Lewis Atkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to Lords amendment 41, regarding putting the agent of change principle on a statutory basis, particularly ensuring that new developments have a noise impact assessment when they are near grassroots music venues. I support the Government’s plans to increase house building, and I recognise that genuine care has to be taken to not increase red tape to the detriment of that goal. However, at the moment, the agent of change regime is preventing elements of house building and residential use in my constituency, as I will come on to. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith), I am slightly disappointed that that a Government amendment in lieu to Lords amendment 41 has not been tabled. Sunderland is a music city, and venues such as Pop Recs, Independent and The Bunker are core to our identity. If we are about empowering our community, we need to empower it to protect those venues culturally important to us, which of course are also crucially economically important. As has been said, many grassroots music venues have closed over recent years, with the number declining from 1,150 venues nationally to 800 today. Those closures are due to not just economic factors, but planning issues. The Minister referenced that there will be guidance around the agent of change principle, but the reality is that there have been forms of guidance since 2014 or 2015, and the Music Venue Trust reports that there has been no let-up in inappropriate planning applications near music venues. For those reasons, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s 2024 report recommended that “the agent of change principles are put on a statutory footing at the earliest opportunity.” This Bill is an opportunity to do so—if not through Lords amendment 41, then potentially through alternative means, which I hope the Minister will say something about. I repeat the question asked by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), about whether the guidance will be statutory or general. In my constituency, the Music Venue Trust had to intervene in a planning application to convert a unit of flats near Independent on Holmeside because the plans did not contain sufficient noise protection. That process took too long, incurred cost and risk to the venue, and ultimately meant that the flats were not built, so we actually have housing that is not being built due to a lack of clarity on the agent of change principle. That shows why that principle needs to be strengthened; currently, given that the guidance is not statutory, developers are incentivised to try to get away with proposals. Will the Minister meet me, other members of the APPG on music, and the Music Venue Trust to discuss strengthening the guidance? Will she also make sure that the statutory guidance in the NPPF that she refers to specifically refers to noise abatement in relation to grassroots music venues?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government bringing forward this legislation, and not just in response to the significant concerns that doctors currently have about access to training places, but as an important part of a reset, with a longer-term approach, to ensure that we have an NHS workforce that is fit for the future. I am going to go off script and respond to some comments that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), made. He rightly pointed out that the Bill is about prioritisation, not immediate capacity. However, in week one or two of NHS manager school, one of the core techniques that is taught is about capacity and demand modelling. A fundamental assumption about the capacity of our workforce going forward is retention—how long they will work over the course of their careers. The GMC is absolutely clear that an international medical graduate will, on average, work for a shorter period of time in the UK than a UK medical graduate—they are more likely to leave. I suggest that it is entirely sensible that the Government are bringing in the legislation now, in advance of their NHS workforce planning, because the Bill fixes a core assumption of that plan. To give an example, I have managed cancer waiting lists and, knowing that I have a list of patients I am responsible for, feared that the lower gastrointestinal oncologist who is getting on will announce their retirement without a clear succession plan, as lower GI oncologists are in short supply. This Bill is not just the right thing to do but provides the absolute clarity around medical capacity that will allow the Government to do the proper demand work that is necessary to build the NHS of the future. Turning to the immediate situation, I have heard the views clearly expressed by medical graduates in Sunderland and across the country about the bottlenecks they face when trying to secure foundation and specialty training places. Many are left in prolonged periods of uncertainty, unable to progress despite years of study. When we talk about trainees, we risk giving the impression that the contribution made by these talented young people will all be in the future, but of course, in reality, people in training positions provide a huge contribution of direct service to the NHS today, forming the core of the medical workforce in hospitals up and down the country. When I was an NHS operational manager, I had to get to know the new rotation of core, foundation and specialty training doctors every time as they rotated around. Meeting those inspiring and motivated young people was not just a lovely thing to do but a hugely important one, as the day-to-day care of the patients in the specialties I was responsible for was largely provided by the people on those training courses. That experience also highlighted to me how, over a decade under the previous Government, there was a total failure to put in place a proper care framework for those foundation and specialty doctors, which left UK-trained doctors competing in increasingly crowded pools. We have heard some of the numbers already from the Secretary of State: in 2025, there were more than 30,000 doctors competing for just 9,500 training posts. That is not a system that shows proper regard for the commitment of medical graduates or for their wellbeing, let alone a system that is designed to meet the future needs of the country or the NHS. We invest hundreds of thousands of pounds training each medical student, but too often we fail to retain them. That represents a loss not only of talent, but of public investment. However, I think it is important, as others have done, to put on the record our recognition of the enormous benefit brought by medical professionals who have chosen to come to the United Kingdom and dedicate their careers to the NHS. I know that will continue even after this legislation is passed. As I always say, healthcare is a team sport, and in my experience, when a team is working together under significant operational pressure, the commitment of everyone in going the extra mile, no matter which country they trained in and what nationality they are, is always exemplary. That is the case throughout the NHS that I know. The contribution of international medical and wider clinical staff to our NHS is invaluable, and it must never be diminished or forgotten. I know that will continue. It is important, therefore, that the discussion of the Bill is not interpreted as a slight on their contribution or commitment. In aggregate, as I have said, the GMC has been clear that while international graduates are essential to the functioning of our health services, they are statistically more likely to leave the UK workforce within six years of joining compared with those who train here. That reality makes clear the risk of overreliance on a system that is unpredictable and, ultimately, unsustainable. This Bill is about balance, not exclusion; it is about ensuring that the significant public investment we are making in training doctors in this country translates into a stable and sustainable workforce for the years ahead.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for the conclusion of this debate, Sir John. I thank all Members for their contributions. I think that we had a really constructive and thorough debate, and I certainly learned a lot in the course of it. I only wish that I had heard some of the contributions before I wrote my opening speech. I particularly thank the Minister for being so generous with his time in giving a thorough response and taking interventions, which I think gave us significant insight. The contributions from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), were thoughtfully made, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), clearly brought to the debate her expertise on this subject. I think that the points about the wider impacts on mental health and wellbeing of the new online world will be particularly relevant as the Government think more widely about the approach to mental health in their strategy, which I hope will be forthcoming. I can say, as the Minister did, that my only regret is that the few Members of the House who have publicly called for outright repeal of the Online Safety Act were not here this afternoon to give their perspective and to engage with the thoroughness that I think all Members present have engaged. I have a final couple of reflections. I think that everyone I have heard in this space and debate has been motivated by a desire to preserve rights and our British values, whether it be rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression or freedom of association, including through small online spaces and forums, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) rightly said in his excellent contribution, safe spaces online open up space for further freedoms, and the freedoms of children cannot be infringed by freedoms for adults. It was really shocking to hear the extent of the harms that children are suffering in the current environment. I think that the motivations behind this petition were not about that at all, but it was very much about making sure that the freedoms of association that we hold dear in this country are able to be continued online through small forums. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the Government see ample space for small and independent providers in the future as part of that. A reflection that I had in the course of the debate is that increasingly we are talking about safety by design, but a lot of online forums came about in a world in which there was no safety by design. Part of the implementation issue is that the tech being used for online forums is probably 10 or 15 years old in relation to message boards. If a new message board were being set up today, with the use of new tech standards, I would hope that safety by design would be much more embedded, and the responsibilities that fall to individual volunteers and administrators would be lessened as a result. It is entirely natural that the first attempt at regulation and legislation will not get everything right and that it will require evolution. The Online Safety Act was a landmark attempt to regulate online harms, but I think it is fair to say that the consensus that we have heard today is that it needs to evolve—that we should be looking not to repeal the Act but to evolve at pace and ensure implementation at pace, so that we tackle online harms in a way that is consistent with our British values and the freedoms of expression and association that we have heard about. It only remains for me to thank again Mr Baynham, the creator of the petition, and all the petitioners for their online engagement—I have to say—in the petition process, without which today’s really informative debate would not have occurred. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 722903 relating to the Online Safety Act.

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think, as a society, we want forums such as the ones she reports to close down—they have been harmful. But I recognise that there were others that, maybe pre-emptively, decided to shut down. Perhaps the Minister has further information on how far the reported close-downs were a one-off event, in pre-emption, rather than an ongoing, repeated loss of online spaces. As I have outlined, we are getting at a more nuanced position from owners and operators of bona fide community forums who are concerned about how to ensure that they are meeting their obligations—in the same way that any person would meet obligations such as those under the Data Protection Act 2018, which has always applied. That is a more nuanced position, far from asking for a full-out repeal of the OSA, but rather asking how the obligations under the Act can be carried out in a proportionate manner.

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

  More

  I agree with the hon. Lady. In my understanding, when the legislation was drafted, it was not initially clear to those who drafted it that AI would develop at the astonishing pace that it has in recent years. I ask the Minister to reflect on that point in addressing the implementation of the Act and its potential future evolution through primary legislation.

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

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he will not be surprised that I will come on in my speech to deal with some wider issues about the Online Safety Act, in particular the protection of children. I think that today’s debate is likely to be more nuanced than simply whether we should maintain or repeal the Online Safety Act, and we will talk about the implementation and potential evolution of the Act over time. The ask that I have heard from administrators of small forums is that Ofcom take further steps to simplify the record-keeping and risk-assessment burdens for small sites. When I have met with other organisation such as the Open Rights Group in preparation for this debate, they have suggested that exemptions be made for small and low-risk sites. It is clear that a size-only exemption would not be appropriate; unfortunately, there have been small platforms specifically to host harmful content, such as forums dedicated to idealising suicide or self-harm, but it is possible that some combination of size and risk could be considered together. These questions touch at the heart of how we maintain the positives that come from vibrant and plural internet spaces while also clamping down on online harms.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. The proactive duty that the Act places on providers in relation to the nature of their algorithms and their content is crucial because of the type of content to which she refers. It is right that the largest providers, and those most frequently used by kids, have to take active responsibility for keeping children safe. The implementation of the OSA means that algorithms serving harmful content to kids are now being regulated for the first time. There is a long way to go, and I am sure that other Members will say more than I can in this introduction, but I want to be clear to my constituents that I support the action that the OSA is prompting to improve children’s safety and welfare online. Various surveys set out the impact of the Online Safety Act; Ofcom is publishing its research and a formal Government review will follow in due course. However, most impactful for me was seeing a teenage boy say on a news piece recently that, now, “when I’m scrolling TikTok, I’m free from violence.” That changed for him in the months following the implementation of the Online Safety Act, so it is no wonder that organisations such as the Online Safety Act Network, which I spoke to in preparation for this debate, fully support the Act’s principles. The network points to early evidence that the Act is actively reducing harm to children and emphasised that Ofcom must move beyond content filters to ensure safety by design, which would, for example, include addressing features that incentivise pile-ons, targeting an individual with abuse and harassment. New Ofcom research shows that 58% of parents now believe that measures in the code of practice are beginning to improve the safety of children online. My belief is that we should be considering not whether to repeal the Act, but how we can continue to enforce it in a robust, effective and proportionate manner. The way in which the Online Safety Act addresses online hate has perhaps not had as much focus as it might have. As well as being a member of the Petitions Committee, I am privileged to be a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into combating new forms of extremism. It is very clear from the public evidence that we have received so far that, left unregulated and unchallenged, online spaces and services can be used to amplify hate, thus risking a rise in extremist action, including violence. Analysis by the Antisemitism Policy Trust highlights that there are patterns of co-ordinated and persistent misogynistic, anti-immigrant, anti-Government and antisemitic discourse on social media, with bot accounts being repeatedly used to amplify misleading or harmful narratives that fuel hate and may increase the risk of violence. Such content often breaches platforms’ own terms of service, but under the Online Safety Act, I understand that Ofcom category 1 services will now be mandated to proactively offer users optional tools to help them to reduce the likelihood that they will encounter legal but harmful content such as that. There is much to be done to implement those provisions in an appropriate manner. However, I invite anyone calling for full repeal of the Act to consider how we as a society deal with the rise of extremism, and a context where the internet can be used as a sort of free-for-all fuelled by hate-filled algorithms that thrive on and incentivise division and hatred, rather than consensus and civic peace. I am aware that there are large parts of the Online Safety Act that I have not been able to touch on today; I hope that others will do so during the debate. There are questions about end-to-end encryption, cyber-flashing, the creation of abusive deepfakes, AI moderation and chatbots.

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

  More

  I do, but I will come to some of the issues regarding social media platforms in what I am about to say. I certainly would not want to stifle the freedom of speech of Newcastle fans expressing their genuine heartfelt sorrow about yesterday’s events. I turn now to wider concerns that have been expressed about the Online Safety Act, which, although they are not the motivations of the petition creator, are undoubtedly held by a number of people who signed the petition. The number of petition signatories notably increased in the immediate aftermath of the implementation of age verification requirements that have been applied to significant parts of the internet, from pornography to some elements of social media. Here, I am afraid I find it significantly harder to provide balance in my introduction to the debate, having read the report by the Children’s Commissioner that was published in advance of the implementation of the OSA, which stated: “It is normal for children and young people to be exposed to online pornography”, as 70% of children surveyed responded that they had seen pornography online. The report also found: “Children are being exposed at very young ages…the average age a child first sees pornography online is 13…More than a quarter…of respondents had seen online pornography by the age of 11.”

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes that point well, and the Minister will have heard it. As this discussion continues, I hope that we can find a way of reflecting these two areas of balance—these two features of the online world now. First, there is the absolute primacy of safeguarding children and tackling serious online harms, but it is also important to recognise the real benefits that living in an increasingly connected society bring us all. I think those are very much the motivations of the petition’s creator—we are talking about the work done by good, civic-minded folk, and creators and administrators of online communities and hobby forums across the country. Naturally, as our learning about the implementation of the Act continues, there is a way of doing that that supports the efforts of those people without risking such sites being used to further online harms. The consensus, I think it is fair to say, is that reform of the Act, rather than repeal, is the realistic route forward. That is natural with such groundbreaking legislation, but reform must be sensitive to the scale, proportionality and privacy, as well as the emerging and changing nature of online harms. I thank Members for their time and their interventions, and I look forward to a positive debate.

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

  More

  I agree that there is significant work to be done to effectively implement the OSA. I will touch on that, and the Minister may wish to do so in his response. Crucially, the report by the Children’s Commissioner found that children were most likely to see pornography by accident—a key point that some of the criticism of the Act fails to grasp. The horrifying statistics, showing the scale of online harm to children that the OSA is working to reduce, make it obvious why in a recent survey 69% the public backed the introduction of age verification checks on platforms, and why children’s charities and children’s rights organisations overwhelmingly back the OSA and—to my hon. Friend’s point—want it implemented more rapidly and robustly. I have heard that some petition signatories are particularly concerned about age verification on platforms, such as X, Reddit or Discord, beyond those specifically designed as pornography sites. However, the report by the Children’s Commissioner shows that eight out of 10 of the main sources where children saw pornography were not porn sites; they were social media or networking sites. Those platforms that choose to allow their users to upload pornographic content—some do not—should be subject to the same age-verification requirements as porn sites in order to keep our children safe. Following the implementation of those provisions of the Online Safety Act, it was reported that UK traffic to the most popular pornographic websites was notably down. Yes, it was initially reported that there had been in spike in the number of virtual private networks, or VPNs, being downloaded for access to those sites, but research increasingly suggests it is likely that that trend was being driven by adults worried about their anonymity, rather than by children seeking to circumvent the age limitations. The Online Safety Act addresses harms beyond those done by porn. Content that is especially harmful to children and that children should not have access to includes very violent content and content encouraging limited eating or suicide.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 722903 relating to the Online Safety Act. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I start by thanking the 550,138 people who signed the petition for their engagement with the democratic process, and in particular the petition creator, Alex Baynham, whom I had the pleasure of meeting as part of my preparations for this debate; he is in the Public Gallery today. My role as a member of the Petitions Committee is to introduce the petition and key contours of the issues and considerations that it touches on, hopefully to help ensure that we have a productive debate that enhances our understanding. I believe that at the heart of any balanced discussion on this issue is a recognition of two simultaneous features of the online world’s development over the last 30 years. First, there has been the development of incredible opportunities for people to communicate and form bonds together online, which go far beyond the previous limitations of geography and have allowed a huge multiplication of opportunities for such interactions—from marketplaces to gaming to dating. We should welcome that in a free society. Secondly, the opportunities for harm, hate and illegality have also hugely increased, in a way that previous legislation and regulation was totally unequipped to deal with. That is what prompted the introduction of the Online Safety Act 2023. As the Minister at the time said: “The Bill is world-leading, and the legislative framework established by it will lead to the creation of a profoundly safer online environment in this country. It will kickstart change where that is sorely needed, and ensure that our children are better protected against pornography and other content that is harmful to them.” —[ Official Report , 12 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 799.] Although some aspects of the Online Safety Act have been more prominent than others since its introduction, it is important in this debate to recall that there are multiple parts of the Act, each of which could separately be subject to amendment or indeed repeal by Parliament. There was the introduction of a framework placing obligations on in-scope services—for example, social media platforms—to implement systems and processes to reduce the risk of their services being used for illegal activity, including terrorism offences, child sexual exploitation and abuse, and drugs and weapon offences. Those duties have been implemented and enforced since March 2025. Secondly, the Act required services to implement systems and processes to protect under-18s from age-inappropriate content—both content that may be passed from user to user, and content that is published by the service itself, such as pornography sites. We should recognise that the Online Safety Act implemented measures to regulate a wide range of diverse services, from social media giants to commercial sites, but also online spaces run by charities, community and voluntary groups, and individuals. As the first substantive attempt at regulating safety online, the OSA has brought into regulation many services that have not previously been regulated. Mr Baynham explained to me that those services lay behind his primary motivation in creating the petition. He was spurred by concerns about the impact of the Online Safety Act on online hobby and community forums of the type he uses. They are online spaces created by unpaid ordinary people in their spare time, focused on the discussion of particular shared interests—games, a film or TV series, or football teams. A number of the administrators of such forums have expressed concern that they now face liabilities and obligations under the Online Safety Act that they are not equipped to meet. I must declare an interest at this stage. For more than a decade, I have regularly used the Ready To Go—RTG—Sunderland AFC fans’ messaging boards. They provide thousands of Mackems with online space to discuss the many ups and downs of our football club and associated issues facing the city, with current topics including club finances, “Match of the Day” tonight and, following a successful Wear-Tyne derby yesterday, “The Mag meltdown” thread. I heard directly from the administrator of the RTG forum in preparation for this debate. He told me that he came close to shutting the site down when the Online Safety Act came into force and has still not ruled that out completely. He points out that there have been thousands of pages of guidance issued by Ofcom on the implementation of the Act, and that, while tech companies with large compliance teams have the capacity to process that volume of guidance, having volunteers do the same is a huge challenge. Ofcom has stressed that it will implement the Act in a way that is risk-based and proportionate, and has offered a digital toolkit targeted at small services in response. But even for the smaller sites the rules seem to require, for example, a separate and documented complaints system beyond the usual reporting functionality that small forums have often had in place. The administration of that system has been described to me as time-consuming and liable to being weaponised by trolls. Some forum hosts feel that the uncertainty regarding the liability they face under the Online Safety Act is too much. The reassurance offered that prosecution is “unlikely” has not given sufficient confidence to some who have been running community sites as volunteers. To some, the risk of liability, personal financial loss or simply getting it wrong has been too great; when the Act came into force, 300 small forums reportedly exited the online space or lost their status as independent forums and migrated to larger platforms such as Facebook.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to contribute to the Sir David Amess debate. Sir David proudly championed Southend and its people, and it is in that spirit that I would like to speak about Sunderland today. To start, Mrs Ann Blakey, the retiring headteacher of St Benet’s Roman Catholic school in my constituency, has for 20 years worked with love at the heart of that fantastic, warm community school. She is adored by pupils, staff and parents alike, and I pay tribute to her today and wish her a very happy retirement. I also want to take this opportunity to thank all teachers across Sunderland Central for the work they have done for our young people this year, and to wish them a well-deserved summer break. I said in my maiden speech in October that Sunderland was a city on the up. Well, promise made, promise delivered. It feels like it was yesterday that we were at Wembley watching Tommy Watson score the late winner in the play-off final, which means we are now on the eve of being back in the premier league. Sunderland fans are spending the summer pondering all the big questions. With our embarrassment of riches, who will we start on the right wing? When will Chris Rigg score his first premier league goal? And how loudly will Eliezer Mayenda’s views on Sam Fender echo around St James’s Park? I know that the Minister will not be able to answer all of those key questions, but I hope she will join me in wishing Sunderland AFC well for the new season and in celebrating the passing of the Football Governance Act 2025 to protect the health of our national game, despite the shameful opposition of Reform and Conservative MPs. Since I was elected, my priority has been investing in Sunderland. There is such a buzz around the city, with cranes in the sky, businesses announcing they are moving jobs to Riverside Sunderland, the new Keel crossing opening and the women’s rugby world cup. Government decisions are bringing further investment, rebalancing council and NHS spending. I will continue to work publicly and privately to bring further investment into Sunderland—in our neighbourhoods, in our music and creative industries and in our public services. One facility that has received investment, but that we have had incredible frustration with, is Sunderland station. Eighteen months after opening, the facilities still do not work, and it is simply not good enough. I eagerly await the work by Northern and Network Rail to deliver the improvements they have assured me will be made so that the station becomes rather less like an empty warehouse and more like the vibrant hub that our city deserves. With that, I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the House staff and colleagues a very happy summer recess.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  Anyone who has ever worked in healthcare knows that it is a team sport and that delivering excellent care requires a range of staff across the allied health professions including nurses, doctors, administrative staff and estate staff. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is therefore essential that all NHS staff groups have confidence that their pay is being set fairly, and that going beyond the independent pay review body’s recommendations for one set of staff would undermine the “one NHS” team ethos that so many have worked to build?