Martin Rhodes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for bringing this debate to the Chamber. Throughout history, from the printing press to social media, technological advancements have often outpaced the laws meant to regulate them. Today, digital platforms evolve at a speed that outstrips Governments’ abilities to fully understand or regulate their impact—especially concerning for democracy, which depends on informed citizens making choices shaped by debate. Yet democracy is increasingly undermined by bad faith actors, misinformation and manipulation. As digital natives and future voters, young people face particular risks, and Governments owe them a duty of care to help them to develop in an informed and safe way online. However, older citizens with less experience of social media and newer tech platforms can also face difficulties in how they interact and interpret information or disinformation. In addition to the risks of early forms of digital platforms for democracy, such as the spread of misinformation, contemporary digital platforms now possess novel risks such as deepfakes, AI bots and short- form video content. I will focus my speech on how this situation relates to our democratic engagement. In Scotland, 16-year-olds have the right to vote in local and national elections; with the Government’s manifesto promising votes at 16 in UK elections, it is important to consider the impact of digital platforms on young voters and the younger generations who will one day become voters. It will not surprise many to hear that young people are extensive users of digital platforms and that their online habits are evolving rapidly. According to Ofcom, 86% of 9 to 16-year-olds use social media, and even among children as young as 5 to 7, a third are now active online. Platforms such as TikTok and Discord are increasingly shaping young people’s understanding of the world, including politics. Ofcom reports that children aged 5 to 15 are now spending an average of five hours and 24 minutes a day engaged in social media activity. It is right to note that there are benefits to the use of digital platforms by young people in our political system. These platforms allow young people access to the entire sum of human knowledge, and therefore have real scope as a great source of education and knowledge. They can not only provide helpful information and analysis on our politics, but act as a new means of getting young people engaged and interested in our democratic system. Despite these benefits, it remains the case that there are real risks and harms associated with children’s use of social media and their outlook on democracy. Recent TV shows such as “Adolescence” have highlighted that digital platforms can act as echo chambers where extremist communities can influence young people’s ideas and opinions. A recent survey published by the University of Glasgow’s John Smith centre, based in my constituency, found that nationally, 57% of 16 to 29-year-olds would prefer to live in a democracy; that said, 27% of those surveyed would prefer to live in a dictatorship. The fact that more than a quarter of this age group would prefer to live in a system completely juxtaposed to our own democracy should be a warning to us all. In difficult times globally, with uncertainty and disruption to previously accepted patterns of international, national and local environments, the lure of simplistic but dangerous solutions promoted by bad faith actors can be all too persistent. I welcome the actions taken to address these challenges by committing both to making the digital world a safer place for young people and to delivering real, tangible improvements in their lives through other policy initiatives, but we must work harder as we move forward to respond to the ever-changing environment of online activity that we face. Social media giants must be held accountable for the role their platforms play in shaping public discourse, and no tech executive should be above the law. I commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley in securing this Backbench Business debate and introducing it today. We must not only protect young people—and, in fact, all citizens—from harm online, but equip them with the tools to shape their future, assuming they are not just passive consumers of digital content, but informed and engaged citizens in our democracy.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding donations to my election campaign and through my local Labour party. Often in debates like this, we look at our political system and there is a preoccupation with the form of the democratic system—for example, debates about our voting system or whether we should have a second Chamber. Important as they are, they can often dominate the discourse. The internal mechanisms of democratic political systems are important, but we also need to examine and discuss the relationship of those internal mechanisms with external actors and the political electoral systems in which we operate. That is why I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) moving the motion, and I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing the matter before us. At the general election, I stood on a manifesto that pledged to protect democracy by strengthening the rules on donations to political parties. I take that commitment seriously, as effective regulation of political finance is, in my view, crucial for maintaining public trust in our electoral systems across the UK. As has already been mentioned, under current legislation, any company registered as conducting business in the UK is a permissible donor to a political party operating in Great Britain. It is therefore possible for money from foreign sources to enter our politics via donations from UK companies. That undermines the credibility of our political system and gives greater scope for a further decline in trust. That leads to the interests of those foreign groups or individuals, in practice or perception, being seen to have influence in our political system through their funding. I want to address one point that has been raised in this debate, which is the matter of accountability and deterrence. Although foreign donations to political parties and other campaigners are illegal, the current legislation fails to act as a sufficient deterrent. There is an often-quoted behavioural study of day centres that sheds light on this issue—apologies, Mrs Harris, but I will cite it again. In the study, parents who arrived late to pick up their children were fined, but instead of reducing lateness, the number of late pick-ups actually increased. Understandably, the parents began treating the fine as a fee for extra childcare, seeing it as an acceptable trade-off rather than a punishment. We face a similar risk in our political donation system. Under current rules, the electoral system can issue fines of up to £20,000 for breaches. However, for a political party that can spend millions of pounds on a campaign, that amount may be seen as a small price to pay for breaking the rules. It becomes less of a deterrent and more like an operational cost, just as the day care fine became the cost of convenience. If we are serious about protecting the integrity of our electoral system, we must ensure that penalties are strong enough to truly deter illegal behaviour, and are not just seen as a fee to be factored into campaign budgets. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, the Committee on Standards in Public Life agrees and suggests that maximum fines should be 4% of the campaign’s total spend or £500,000, whichever is higher. Without sharper teeth in our regulations, we risk allowing those with deeper pockets to buy an unfair advantage, undermining the very principles of democracy. I therefore support the Government’s intention to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties to protect our democracy and uphold the integrity of elections. I understand that they will be published in due course, but I urge the Government to do it as quickly as possible. While the current rules remain in place, the potential for abuse remains evident. The Electoral Commission stated in January this year that it would use its expertise and experience in regulating the political finance regime to help to ensure that any changes are workable and evidence based. Any proposals to change the rules on donations should be properly scrutinised and debated before becoming law. I look forward to this debate continuing when said changes to electoral law are put before the House. To maintain public trust in our electoral system, those rules must be strengthened. It is upon all of us in this place to increase people’s engagement with the political process. However, to develop that engagement and promote transparency, we need to build trust. One way in which we can build that trust is to take action on the rules on political donations.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have already heard so much moving and powerful testimony in this debate, but despite the tragic impact that rare cancers have on people across the UK, they garner too little attention, are under-researched and lack investment in their treatment. Though cancer survival rates rose by nearly 10% between 2005 and 2020, rare cancers still have some of the lowest survival rates, leaving too many people without hope. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing this Bill. I will argue in favour of it today, using three examples: first, the story of a constituent suffering from a rare cancer; secondly, the importance of this Bill for extremely rare cancers; and, lastly, its importance for future research. There are many rare forms of cancer that individuals suffer, often without specialised treatments or public awareness, but every rare cancer patient has a name and a story. Take that of a constituent I recently met in Parliament at an event for World Cancer Day, who suffers from T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukaemia. Although the five-year survival rate for leukaemia currently stands at 55%, the figure for acute myeloid leukaemia, a rare and aggressive form, is one of the lowest of all cancers. It has a 22% survival rate beyond five years after diagnosis. This means that, sadly, nearly 80% of those diagnosed with AML today will not survive until the end of this Parliament. Surgery is not a viable treatment option for those diagnosed with leukaemia, so such patients often depend on the discovery of new and innovative treatments to survive the disease. Though every cancer has a name and a story, some are so rare that there is little representation of them, even in debates like this. That brings me to my second example: composite hemangioendothelioma, or CHE. It was first medically identified in only 2006, and by 2022 had fewer than 60 cases reported in English-language literature. Because of its rarity, it is hard to treat and garners little attention from companies that could develop treatments. However, those affected by CHE have names, families and stories. Hopefully, my mentioning CHE in this debate may, in a small way, help raise awareness of its existence. This Bill will assist us in this matter, as it will result in the appointment of a named person who is responsible for overseeing the delivery of research into rare cancer treatments. That will facilitate some political accountability for rare cancer research and encourage an ecosystem that can hopefully lead to future treatments for, or at least more attention to, even some of the rarest cancers, such as CHE. Talking of treatments, earlier this week, I met a constituent who is a researcher at the University of Glasgow. She was in Parliament for the STEM for Britain exhibition. We discussed her research on a novel approach to treating osteosarcoma. Although it is the most common primary bone cancer, only 160 people are diagnosed with osteosarcoma each year in the UK—fewer than three people in every 1 million of the population—making it a rare cancer under the Bill. Current treatments lack specificity in targeting the tumour and often have unwanted side effects. My constituent’s research looked at the potential use of small molecules to create a more effective and non-invasive treatment for osteosarcoma. The Bill’s support for information sharing in the research registry system will help researchers like my constituent. It will help with research and clinical trials by giving researchers greater access to the patient population with rare cancers like osteosarcoma. A patient survey in 2024 found that 82% of those with a rare or less common cancer were not offered a clinical trial. That is why the Bill is important. The Bill will help to foster an environment in which there can be more research and clinical trials on rare cancers such as osteosarcoma. For patients like my constituent suffering from t-cell large granular lymphocytic leukaemia, for those diagnosed with the least-understood cancers, and for the researchers trying to find new treatments, the Bill represents a commitment to the fight against rare cancers. I therefore urge the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and the Bill today.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for space. It is perhaps fitting that a week after the planets aligned in the night sky for the first time in 360 years, this House is considering legislation that could help the UK’s thriving space industry. Almost a fifth of UK jobs in the space sector are based in Scotland. Scotland’s space sector leads in small satellite manufacturing. Glasgow builds more small satellites than any other place in Europe. Scotland is also the data-driven capital of Europe, hosting more than 170 data science companies. I commend the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) in his Bill, which would remove barriers to spaceflight activities in Scotland and the UK as a whole, growing the space launch sector. The Bill helps to demonstrate how specific measures supported by the UK Government in reserved matters can help developing industries in Scotland and the UK to grow and prosper. Just as engineers need certainty in their calculations for successful space launches, companies need certainty to be comfortable when investing in an industry. This Bill, by providing an operating liability cap for spaceflight operators, would deliver the legal certainty for the space sector to know the up-front maximum amount they could be liable for. That would reduce uncertainty and make it easier for them to secure insurance coverage. I am aware that talk of insurance and liability is not as interesting as spaceflight itself, but they are, none the less, important for the development of the sector. The Bill signals that it is a growth sector that we are willing to support and to be in dialogue with. It was informed by a consultation on spaceflight liability, insurance and charging by the previous Government. My hon. Friend’s Bill would help reduce the financial risk for those businesses and would align the UK with international standards, thus making it a more attractive location for space companies to invest and operate in. Overall, the Bill would mean more space flights out of Scotland and the rest of the UK, more innovation, and more well-paid jobs. Supporting growth in the space sector would also see a network effect across my city of Glasgow and further afield. My constituency of Glasgow North is home to the University of Glasgow, which houses the expertise, skills and talent that not only benefit the sector already, but serve as a vital pipeline for its future growth. Glasgow has long been a hub for small satellite design and manufacturing, with Scotland holding the title of the second largest producer of satellites after the United States of America. In the Glasgow North constituency, the West of Scotland science park and the Skypark in Finnieston further strengthen that ecosystem, hosting manufacturers and research and development sites that support everything from rocket launchers to small satellite spacecraft. Those facilities play a crucial role in driving innovation and providing high-quality skilled jobs, reinforcing Glasgow’s position at the forefront of the global space industry. I urge colleagues to support the Bill to help the space industry achieve the legal certainty around liabilities that it needs to continue to thrive and source investment. With that growth, we can help deliver jobs and prosperity for Glasgow, Scotland and the rest of the UK. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill to the House, and I am pleased to support it.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) to ensure that we debated this issue today. We must continue to break down the barriers to voting, to ensure increased engagement with and turnout at every form of election in all the nations of the UK. In my first speech in the House, I referred to the issue of turnout at the general election. We all have a duty to look, across all the systems we have in place, at how we can increase engagement with the political process, and with voting. I am acutely aware of the importance of increasing engagement with our elections. My constituency of Glasgow North saw a turnout of around 50% at the last general election. That may have been in part due to a summer election in a constituency that contains a large amount of student accommodation, at which people are registered but not present. It remains incumbent on the House to continue to look at the electoral system to promote greater engagement in every election. The Bill is important for making it easier to engage with our democracy for groups in Scotland and Wales who face barriers of accessibility to the voting system. I have mentioned the summer election happening while students were away, but when they are in student accommodation, they are away from their home, which may be where they are registered. Encouraging their access to proxy and postal voting is important in engaging them.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. An issue raised during the election was that the period for applying did not allow much time for many families to apply who had booked to go away at the beginning of the school holidays. The Bill would make online applications easier and speedier.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend—I am not used to agreeing with so many people. It seems unusual, but I will carry on. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and if we can increase participation by looking at the processes in place, we should welcome that. It is important to look at all the systems. However, simply changing the systems and processes for accessing the voting system will not in itself reduce disengagement with the political process. There are bigger and wider issues than just the form of application, so while I very much welcome the Bill as a means by which we can help people to access the political process, we all need to think about how to engage people across our countries of the United Kingdom with it. To conclude, the challenge we face across this House is finding new, more effective ways of engaging people and allowing them to fully participate in decision-making. I welcome this Bill as one small, but useful and effective, way in which we can achieve that.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that there are benefits from the Bill in all seasons. I realise that I have now set Members the challenge of intervening to speak about spring and autumn. In winter, there are fewer daylight hours and it is colder, and people may not want to go out in the dark. The Bill would make it easier for them to access postal and proxy voting. There was reference in an earlier intervention to those who are blind or partially sighted and use screen readers. Applying online is much easier for them; it lifts barriers to their involvement and engagement in the electoral process. Those are just some of the groups who would benefit if we passed this legislation, modernised access to the electoral system for the devolved Parliaments, and provided the ability to introduce such measures for local government elections, too.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and it is important that we look to increase the ways in which people can access the voting system, because for many, digital is the usual way to apply for services, whether private or public. That is what they expect and their default. Similarly, there are groups of people for whom applying on paper, in writing and so on is their normal way of interacting with a whole range of services, whether private or public. It is important that all people find a way that they are comfortable with to access the electoral system.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The Budget of autumn 2024 marked a significant change—a break from the recent past. For too many years, Scotland and the rest of the UK have suffered from an era of austerity, bouts of ideologically charged fiscal and economic illiteracy, and a failure to invest in the present to deliver for the future. The UK Budget heralded a new era of growth and investment for Scotland. It keeps the promises to Scotland made at the general election: ending the era of austerity, providing billions for public services and prioritising economic growth. As has been highlighted, the Budget delivered the largest funding settlement for Scotland in the history of devolution. In this Budget, we get an end to the flawed, ideologically driven years of austerity—replaced with investment, sound public finance and redistribution. The Budget delivered a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest paid in Scotland through increases in the national living wage. A key test of any Budget is how it balances the cost of expenditure with the raising of revenue to cover that expenditure. The significant test is who gains benefits and who covers costs, and how they are balanced. Inevitably, in most Budgets, costs and benefits are spread, but what is key is how the distribution is stacked up. This Budget shows a very clear pattern of redistribution: those with the most bear the greatest costs, and those with the least gain the greatest benefits. The Budget, together with the Government’s commitment in the new deal for working people and the Employment Rights Bill, indicates a significant and welcome change in direction at the UK level, with direct benefits for Scotland running through it, including investment for economic growth, resources for our public services, an end to austerity and a commitment to redistribution. The Chancellor’s approach—this break from the recent past—needs to be built upon by the Scottish Government; sadly, their recent budget proposals fail to show the leadership required. Despite the record level of funding in the UK Budget for the Scottish Government, the SNP Government have failed to use the opportunity to deliver better outcomes for the people of Scotland in their budget proposals. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing the debate. It is important to have such an opportunity to reflect on the scale and ambition in the UK Budget, turning the page on the recent years of economic ineptitude and missed opportunities and, in their place, securing investment for economic growth, public services and the redistribution of resources. It is a Budget for Scotland and for the rest of the UK.

• 30 Jul 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech during this debate. I moved to Glasgow in 1992, expecting to stay for three years. Now, over three decades later, I am pleased to say that I made it my home. For more than 30 years, I have lived in the north of the city, so it is a great privilege and a great responsibility to have been elected to serve the constituency of Glasgow North. It is a constituency of huge variety and diversity. At its northern boundary, there is farmland north of Summerston, and at its southern boundary, at the River Clyde, there is the Scottish Event Campus, the Hydro venue and the city centre. There is the West of Scotland science park at its western boundary and the Glasgow Tigers speedway track towards the eastern boundary. Of course, there is a lot more in between, including Firhill, the home of Partick Thistle; the Kelvingrove art gallery; Possil marsh, a site of special scientific interest; Glasgow Caledonian University; the University of Glasgow; the Glasgow School of Art; the Royal Conservatoire; the Queen’s Cross church of Charles Rennie Mackintosh; the Forth and Clyde canal; the River Kelvin; Ruchill, Maryhill and Dawsholm parks; Kelvingrove park; and the botanic gardens. Most of all, and far more important than those key landmarks, there are the communities that make up Glasgow North, many of which have faced and still face significant challenges, and have sought to do what they can to support each other in the face of those challenges. Resilience is a thread that runs through the diverse communities of Glasgow North. It is an area that I am pleased to call home and am now privileged to represent in this place. I wish to recognise the work of my predecessor, Patrick Grady. In his time here, he was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Malawi. He has a long interest in development issues, which I am sure he will continue to pursue outside this place. The boundaries of the constituency are different from what they were in previous Parliaments; the constituency now includes parts of the city that were previously in Glasgow North East and Glasgow Central. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) will want to recognise the former Member for Glasgow North East, Anne McLaughlin, in her first speech, so with no disrespect to her, I will keep my comments to the former Member for Glasgow Central, Alison Thewliss. As Glasgow Central no longer exists, I want to ensure that we as a House do not miss the opportunity to recognise her commitment and work. In her time in this place, and before that, when she was a city councillor in Glasgow, she showed her commitment to serving those she represented. There is one other former Member for Glasgow North to whom I would like to pay tribute today. Ann McKechin served in this place from 2001 to 2015. She has been a friend and a giver of wise advice for many years. In and outside this place, she has shown her continuing commitment to public service. All of us here want to ensure that we represent the people we are elected to represent. We recognise across the Chamber all Members’ aspiration to serve, but we need to ensure that this mutual recognition does not blind us to the challenges of politics and public service. A number of events not too long ago have added to and encouraged distrust not just of politicians but of politics itself. The turnout at the general election in my constituency was just over 50%, and across the country it was only around 60%. There are many reasons for that. Certainly, in constituencies such as mine, the large amount of student accommodation lying empty because of the summer break counted towards lower turnout. The fact that the election was held at the start of the Scottish school holidays may have reduced turnout across Scotland, too. However, we should not let those contributory factors hide the clear opinion of many that politics is a self-serving occupation—and people demonstrate their indifference, distrust or disdain for it by not using their vote. For too long, government and politics have often allowed themselves to be characterised by posturing and positioning, rather than the serious work of analysing problems, assessing solutions and delivering change. The empty charade of superficial posturing can initially seem to excite and engage, but the lack of substance, delivery and integrity can so easily tip the balance from excitement to disillusionment and a sense of betrayal. Thorough analysis, serious discussion and honest decision making must be the basis of politics if we are to rebuild trust. Financial responsibility and transparency are a key part of that. It is our challenge across this Chamber over the course of this Parliament to rebuild trust in political institutions and processes. We need to show to people out there that politics is acting in their service, and that it can make real and positive changes to their lives and communities. That is the challenge for all of us, and one that I hope that I can meet during my time in this place.