a doctor that the pain was so bad that I should have some kind of exploratory surgery, so they did exploratory surgery looking for endometriosis. They did not look for adenomyosis. After that, I really was told that I was making it up, because they could not find anything. When I gave birth to my first child, I was in labour for 30 hours. A midwife at the other end of the phone kept saying to my husband, “If she’s able to nap, she’s clearly not having contractions.” I could nap during contractions because I had spent more than 30 years having to sleep with adenomyosis. I learned to have a very high pain tolerance. That baby was delivered in A&E because we got to the hospital so late. Even after being able to describe the pain of my periods being worse than the pain of contractions, not least because they were continuous and did not go away and come back like contractions, I was told that I was exaggerating and that it could not possibly be that bad. They told me that there was nothing they could do other than keep me on the contraceptive pill, which seemed to do nothing. It was not until I got to the other end with my reproductive health, when I had to go for several scans for menopause ahead of getting treatment for perimenopause, that the scanner said to me, “Oh, you have adenomyosis. That must be really painful,” as an offhand comment. I was bowled over. I said, “What is that? I’ve never even heard of it.” I had heard of endometriosis, but I had no idea what adenomyosis was. She said, “Oh, it’s similar, but it’s growing in your muscle lining.” I could not believe it; I was shocked that from the beginning to the end of my reproductive years—all those years of pain—I never once got a proper diagnosis. How did that impact my working career? I used to wish my period would start on a weekend, so that I would not have to miss work—I can see some nodding heads. I used to organise my work tasks around my expected period: I would do all the work that took concentration on days I knew would be good days, so that on the bad days I did not have to be productive. I missed about a day of work a month, which used to terrify me at the beginning of my career. I did not feel that I could talk to my bosses about it—I did not have the words to do so—and I had doubts from those doctors telling me that it was not as bad as I thought. I also want to share April’s story. She is only 24 and she has been going through this for the past 10 years. Her periods were so painful that she vomited. It is like that for many of us: doctors would say, “Take a paracetamol,” and I would say, “That’s great, but I can’t keep it down. I will literally vomit it back up.” April had a Mirena intrauterine device fitted for her symptoms, but she wanted to get it removed. I was shocked by this story: she was told that the strings of her IUD had been cut too short to remove without surgery. When April asked why that was the case she was told: “We cut the strings short for our younger patients, because we don’t want their boyfriends to find sex with them uncomfortable.” April had to undergo surgery under general anaesthesia to remove her IUD. She says that, at every stage, “A decision about my own body—my contraception, my ability to access the removal of my IUD—was shaped around the comfort of a hypothetical male partner.” She was single at the time. That is what we are all put through. At no point were any of us told that painful periods are not normal—I am not talking about discomfort; I am talking about pain—even though we know that to be the case. Each and every one of us should know that from the start. This relates to the fact that women’s health information is being shadow-banned online. Over the past year, 95% of women’s health educators were targeted for shadow-banning. That means that people who are trying to get this kind of health information out there are having their posts either blocked or downgraded because of their content. I do not mean to be rude, but that does not seem to happen to posts about erectile dysfunction. Educators are told by big tech that it has been quietly restricting or hiding women’s health content that contains educational terms like “periods”, “menopause”, “vagina” and “endometriosis” under the guise of safety or because those terms are too sexualised. How are we supposed to create an environment in which not only we as women but our bosses, colleagues and partners, who might be male, all understand that painful periods are not normal, and that the pain is real? We are seeing improvements in these areas, and I know that we are all looking forward to the women’s health strategy, which many of us have had long conversations about with the Ministers involved. We hope that it will bring about further real progress, but right now, I have a 15-year-old daughter who has all the same symptoms that I had, with all the same pain. I have told her all my tricks, including the use of irritable bowel syndrome medication to reduce some of the cramping—if people in the Public Gallery do not know about that one, it works really well—but our GP says that she is too young to start having such discussions. She is doing her mock GCSE exams this week. I wish her the best of luck, because she has studied really hard, but she is terrified that she will get her period this week and it will mess up those mock GCSEs. I have given just a few examples; I know that women in the Public Gallery could give many more. We hear the same story over and over, and it all stems from this fallacy that periods are meant to be painful. Painful periods are not normal and we need to repeat that to every woman we know, including every female team member we know and every GP or consultant we know, to make real change happen.

• 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?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Bill and the cyber action plan for public services, which was published today. As we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members’ many great speeches today, this is so important to the UK economy and public. Despite being one of the smaller countries in the world, we are still one of the biggest targets for cyber-attacks. In the past 12 months, there has been some good news: only four in 10 businesses and three in 10 charities have had cyber-security breaches—the figures are down on the previous year. However, there has been a huge increase in nationally significant cyber-incidents, which have more than doubled in the past year, including the malicious cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure by Russia and China. These matters are important to companies based in Milton Keynes Central, where one in three jobs are in technology. Milton Keynes is a leader in the development of AI and tech services, including in legal services, financial services and autonomous vehicles. Those companies have experienced cyber-attacks, so the Bill is very welcome. The difficulty is that it misses a huge portion of the discussion, and Ministers have somewhat neglected to mention sovereign technology in their comments or in the strategy. I hope that they will do so in the wind-up. One role of sovereign technology is to fight cyber-crime. There are many definitions of sovereign technology, so what does it actually mean? To me, most of the public and the industry, it means UK innovation and technology. It is developed in the UK and is UK-owned intellectual property. It means a company paying UK taxes. Most importantly, it means a UK company being accountable to the UK. The Government have talked a lot about their commitment to developing and securing sovereignty, but that needs to be extended to all critical technology and infrastructure. Not only is that important in cyber-security terms, but it has other advantages, too: it is good for the economy, creates innovation and sets the highest standards, and it thereby gets public support and confidence and achieves small business support for absorbing the innovation. It achieves growth by creating not only UK customers, but—ambitiously—worldwide customers. The Government have done that quite well in the past. They have created safe and secure solutions. Crown Hosting Data Centres is a really good example of a joint venture between the Government and Ark Data Centres. Unfortunately, only 3% to 4% of Government servers actually use it, and we must ask why. What are we doing to promote safe and secure solutions in the UK that would help us to fight for cyber-security and ensure that it is promoted across the public sector, and to ensure that those solutions gain support in the private sector? Instead of using Crown Hosting Data Centres, many are using ones run by foreign firms with securities and standards developed outside the UK. Outages at Amazon Web Services in cloud hosting have cost business millions. Let us look at other areas where the public rightly worry about cyber-attacks and cyber-security, such as NHS data. We have heard about the impact of cyber-crimes on the NHS and on lives, but it also impacts public confidence. Palantir has a £330 million contract to bring together all NHS data. That is a fantastic initiative and really important, and the public support it because they do not want to have to repeat their health story to each and every doctor, nurse or other health professional that they meet. The difficulty is that using a foreign firm with some questionable alliances has led to an erosion of public trust and to a lack of trust among doctors, slowing the take-up of this important innovation in NHS services. That is partly because the co-founder of Palantir called our pride in the NHS “Stockholm syndrome”. Unfortunately, he misunderstands the very body to which he is selling services and is thereby eroding public trust. I know many UK firms that could have done just as good a job—and probably better, because trust among the public and doctors would have increased. We hear that Palantir has just won a £240 million contract with the Ministry of Defence for “data analytics capabilities supporting critical strategic, tactical and live operational decision making across classifications”. Again, it is hugely important that we are using the latest technology to promote our MOD and that we are tying all that up. I do not think anybody in this House has concerns about the MOD making these kinds of investments; it is who we choose to partner with that drives the concern. As I have already argued, the reality is that cyber-security has to be UK-focused. We have to protect our national interest and ensure that our partners put our national interest and cyber-security first and foremost. The views of organisations such as Palantir on the NHS and its integration into US Immigration and Customs Enforcement—otherwise known as ICE—lead us to worry that it does not share UK values. It creates a strategic vulnerability. That is what the sector is saying to us, and we should listen to it. Cyber-security is not just about reporting; it is about the investments we make ahead of time. Imagine if those two contracts and their economic opportunities had been given to UK firms. There would be enhanced UK-based cyber-security and greater confidence in our most critical areas of health and the military. Let me raise another example which, if The Daily Telegraph is correct, I am sure will raise significant public trust concerns. It has reported today that the Government are considering using Starlink for the emergency services network, replacing the existing radio set-up that is used by ambulances, police and the fire service in an emergency—our most critical infrastructure. This company is controlled by a man who has shown his willingness to turn off satellites in Ukraine at his own political whim.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Puberty Suppressants Trial · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the science-based approach taken by the Secretary of State. We use puberty blockers for many different conditions, so will the trial look at the data that has been amassed from the use of puberty blockers for other conditions? I wish to state on the record that puberty blockers are reversible. The evidence shows that when people stop taking them, they stop working—that is the science behind them. Finally, young people in my constituency are more likely to age out of gender services than to get their first appointment, so what are we doing to shorten the waiting time, not just for puberty blockers but for the whole range of services provided to trans children by the NHS?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and bringing the debate back to people, which is where it needs to be. I want to highlight a case in my constituency of a young transgender person who spent two years on the under-18s waiting list for an initial appointment. They have now aged out of that waiting list and potentially have a six-year wait, meaning that when they are able to speak to a doctor or a health professional it will have been eight years. Their parents approached me to tell me how much that is damaging their young one.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the complaints I have received are about people giving their information to third-party verifiers. If they had a free, digital, Government-backed ID, they could have proved their age to access any over-18 content. People are also concerned that those who should not be accessing the NHS are doing so. The reality is that if there were a Government-backed digital ID, it would be clear whether a person can access the NHS. I have come up with a list that debunks what the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) said, and I am happy to pass it to him afterwards. I think we need to add a few scientific facts, but I do not have time.