Liz Kendall MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is the first time during this Parliament that I have been able to speak publicly about assisted dying and why I support a change in the law and, indeed, this Bill—a decision I voted for 11 years ago when the then MP for Wolverhampton South West, Rob Marris, put his assisted dying Bill to Parliament. I think of all the people who have suffered unbearable pain and loneliness since that first debate took place. I will make three brief points, and forgive me if I do not take interventions—I know so many people want to speak. The first is why I support a change in the law in principle. I have always believed that so long as it does no harm to others, people should have as much control, say and choice over their lives and the decisions that matter to them as possible, no matter their background or situation. That power should be in people’s hands to live or die as they choose, not as anybody else thinks they should or tells them they should. It should not just be the privilege of those with money, knowledge or resources. For me, that applies as much to the end of life as it does throughout the rest of life, and arguably more so—to choose as best we can how we leave this mortal coil on our own terms, in as little pain as possible with grace, humanity and dignity, surrounded by the people we love and who love us in return. That is not the case at present. As my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) so bravely and movingly set out, the principle of choice is deeply important to the people and families who have suffered unbearable deaths or are worried about unbearable deaths, whether or not they use that choice. Many have talked about having the option as a kind of insurance policy or as a comfort for them when they are going through those difficult times. That principle of choice and how important it is leads me to my second point, which is that we need better palliative care and social care before any change in the law. The truth is that for people who genuinely believe in choice, it is not either/or—better palliative care and social care or the option of assisted dying—but both. Even the best-quality universal palliative care will not alleviate unbearable suffering for some people. We know that from respected research institutions, hospices and patients themselves, and we should listen to their voices. Back in 2000, the then editor of the British Medical Journal wrote a powerful article entitled, “A good death”. I remember reading it and thinking how amazing it was. In it, he argued that medicine in particular and society as a whole do not give the attention that we should to helping people die a good death. With our ageing population, increase in long-term chronic conditions and the fact that sudden death is no longer the norm, we need a new approach. We must look at the broad spectrum of support that is needed to provide a good death. The support needs to be based on clear principles, including people being afforded dignity and privacy, having control over pain relief and symptom treatment, and having choice over where death occurs and who is present and shares the end with them. People need to be able to leave when it is time to go and not have their life prolonged pointlessly. I see today’s debate very much within that context: what makes for a good death. Alongside a change in the law on assisted dying, we must also improve palliative care and social care for families. I have campaigned for that for years, including campaigns for more beds in my local hospice LOROS and for free social care and for choice at the end of life. As Richard Smith argued all those years ago, we as a country and society can bring death more into life. That is entirely within the power of this Government and this House. I know that my dear and honourable friend on the Front Bench, the Minister for Social Care, cares passionately about those issues. My third and final point is about trust in our democratic process. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) for the very powerful speech he gave earlier on this point. I have the greatest respect for the many knowledgeable, experienced and highly principled Members of the House of Lords, but it is not right and not acceptable that a tiny minority should be able to talk out the Bill with hundreds and hundreds of amendments—a Bill that has been scrutinised far more than many Government Bills—with the sole purpose of scuppering it. It is the most scrutinised Bill I have seen in my 16 years in Parliament, and it was passed by this House of elected Members. The Lords should vote on this Bill, amend it if they see fit, send it back to us—just like we do with all other Bills. We have done our job. Now the House of Lords needs to do theirs to give people dignity, respect, choice and control over how, where and when they die, which so many hundreds of people have not had in the decades since we last faced this issue.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Online Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I really welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend today. It will, indeed, be a world first to take this action on device-level protections, protecting children right across the country, and I am very proud to be part of a party and a Government who are doing that. I also thank her for confirming that the vote on the ban on social media companies providing their services to children under 16 will take place this year, for the ban to come into effect early next year. Could she say more about the timetable for other proposals that were made on AI chatbots, overnight curfews and bans on doomscrolling for older children? Together, this package will make the world a safer, better place for children online—that is as well as the work we are doing offline.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to put the hon. Lady straight, but we are not cutting money for that. We are actually putting in the biggest funding for research and development ever in this country—something of which I am especially proud. We are protecting curiosity-led research and ensuring that we focus on the key priorities of this country, because we know there is no route to stronger growth or better answers and innovations without science and technology at its core.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point—we know children will try to get around the ban, and will succeed. Our measures are as much about resetting the cultural and social norms for future generations, but we will have more highly effective age verification measures to make this work. We are looking at the issue of VPNs in particular, and I will come back to the House with more on that issue very soon.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I say gently to the hon. Lady that we are dealing with the mess we inherited from Conservative Members by ensuring that this country can rely on clean, renewable, home-grown energy right here in Britain. That is why we are driving the technological revolution in AI in our AI growth zones in Wales through three small modular nuclear reactors. It is also why this country has had more venture capital funding in our AI start-ups just this year than the whole of the rest of Europe. We are driving forward change to ensure that this country can succeed.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud that today I am launching our charter for women in research, setting out minimum standards for maternity pay and leave for women doing PhDs in this country, alongside leave for their partners, adoption leave, leave for baby loss and pregnancy-related sickness. More than 64 organisations have already signed up. This is crucial for women, for the quality of science and tech and for our country, because Britain succeeds only when we make the most of all our talents.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the hon. Lady is really concerned to ensure that her constituents have proper network coverage. We encourage mobile network operators to use existing infrastructure where they can, but I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Government and Data to get the progress that the people of North Shropshire need and deserve.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Women in Tech Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  Our economy loses around £3.5 billion a year because women leave the tech sector or change jobs due to barriers that should not exist. That is bad for women and for the tech sector because it loses out on their skills, talent and experience. It is why our women in tech taskforce is addressing the systematic barriers that prevent women from entering, progressing and leading this vital sector.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Women in Tech Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right that the bias in technology highlights why we need more women building it. We want more women in tech and more tech that works for women. That is exactly why we launched the women in tech taskforce. We will publish the results of its call for evidence next week. We have had a fantastic response, but we are not waiting to take action: we are launching a new tech first girls programme for 12 and 13 year olds, to help advance women’s careers by giving them minimum six- month placements, and we are putting our own house in order by ensuring Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, help software developers return to work after 18 months.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Women in Tech Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  I think the most effective way to get change is to show the results that have been achieved by the women who produce the brilliant science and technology that helps to create innovations and bring in the cash. Women founders of tech companies get only 2p in every £1 in venture capital funding, yet on average they present 35% higher returns. If companies want better science and tech and a better economy, they had better get more women on board.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I share the concerns of the good people of the hon. Member’s constituency about AI chatbots. I will come back with a further statement to the House about the things I said in my last statement, not only looking at further steps on AI chatbots—we have banned sexualised companion chatbots and the features within general chatbots that allow that to happen—but on overnight curfews, brakes on infinite scrolling and various other things. I will make the fullest possible update to the House on those measures, as I said I would.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  Of course I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, because I am focusing on doing my job, which is to do the right thing for children and families in this country. I hope the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) gets a good rest over the summer holidays too, and maybe works up some slightly more challenging questions.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my hon. Friend’s urging. We do indeed intend to look at further measures about this. As I have said, including to the Chair of the Select Committee, I will look once again at the challenges around misinformation and disinformation; this summer we will be consulting on the very issue of digital replicas and launching a taskforce on labelling AI content. That is part of the work we are doing around the creative sector, but it is also about tackling misinformation and disinformation and protecting our children and our democratic process.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I saw the documentary and absolutely agree how concerning it is. I bet that many men, even some in this Chamber, will have been fed this vile stuff just because they are a man. We are looking at a whole range of measures. We are also looking at the issues of advertising and money, which are relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s question as they are driving a lot of this. The Minister for Digital Government and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is a joint Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is chairing a taskforce looking specifically at that matter, but I always like to see further recommendations, so the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) should send them in.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, I announced a defining moment for children and families, banning social media companies from providing their services to under-16s, banning livestreaming and stranger communication for under-16s on services, including gaming, and making Britain the first country in the world to ban sexualised chatbots for under-18s. This Government, and I personally, will continue to take all the measures necessary to keep children safe online.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on these issues. Young people’s voices have been, and will continue to be, heard. We had 14,000 children and young people respond to our consultation and they raised issues such as the ones mentioned by my hon. Friend. We want to give children the best possible start in life. There are further measures that I hope to announce, including on breaks in infinite scrolling, and I look forward to making a further statement to the House.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that this is not a “one and done”, as I said in my statement last week. It cannot be, because technology is changing so fast. I have looked seriously at the fact that the Online Safety Act 2023 took eight years from initial idea to implementation, and that is not good enough. We have taken powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 to address features and functions, which I think will help, but I am sure there is much more we can do. I have said that this is not a one and done, and I will always be willing to look at further measures.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  That has been a really important question; researchers have raised being able to assess the impact and know what the social media companies know themselves, so that they can better scrutinise and assess the evidence. I hope we will be doing more on that soon.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  We had a specific survey and consultation with children, 14,000 of whom replied, and I personally met young people in many constituencies. I understand why people say that responsibility should be put on to the companies—that they have got to keep their products safe, and that if they do not, they should not be able to provide them to children and young people. Well, they have not kept them safe, so they are no longer going to be able to provide them to children and young people. In response to the consultation, many of the children did not want an outright ban, but two thirds wanted a whole load of different restrictions. In the end, it is for adults and the Government to decide what is best. Children’s views have been heard, but we think that it is too risky, and we want to have a reset for them and future generations.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  It is really important that two things happen. First, there needs to be more support for parents and schools to do what many are already doing: preparing children for a life online. We have had a big national curriculum review, and new measures are coming into place from this September, but there will be more when the full curriculum review comes into place. We are doing a huge amount to support schools to provide wider support for sport, art, culture, school plays— [ Interruption. ] I hear a cough from Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will write to my hon. Friend.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I have been very clear throughout this statement that the responsibility is on the social media platforms, not on parents or children, and that it is up to them to take the action they need to take.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, I will make a further statement to the House in July, which will include issues such as raising the digital age of consent, so that we have greater protections around the use of children’s data. That is an important issue. Privacy must be at the heart of this measure, because many parents and young people are worried. We have got further things to say in July, and I am more than happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Lady knows, the Prime Minister said that we want to act on devices to stop children taking, viewing or sharing nude images. What we are talking about today is highly effective age-verification measures on social media platforms. Sometimes when we debate this issue in the House it is a question of either/or, but we need to take action on all those fronts. We need to keep the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, we need to tackle devices to stop kids taking, sharing and seeing nude pictures, and we need to put restrictions on AI chatbots and social media platforms, because that is how we will keep kids safe.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  It was quite cheeky to ask three questions—but, absolutely, the enforcement will be against the companies and not the parents or the children. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, under the Online Safety Act we already have the potential to fine companies that repeatedly break the law up to 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue and also to block service availability. We are finalising our proposals in that regard, but that is where the responsibility lies. What we have is an overall ban on social media platforms with a plan to use the Australian model, but we also have the ability to deal with specific features and functions in other services if we think that they are risky to children. I am sorry, but I have forgotten the right hon. Gentleman’s third question. I will write to him when my officials tell me about it.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  The Online Safety Act 2023 requirements remain. This is not an either/or; the companies have to make sure that they remove illegal content for everybody and remove harmful content for children. I have personally introduced a whole series of priority offences under the Act, including those to do with self-harm and suicide. The companies have to not just take this stuff down but actively look for it, and those requirements will remain.