Lizzi Collinge MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Time and again, people have told me that it is the unexpected nature of fireworks that causes the most harm. Just giving people the opportunity to plan and prepare for fireworks would be an enormous step forward, and we can achieve that by introducing set days for displays. For example, they could be on bonfire night and the nearest Saturday, and we could replicate that across the year for important events such as new year’s eve, Diwali and so on.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for presenting this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. My constituents were fourth on the list for signatures to these petitions, which call for controls on the decibel levels of fireworks and on the sale of fireworks. Those constituents include Stephen, who told me that his previous guide dog, so frightened by fireworks, dragged him across a main road in a desperate attempt to get away from the noise; and Natalie, who works closely with veterans and spoke about the serious impact that fireworks can have on mental health.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I must confess that I love fireworks—I absolutely adore them—and I want people to be able to experience that joy, but not at the cost of other people’s safety and security.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Gambling Harms: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this important debate, and for outlining so eloquently the harms caused to the estimated 1.65 million children who live in a household with a problem gambler. Increasingly, children are not just affected by gambling harms; they are being actively targeted. Even in the past two years we have seen a doubling of problem gambling among young people aged 11 to 17. It is hard to be surprised when it is everywhere we look. Every single Premier League team has gambling sponsorship. In the commercial break, we see celebrities from Danny Dyer to Harry Redknapp promoting casino sites. One ad says that “you don’t need to know everything about every sport. All you need is a feeling and a phone.” That message is not subtle, and it is backed by money. The industry spends a whopping £2 billion a year on advertising, and it does that because it works. In a GambleAware survey of 2,000 young people aged 11 to 17, a quarter said that seeing celebrities gamble or promote gambling made them want to try it themselves. Among boys aged 16 and 17, that rose to more than a third. Now, remember that most people—falsely—think themselves immune to advertising or celebrity endorsement, so the real number of young people who are being directly influenced to feel positively towards gambling is likely to be much higher. According to the same survey, nearly 90% of children aged between 13 and 17 are exposed to gambling content online. Beyond the billboards and television ads lies a digital world that is far harder for parents like me to see, and it is far harder to regulate. Although some Members may not be familiar with platforms such as Twitch or Kick—I admit that I was not—their children will be. I must pay tribute here to my gen Z staffer Cat, who educated me, an elderly millennial born in the late 1900s, about these platforms. When I first heard the phrase “late 1900s”, I had never been prouder of our generation. It is a beautiful phrase. The platforms that young people go on are flooded with live betting streams. Children watch them in their bedrooms, with parents completely unaware of what they are seeing. One in three children follow gambling-related creators. Many of the streamers are in paid contracts with big crypto casino brands. They are not gambling their own money; it is free credit given to them by the casinos, and it is rigged to show young people how easy it can be for them to win big or recoup any losses from gambling. If talking up the thrill of betting is not a quick enough route to acquiring new, younger customers, many streamers use affiliate-referral links, whereby younger viewers are encouraged to join gambling platforms and streamers are rewarded with a hefty commission for each viewer they convert into a customer. Although these sites are nominally supposed to be 18-plus, the age restrictions can be got around, and some sites based overseas are a bit less fussy than operators based here. Some of the creators did not start out promoting gambling. They built their audience first, with young people feeling a strong, trusting relationship with the influencers. Then, as the content creators build their followers, they become attractive to sponsors, so now their primary job is not entertainment but to bring their audience to their sponsors. To deal with urges, children report trying to watch gambling instead of doing it, but that does not work. It is called the urge paradox, and it makes them more likely to engage in harmful activity. This is the active cultivation of young people as customers. We now know far more about how exposure, habit and addiction take hold. If gambling is now embedded in the digital spaces where children spend their time, regulation must meet them there. Earlier this week, we changed gambling taxes to concentrate on the most problematic online gambling and raise money to tackle child poverty. I urge the Minister to look at the measures proposed by Members today and by the APPG, to see how we as a Labour Government can further protect young people and others from gambling harm.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This week, in response to an intervention, I misspoke and I mistakenly attributed comments to James Dyson that he had not made. While he has been a prominent voice in the debate on agricultural property relief, as the owner of a large amount of land in England, he did not make the comments I attributed to him. For this error, I apologise in full to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the House and to Mr Dyson. It is very important to me that, when anyone makes a mistake of this sort, they correct their error quickly and in full. I hope that this point of order corrects the record and shows the House my commitment to the principle of openness, transparency and accountability. —[ Official Report , 12 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 693.]

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. It is really interesting to see the response from Opposition Members. Obviously they never have to wrestle with interacting with the state; perhaps they have people to do that for them. The Minister will remember that back in October, I asked the Secretary of State to consider making every single element of the digital credential voluntary, so I am glad to see the Government’s position now. I am excited about the potential benefits for those interacting with the state. Will the Minister outline for my constituents some examples of how it could make their life easier?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for bringing attention to the persecution of people of different faiths and beliefs, and particularly the heinous murders of thousands of people. He knows about the case of Mubarak Bala, who was jailed for a Facebook post that was deemed to be blasphemous. After he left Islam, he was sent to a psychiatric hospital, forced to leave his home and state and arrested. He calls on the UK and western Governments to repeal their own blasphemy laws. He has explained that when he was arrested, he was told, “Even the British have blasphemy laws.” Today, blasphemy and blasphemous libel is a criminal offence under common law in Northern Ireland. It is not used in Northern Ireland; it is a dead letter law. However, other countries that do use their blasphemy laws in extreme ways often point to these dead letter laws in other countries to justify their own behaviour. Does my hon. Friend agree that no country should have blasphemy laws, whether directly or by the back door?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13, which respectively outline: an increase in tax on online gaming, such as online slots or casino games; a new rate of general betting duty specifically for online betting, such as placing a bet on a football match; and, removing bingo duty. Online gambling has evolved quickly, and legislation has simply not kept up. Before, someone might have popped down to their local high-street betting shop or organised a trip with their friends to the casino. It was confined to a specific place that people had to go to and then at some point leave. That does not mean that there were no problem gamblers—of course there were—but it did impose necessary social and physical limits on gambling. Online gambling has changed that beyond all recognition. Now, that casino fits into someone’s pocket. Online platforms know people’s habits, when they use their phone most and when they have not gambled in a while, and the platforms can tailor notifications to pull people back in. The technology is designed to prey on human instinct, using algorithms that make betting time-sensitive, compulsive and constantly available. In case the opportunity to gamble ever slips someone’s mind, gambling companies will be sure to remind them in a commercial break for sports matches, on the side of buses and emblazoned on the microphone at premier league post-match interviews. People might see some of the seemingly generous offers they are given. For their first £5, the betting companies might give them £100 or even £200 credit to gamble with. That feels like a lot of money to most people, but it is pennies compared with what the companies are making from their current customers and what they might make from you, once you are hooked. As someone who, to be frank, does not like gambling—I do not gamble, and I do not understand why people enjoy handing their money over to betting companies—I detest the tactics used by gambling companies to pull people in. As online gambling has evolved exponentially, the online platforms have been able to get away with dodging responsibility for problem gambling or for paying their fair share into the Treasury. As my dad always says, “You never meet a poor bookie.” That is why I support clause 84, which will introduce a new higher rate of tax on remote betting, so that online bets are more expensive compared with in-person betting. Those taxes will be paid by the platform, so that we can catch up, finally, with the reality of the gambling world, which has moved far beyond the traditional model of shops and casinos that the tax system was designed around. Clause 83 raises the rate of remote gaming duty, the tax on online slots and casinos. That reduces the incentives for operators to push the most harmful forms of online gambling, making the system fairer and safer for everyone. I represent Morecambe, a seaside town with a host of gaming businesses on the front and a bingo hall. The evidence shows that it is not the penny slots or the weekly bingo games that drive the majority of problem gambling, and I am pleased that the new remote gaming and betting duties recognise that.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I have a particular interest in the accountability of public services due to the shocking treatment of some of my constituents by NHS trusts. I was pleased to sit on the Bill Committee, which was on the whole collegiate and comprehensive. I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House that we will be getting the Bill right, but will he assure me that there will be minimal impact on its implementation, notwithstanding that it must go to the other place?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate on the merits of a statutory duty of care in universities. The pain of losing a loved one to suicide is unquantifiable, and it stretches out further than we can imagine. I could share any number of heartbreaking statistics: for example, according to a 2022 Student Minds survey, 57% of students reported mental health issues, and over the past decade in the UK a student has taken their life every four days. Although statistics matter, sometimes they can distance us from the reality of what is happening, which is why today I would rather talk about one of my constituents. His name was Oskar. He was a student at Sheffield Hallam University, and he was living with the effects of a brain injury. When the university gave him a warning related to his course, he took it to heart and feared he was being kicked out. Oskar then attempted to take his own life. Despite having given explicit consent for the university to contact his parents in the event of medical concerns, his family were not informed of this attempt. The university later argued that the consent applied only to physical injuries, not to an attempt to take his own life. After that first attempt, Oskar should have been supported into treatment. At the very least, his parents should have been told that their son was in crisis. But neither happened. When I spoke to Oskar’s parents Maxine and Gary, they were clear that Oskar would not have wanted to upset them or to burden them. He would have needed someone else to make that call, and he gave his consent for that very thing to happen. Oskar later took his own life at his student accommodation. At the inquest, the university was defensive and obstructive. I am sorry to say that I have seen that again and again in different organisations, including in healthcare. It was clear that the university’s focus was on getting the case closed. Maxine described it as the most horrific experience of her life. Although there is guidance on how universities should respond to serious incidents, the institution argued that it was not required to follow it. That is precisely the problem: guidance can be ignored, but a statutory duty cannot. Parents like Maxine and Gary do not want to replace the work that has already gone into improving mental health support for young people. They are asking not for universities to become parents, but for a clear legal framework where there is currently a gap. One hundred and seven suspected student deaths by suicide were reported in 2023-24. Oskar’s case, and the response, is not an isolated failure. The Government’s national review of higher education student suicide deaths for 2023-24 shows that the same weaknesses are being repeated across the sector. More widely, reports were submitted for only 62% of serious incidents, and families were not involved in three quarters of investigations. When action plans existed, many lacked named owners and deadlines, and senior sign-off was unclear in 71% of reports. This is very concerning, because processes matter. It really matters that investigations are done properly and that action is taken on them. University students fall into a legal grey area. They are no longer protected by the safeguarding frameworks that apply in schools, yet they do not benefit from the clear duties of care that exist in most workplaces. Too many young people sit in that gap at a point in their life when they are particularly vulnerable, and too often the consequences are devastating. University is often a pivotal time in a person’s life. Students can gain lifelong friends, meet their partners and discover their passions—and their alcohol tolerance. It is often seen as a carefree period, full of independence and possibility, but for many it will be the first time that they are living by themselves. They are often in a new city, without networks of support and the people who know them best and would notice if something is going wrong. It can be really lonely. When the warning signs appear, it is not always clear who is responsible for acting. To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), one simple, practical safeguard would be for every student to nominate a trusted point of contact when they enrol, to be used in the event of a serious concern. That person might be a parent, but does not have to be. University students are adults and have the right to exclude their parents. They have the right to make their own decisions about how they live their lives. But such a safeguard would give them an opportunity to make a good decision, and would make sure that universities have a path to finding support for students in the event of mental health problems. Universities will contact families after the worst has happened, but why do they not reach out when there is still a chance to intervene, even when they have full consent to do so, as they did in Oskar’s case? Although some universities have taken big strides towards increasing access to mental health support, others are lagging behind, and this is creating big inconsistencies across higher education bodies. At the moment, universities operate under a patchwork of guidance and general principles, which has left students, families and staff unsure where responsibility begins and ends. A clearly defined statutory duty would create consistency across the sector and provide assurance that basic, reasonable safeguards are in place for every student, regardless of where they study. The pain of a loss by suicide never leaves us, and it causes a tidal wave of grief that ripples out. It is a sad truth that so many people will never fully realise how many people their lives have touched. It only becomes obvious when it is too late. Suicide is a multifaceted issue, and of course the responsibility for students is not just on universities. Combating death by suicide requires a multifaceted and multi-agency approach, but it would be no bad thing if we all felt a little more responsible for one another. Establishing a statutory duty of care is not about blame. It is about responsibility, consistency and doing what is reasonable to protect young people before they choose a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot accept that it is okay for the Government to stay on X now, but I do welcome the strong action they are taking on online violence against women and girls. This is part of a wider problem of violent pornography that normalises and encourages violent sexual fantasies, so does the Secretary of State agree that Ofcom has a duty to act swiftly and firmly?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I suspect that the hon. Gentleman missed the third paragraph of my speech, in which I talked about the asset-rich but cash-poor nature of farming. Land may be worth a lot of money according to most people’s standards, but it may not be possible to realise the value in cash terms unless the land is sold, especially for non-farming uses. As he knows, I am talking about the threshold that has now been set at £2.5 million for individuals and £5 million for couples, not the £1 million threshold that I and many of my colleagues have succeeded in changing. I make no apology for supporting a progressive policy that closes tax loopholes for the wealthy. I am thinking of people such as James Dyson, who talked proudly about buying up agricultural land in order to avoid tax. [ Official Report , 15 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 1116.] (Correction) How can anyone defend multimillion-pound estates paying zero inheritance tax, when we are digging ourselves out of the fiscal and social hole made by 14 years of Conservative government?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As someone who represents a large semi-rural constituency, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about the changes to agricultural and business property relief and why they matter for farming families and for fairness in our tax system. I welcome these changes, which recognise the reality of the asset-rich, but cash-poor nature of farming, where land might be worth a lot of money by most people’s standards, but that value cannot be realised in cash terms unless it is sold, particularly for non-farming use. The aim of this inheritance tax policy is simple: fairness for hard-working family farms, but no open-ended tax breaks for the wealthiest. The Government are reforming outdated tax relief rules to ensure that the very largest estates make a fair contribution. Under these changes, small and medium-sized agricultural estates will remain unaffected by inheritance tax, with full relief still applying up to £2.5 million for an individual, rising to £5 million for a married couple, who will be able to transfer their allowances to each other, as is the case for personal inheritance tax. I am slightly surprised that those on the Conservative Benches are only now discovering that concept, given that it has been standard for many years. What will change is the ability for the ultra-wealthy and the very largest estates to use agricultural land as a tax planning tool, driving up land prices and shutting out genuine farmers, while making little or no contribution in return. The farmers I have spent time with—over many meetings in village halls, at farmhouses and at the Westmorland county show, which I highly recommend—were clear that they understood the need to prevent the ultra-wealthy avoiding tax, but they were rightly concerned that the threshold of £1 million, as originally proposed, would inadvertently catch ordinary family farms. Local farmers and solicitors were extremely generous in sharing their financial information with me, which was sent directly to the Treasury. It showed the reality of the finances of farming. I must make special mention of a local Labour party member, Karenna Caun, who organised for that information to be gathered and who helped me to reach out to farmers and related businesses, particularly in the Lune valley. The NFU and others have already recognised that these changes materially improved the position for farming families. These changes have taken on board concerns raised by rural Labour MPs, but with these reforms targeted at the biggest estates, the Government expect to raise £300 million a year by the end of the decade. That is money we can put into local GP services, rural bus services and village schools, giving our children the best start in life. Yes, some of the largest estates will pay more after these changes.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. Our farmers have been battered by Brexit, with their incomes and standards of living falling drastically since 2016. Crop yields have been impacted by flooding, and trade deals agreed by the Conservatives sold them down the river. Those 14 years of Conservative government were just as bad for my farmers as they were for the rest of us. I am afraid that I am not particularly inclined to take criticism from the Opposition Benches. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are against taxing the largest estates. They are saying that estates that are worth more than £2.5 million, or £5 million— [Interruption.] I have listened closely to the debate, and I am confident in my quoting of what has been said by Opposition Members. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his chuntering from a seated position. I grew up in a tiny village in Cumbria. With the surrounding farms, it numbered about 300 people. We had no shop, and there was one bus to Carlisle a week. We did have two pubs—we knew how to have a good time. I will take no lectures from Opposition Members about what country life is really about, and I certainly will take no lectures from the wealthy Reform MPs—they are not in the Chamber now and have taken no part in the debate—who seem to enjoy cosplaying as country folk, in a display of what I think is patronising political opportunism. We need to ensure that there is fairness in our inheritance tax system, which is why I urge all Members to support clause 62 and schedule 12.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. We speak today from the heart of our democracy, where power transfers peacefully according to the will of the people. Does she agree that democracy is the right of all people, no matter where they live? Does she further agree that it is for Venezuelans to decide what their future holds?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents very much welcome the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, which, as the Minister knows, I have raised repeatedly. The changes to the reliefs mean that family farms will be protected while large landowners who bought agricultural land simply to avoid paying tax will no longer have that loophole. Does the Minister agree that these changes show that the Labour Government are listening to rural areas and to rural Labour MPs, and that, unlike the Opposition, they are serious about proper policy development and not just headline chasing?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I was surprised to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), say that our culture understands consent, bodily autonomy, misogyny and violence against women and girls, given that every day women experience violations of their bodies. I just do not think that that is true of our culture at all. I have an 11-year-old son. I worry about the violent and misogynistic material that boys and young men can be exposed to, and the potential for their radicalisation. Can the Minister assure me that prevention will start at a sufficiently young age for boys, and that every boy will have access to that preventive work?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Puberty Suppressants Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Some of the political debate around this subject has saddened me, not least the way that trans people’s reality and experience has been denied. We even have evidence of British trans people from the 4th century—they have existed forever. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the trial is a real attempt to get a proper evidence base for treatment for young people that is really needed?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I very much welcome the independent review into foreign financial interference in our democracy. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the inadequate oversight of foreign donations, particularly moneys funnelled through cryptocurrency, and the potential for malign actors to seek to influence our democracy through crypto donations?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend has been talking about the dangers that children are exposed to. Does she believe that parents are equipped to talk to their children about these dangers? Is there more we can do to support parents to have frank conversations with their children about the risks of sharing images and talking to people online?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) about the experience of smaller hobby sites and their concerns about the Online Safety Act. I am sure that Ofcom and the Government will listen to those. The Online Safety Act is not about controlling speech or about the Government deciding what adults think or read or say online, but about responsibility. More specifically, it is about whether we are prepared to say that the online world should have the same safety features as the offline world—whether we expect the online world to be a wild west or not. A lot of the opposition to the Online Safety Act has centred on the freedoms of adults, which I appreciate are important. Adults must be free to build their online lives as they see fit. However, that does not trump the right of children to be safe, whether online or offline, and rights are always a matter of balance. Before I go further, it is worth being clear about what the Act actually does. It requires online services to assess the risk of harm on their platforms and put proportionate systems in place to reduce those risks. That includes harm from illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material, and harm when children are able to access content such as pornography or material that promotes suicide or self-harm. Alongside that, the Act contains proactive requirements to protect freedom of expression, and the largest platforms are now legally required to continually assess how their decisions affect users’ ability to speak freely online. That obligation is explicit and enforceable. In many ways, the principles behind the Act are not new. Technology companies have moderated speech and removed content from their platforms since the very beginning. The difference is that, until now, those decisions were driven by opaque corporate priorities, not a clear and accountable framework of public harm. The stakes here are high. These are some of the first young people whose entire life has been permeated by the online world. It shapes their values, relationships and mental health. For many children, when it comes to sex, self-harm or body image, the first place they turn is not a parent, a teacher or a GP; it is the internet. I want to talk today about pornography. I think we all accept without controversy that children should not be able to access pornography offline—an adult entertainment shop does not let a 12-year-old walk in and buy a dirty video with their pocket money—but when it comes to internet pornography, we as a society have allowed children to freely access material that they are simply not mature enough to deal with. Pornography is more violent and more dangerous than ever before. Despite that, it has never been easier for children to access it. The door to the store has been wide open for too long. According to a 2023 report by the Children’s Commissioner—before the Online Safety Act came into force—the vast majority of children surveyed said that they had seen pornography online by accident, through websites such as X, formerly known as Twitter. Kids were not even needing to seek it out; it was being fed to them. When they did seek it out, dedicated sites did not put up any barriers. The previous requirements for websites such as Pornhub were simply for someone to enter a date of birth, which meant the sole access requirement was the ability to subtract 18 from the current year. I think we all know that is not good enough. That matters because online pornography is not passive; it teaches. It shapes how children understand sex, intimacy, power and consent. It sets expectations long before young people have the tools to question or contextualise what they are seeing. According to that same report by the Children’s Commissioner, more than half of respondents said they had seen pornography involving strangulation, and 44% reported seeing depictions of rape, many of which involved people who were apparently asleep. Such content does not stay onscreen; it spills into real life. The Children’s Commissioner’s research showed that frequent exposure to violent sexual material is associated with a higher tolerance of sexual aggression, distorted ideas about consent and an increased likelihood of sexually aggressive behaviour. Almost half of young girls surveyed expected sex to involve physical aggression. What children learn online does not disappear when the browser closes. With the Online Safety Act, for the first time, adult content is being age-restricted online in the same way it is offline, and sites must now use effective age verification tools. That includes third party services, which should use privacy preserving techniques to confirm users’ data without sharing personal information with the platform itself. Since the new law came into effect, Ofcom has been monitoring compliance, and many of the most visited pornography sites have introduced highly effective age checks. I will be honest: I really do not have a lot of sympathy for pornography users who object to having their age verified. If they are bothered about their privacy, they can just not use it. Pornography is not a human right; people can choose not to use it. Pornography is not the only harm that the Act addresses: for years, platforms such as Twitter, Tumblr and TikTok have hosted vast amounts of content related to self-harm and suicide—some of it framed as support, but much not. Posts and forums provide copious instructions on how to self-harm: the implements to use, how best to hide it and where to cut to do the most damage without killing oneself. Some children accessed that content entirely by accident, before even knowing what self-harm is, while others found it when they were already struggling, and were pulled deeper into it by algorithms that reward repetition and intensity. That content not only risks normalising those behaviours; it risks glamorising them. So many adults have no idea what is out there, and because they are not fed it on their own feeds, they do not understand the danger and the extremism. Investigations have shown that teenage accounts engaging with suicide, self-harm or depression content were then flooded with more of the same. A single click could trigger what one report from the Molly Rose Foundation described as “a tsunami of harmful content”. I am not saying that we should shut down places that offer support to young people who have urges to self-harm, but we need to make sure that young people can access evidence-based support and are not exposed to content that could encourage harm. That is why organisations such as Samaritans have praised the Online Safety Act. Under the Act, platforms that recommend or promote content to users—for example, “For You” feeds on TikTok—must ensure that those systems do not push harmful content to children. Not only does that put the onus on platforms to prevent children from seeing such content, but means that, if children do come across or search for harmful content, platforms should avoid showing them more of the same so they do not go down a very harmful rabbit hole. Clearly, it is still early days. The legislation includes a formal review, with a report to Parliament due within a few years of full implementation. We will, and should, look closely at what is working and what needs to be improved—as lawmakers, we have that responsibility—but the signs are encouraging. Sky News spoke to six teenagers before and after the new rules came into force, and five of them said that they were seeing much less harmful content in their feeds. I know that is anecdata, but it is important to listen to the experiences of young people. Ofcom has opened investigations, and benefits have already come from them. For example, following an Ofcom investigation, file-sharing services that were being used to distribute child sexual abuse material have now installed automated technology to detect and remove such material. Proportionality is at the heart of it, and Ofcom has developed guidance to support compliance. I understand the concerns about smaller or volunteer-run forums, but some of the most harmful content appears on very small or obscure sites, so simply taking out smaller sites would be a disservice. I am sure there will be problems that must be worked out. We should continue to explore how best to provide children with age-appropriate experiences online, and think about how to get age verification right. But while we refine and improve the system, we cannot ignore the reality that there have been serious harms and that we have a responsibility to tackle them. For the first time, the UK has a regulatory framework that forces tech companies to assess risk, protect freedom of expression and give the public far greater transparency on how decisions about online content are made. Other countries have banned young people from social media. I have been thinking about that a lot, and I currently do not think it is the right thing to do. Online communities can provide friendship and solace to young people—particularly those who are marginalised, perhaps due to their sexual orientation, or who are restricted in life, perhaps because they are kept at home by ill health or disabilities. Online communities can offer a lot to our young children, but children have a right to be just that: children. They should not have to deal with the complexities and hardships of adult life, so we as adults must do what we can to build safe online spaces for them, just as we build safe physical spaces.

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

  More

  I am very concerned that flu has hit hard and hit early this year. Hospital bed occupancy for flu is more than 50% higher than it was this time last year and resident doctors are central to tackling that. I have to admit to being very shocked that the BMA turned down an offer that would allow it to postpone next week’s strike. Does the Secretary of State share my worry that any strike action would make tackling this flu crisis much harder?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak specifically to clause 2 and the duty of candour and assistance to inquiries, but my remarks are relevant to the Bill as a whole. I want to let the Committee and anyone watching know that I will be talking about the death of a child. I should have a six-year-old constituent called Ida Lock. She should be at school, playing with her siblings and running rings around her parents. But I do not have that six-year-old constituent, because she died in 2019 at just one week old, despite having been healthy in her mum Sarah’s womb. Ida’s death was preventable: the coroner described her death as caused by gross failures in her care. There were eight opportunities to save Ida, and after Ida’s death there were many more opportunities to make sure that what happened to her never happened again. However, the hospital trust, rather than opening its arms to the family and trying to learn from its mistakes, instead carried out a completely inadequate internal investigation and then, according to the timeline laid out by the coroner, attempted to head off further investigations. In fact, Ida’s case went to the coroner only this year, in 2025. Ida died in 2019. It went there because of the family’s persistence and for no other reason. It was not referred to the coroner, as it should have been, by the hospital trust; in fact, the trust originally graded Ida’s death as “moderate harm”.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Constituents of mine—such as the parents of Ida Lock, a baby whose death due to failings in care was preventable—have described inquests to me where the behaviour of public bodies made the inquest adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Information had to be dragged out of public bodies, and there were hostile legal teams. As a coroner, do you recognise that picture? What challenges does that behaviour give to coroners in their duties? Do you think that the Bill will change that situation? Judge Durran: There is certainly an impression that inquests are becoming more adversarial because lawyers seek to use them as some early form of litigation, with an eye to any consequential litigation down the line. My predecessor and I have done a lot to convey the message that an inquest is inquisitorial—it should not be adversarial. It is a summary hearing, not a surrogate public inquiry. Increasingly, I tell coroners about the existence of the advocate’s toolkits, which have been designed specifically with inquests in process. I have encouraged coroners that if lawyers are seeking to turn an inquest into a public inquiry, they should pause, look at the advocate’s toolkits, remind the lawyers to look at those and remind them of the nature of the proceedings, because it is not the correct forum to make those sort of arguments.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will try to be quick, Mr Dowd. Families have told me that they have experienced during coroner’s inquests the following: information having to be dragged out of public bodies, hostile legal teams and a process that is meant to be inquisitorial becoming adversarial. Do you have any comments on whether the Bill will improve that situation? Deborah Coles: The first thing to say is that the legal aid provisions will quite clearly have a transformative effect, because families will no longer have to go through intrusive funding processes, crowdfund or represent themselves. In terms of a change in culture and the duty of candour, at the moment, as I explained, we see exactly what families have spoken to you about: a process that is adversarial in nature and victim blaming. Time and again, families describe their experiences as a battle. These are grieving families who have experienced death, very often where the state has a duty of care; something has gone catastrophically wrong, yet they have to try to drag information out of the people responsible. It is utterly unacceptable. If the Bill actually lands on the ground, meaning that organisations have this duty of candour from top to bottom, and people are called to account if they continue to behave in the way you have had described, I feel that it will change the experience. The other thing to say is that there might be some suggestion that this is going to cause problems within the coronial system, which is our area of expertise. The Bill is trying to stop the battle to drag information out of people. There will be proper disclosure and open honesty from the outset about where things have gone wrong. It should mean that processes are shorter and less traumatising, and that they can deliver the answers that not only families need but we as a society need to learn, so that deaths are not repeated. Professor Waters: The characteristics you mention were absolutely mine and my family’s experience of the inquest, with Ofsted withholding information or providing redacted information. In fact, it was so heavily redacted that it required us to have a second pre-inquest review, so it extends the process and adds to the expense. I know there has been some discussion about the legal funding potentially being delayed because it might lead to a bigger budget, but parity does not mean more money. In the case of the Ofsted legal team, the coroner had to instruct them not to bring more than seven members of their legal team into the court, and we had Reading borough council and the NHS trust’s legal team up against us. Actually, balancing might mean reducing the amount of money that public bodies spend. May I say one more thing, if this really is the last question, because I know we both want to say it? Something else that absolutely needs to happen, whether as part of the Hillsborough law or something separate, is that there must be some kind of national oversight mechanism to make sure that the recommendations that come out of inquests and inquiries are acted upon. As I said, it is two years today since my sister’s inquest, and it speaks volumes that I am still battling, frankly, just to try to prevent future deaths and to get Ofsted to do what it is necessary to make its school inspection system safe. I should not have to do that, There ought to be some independent objective body that makes sure that those recommendations happen, so that it does not happen again.