Max Wilkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. As ever, he is extremely polite in his presentation and in his dealing with interventions, but I am not sure that he dealt with my intervention, which was basically asking whether the Conservative party position is as it has briefed to the press—that it wishes to ban social media for under-16s—or that it wishes to have a review on raising the age of data consent. It cannot be both.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As many Members will be aware, my constituent Ellen Roome knows only too well the tragedies that can take place as a result of social media. I am pleased that Ellen joins us in the Gallery to hear this debate in her pursuit of Jools’ law. In 2022, Ellen came home to find her son Jools not breathing. He had tragically lost his life, aged just 14. In the following months, Ellen battled the social media giants—and she is still battling them—to try to access his social media data, as she sought answers about what had happened leading up to his death. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for raising this in his speech. In her search for answers, Ellen found herself blocked by social media giants that placed process ahead of compassion. The police had no reason to suspect a crime, so they did not see any reason to undertake a full investigation into Jools’ social media. The inquest did not require a thorough analysis of Jools’ online accounts. None of the social media companies would grant Ellen access to Jools’ browsing data, and a court order was needed to access the digital data, which required eye-watering legal fees. The legal system is unequipped to tackle the complexities of social media. In the past, when a loved one died, their family would be able to find such things in their possession—perhaps in children’s diaries, in school books or in cupboards. However, now that so much of our lives are spent online, personal data is kept by the social media giants. New clause 11 in my name would change that, although I understand that there are technical and legal difficulties. The Minister and the Secretary of State met Ellen and me this morning, along with the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), and we are grateful for the time they gave us. My new clause will not go to a vote today, but we will keep pushing because Ellen and other parents like her should not have to go through this to search for answers when a child has died. I understand that there are provisions in the Bill that will be steps forward, but we will keep pushing and we will hold the Government’s and all future Governments’ feet to the fire until we get a result.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The press have obviously been briefed by Conservatives that the Conservatives are pushing for a ban on social media for under-16s, but it seems that what is actually being suggested is a review of the digital age of consent with a view to perhaps increasing it to 16. The two positions are very different, and I wonder whether the tough talk in the press matches what is actually being proposed by the Opposition today.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The second-best spa town in the country, I am sure, celebrates VE Day wonderfully well. This anniversary arrives at a time of renewed global instability. From Ukraine to the middle east, we are once again reminded that peace is fragile—that it cannot be taken for granted. The international order built in the aftermath of 1945 is under more strain than ever. The world is more dangerous than at any point since the cold war. Members in all parts of the House are so proud that many of our parliamentary colleagues have served in the armed forces, and we all stand with our armed forces. Finally, I wish to express my party’s strong support for the programme of national commemorations planned this year. We can all be very proud of what is happening. These events give us all a meaningful opportunity to reflect on the courage, resilience, and unity that defined the war effort, on the frontlines and on the home front alike. Let us mark this 80th anniversary not just with solemnity, but with resolve. Let us listen to the stories of those who served, from the soldiers to the evacuees, from the factory workers to the codebreakers, and let us make sure that every part of their legacy is carried forward. Let us honour them not just with words, but with action.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  On the eve of war, Liberal leader Archibald Sinclair warned: “A policy which imposes injustice on a small and weak nation and tyranny on free men and women can never be the foundation of lasting peace.” He was speaking about the Munich agreement, which saw European powers cede Czechoslovakian territory to Hitler. Nobody in this House would describe the brave nation or the people of Ukraine as small and weak, but with the spectre of the dictator Vladimir Putin looming large on the eastern edge of Europe and President Trump threatening deals to carve up Ukrainian territory, Sinclair’s words resonate today as they did then. The wartime generation knew the cost of giving ground to tyrants, as they celebrated 80 years ago this week. The best way to honour those who fought for peace is to redouble our efforts to preserve it. Those people, together with today’s serving personnel and veterans, carry forward the legacy of service inherited from that extraordinary wartime generation. In their memory, this anniversary must be a moment not just of reflection, but of a renewed sense of responsibility. This country is at its best when it works with its allies, not when it shrinks from the world. This year is very likely the final big celebration for the veterans of world war two who are still with us. There are 360 names on Cheltenham’s war memorial, and many civilians in my town also died in bombing raids. On VE Day, after six long years at war, people in my constituency and around the country took to the streets to celebrate. At Whaddon primary school, children waved Union Jack flags. People lined up outside the municipal offices in the town centre to hear Winston Churchill deliver his VE Day speech. An effigy of Adolf Hitler was burned. The celebrations reportedly ran well past midnight, which is rather late for a genteel Cotswolds spa town in the 1940s. It is right that we in this House pause to remember the scale of the sacrifice and the legacy of the victory that that generation gave us. This anniversary is not simply about marking dates in a calendar, but a chance to say thank you to the dwindling number of surviving veterans and to all those who have served, suffered, and rebuilt. Today I think of Lorna, a 105-year-old I recently met at St Ives Court in Cheltenham and very possibly my oldest constituent. She told me proudly about her contribution to the war effort as an intelligence analyst in Whitehall. I think of all those who served in the Gloucestershire Regiment and I think of my two grandfathers, both of whom served— one in the Navy and one in the RAF. This anniversary is about ensuring that we continue to stand up for what they stood for. We must use this moment to recommit ourselves to the international co-operation and diplomacy that helped to deliver 80 years without a third world war. It is a peace that has been threatened by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is no coincidence that European unity was born from the ashes of the second world war. It has been the greatest peacebuilding project in history and, in the face of the threats that confront us today, we must once again stand shoulder to shoulder with our European allies. That means supporting NATO, standing up to aggression, and strengthening the rule of international law. That does not mean, as some have callously suggested, that Ukraine should accept a deal to cede some of its territory to Putin. That would be a betrayal of the principles for which the wartime generation fought. That includes those who suffered in the far east. They have often received less recognition than those who served in Europe. The conflict there continued for nearly three months after VE Day, in punishing conditions and at immense human cost. Yet in too many commemorations, their stories are not heard. We owe these individuals our deepest gratitude, and it is good that we are remembering them this VE Day. That gratitude to all those who have served must be expressed not just in words, but in action: action to defend our democracy; and action to defend the British values of liberty, tolerance and respect for the rule of law. Respecting our veterans means looking after them properly after their service is over—looking after their mental health, their housing, and their right to compensation. This anniversary is not only about how we treat veterans, but about how we tell the story of the war and whose voices we include. The role of Commonwealth forces in securing victory is also often overlooked. Some 2.5 million Indian troops served in the second world war, many of them in the gruelling Burma campaign. Troops from Africa, the Caribbean, and across the Empire fought valiantly under British command. As a Liberal and an internationalist, I believe that we must be proud of them. It is only right that, today and this week, we recognise the contribution of our Commonwealth soldiers. Beyond the parades and ceremonies, we must embed this fuller history into our national consciousness, because remembrance without inclusion is incomplete.

• 6 May 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday, I was sitting behind the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I made some comments, and I learned the lesson that the microphones in this place are very good and pick up comments made by those sitting directly behind hon. Members. The comments that I made related to the second earnings of the hon. Member for Clacton, declared in his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. A Reform UK social media account digitally manipulated those comments to give the appearance that I had described the hon. Member using a four-letter expletive. This is misinformation. It is fake news. It is Trumpian tactics. It was reported to Elon Musk’s X; no response was received. If footage in this House is allowed to be digitally manipulated for political ends in the name of Members of this House, that puts at risk the proceedings in this House and, I believe, puts at risk democracy. I have raised this point of order to put the facts on the public record so that my constituents and everyone else know what actually happened, and to seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what I should do.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this important debate. Think of Robbie Williams, Josiah Wedgwood, Arnold Bennett, Alton Towers, “The Great Pottery Throw Down” and Rory Delap’s throw-ins, the Peak district, mile upon mile of canals, the area’s fascinating industrial past and present, and—who could forget it—the commentator’s favourite: “But can they do it on a cold night in Stoke?” The last is a cultural reference as old as some Members of Parliament in the 2024 intake. It dates to the bygone era of Tony Pulis, whose cultural contribution is perhaps best summed up by the descriptive Goldie Lookin Chain lyric in tribute to the man himself: “Tony Pulis, one hell of a bloke; Tony Pulis, he manages Stoke.” Football hard men aside, Staffordshire has shaped the cultural texture of Britain for centuries, and not just with its famous ceramics, although I will start there. In the 18th century, visionary potters like Josiah Wedgwood revolutionised pottery, making Stoke-on-Trent a world-famous centre of excellence. Wedgwood was so good that he became known as the Queen’s potter, proof that even back then Staffordshire knew how to make a good royal impression. In literature, Hanley-born Arnold Bennett captured the working-class life of industrial Britain in a way that still resonates with readers. In the post-industrial era, Staffordshire has continued to enrich our culture. I am sure that Take That would never have reached such heights of success in the 1990s and 2000s were it not for Staffordshire’s own Robbie Williams. Staffordshire’s cultural scene is alive and well today. The Lichfield festival continues to bring together music, theatre and literature in the county. Each year it draws crowds to historic venues such as Lichfield cathedral with world-class performances. Liberal Democrats are arguing for investment in extracurricular activities for children, such as sport, music and drama. Without that, we cannot expect the next Robbie Williams or Josiah Wedgwood to pursue a career in arts and crafts. Where will the next throw-in specialist come from if sports facilities in Staffordshire do not receive the necessary investment? We must recognise that much of our cultural sector is supported by local authority funding. Discretionary spending on culture is often the first spending to be cut, but that trend must cease if Staffordshire, and everywhere else, is to thrive culturally. We would protect the independence of arts funding so that it can no longer be exposed to political interference, as we have seen over the last few years, and we would introduce cultural creative enterprise zones to stimulate growth. Local authorities must be given the tools to protect their cherished heritage. In Staffordshire, that would mean protecting the county’s beautiful manor houses, mills, castles and so much more. That brings me to tourism. Staffordshire’s theme parks offer a host of rollercoasters, including at Alton Towers and Drayton Manor, where my wife tells me she spent the best birthday of her life when she was seven. Thanks to Staffordshire, my annual efforts will never, ever be quite good enough. I am told that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) is particularly thankful for the contribution of theme parks to public life, although I understand that he has yet to visit Alton Towers—it is time to invite him. These facilities are a major source of tourism for Staffordshire, and they support a considerable number of jobs in the local economy. The tourism industry needs and deserves proper support, so the Liberal Democrats would upgrade the Government’s tourism function with a dedicated Minister for tourism and hospitality. That would give a bigger voice in government to a sector that not only supports our global soft power, but contributes £58 billion to the economy each year. With your indulgence, Ms Furniss, I will touch briefly on one telling contribution made by Staffordshire to the last general election. The Liberal Democrats are extremely thankful for the role played by the staff at Yarnfield Park, where we hosted a series of secret training briefings for our candidates between the pandemic lockdown and our successful 2024 general election campaign. If nothing else, that is surely a testament to how truly inspiring the culture of Staffordshire can be.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will not be placing any bets from this Chamber today—not to the benefit of myself anyway. On ownership, this Bill provides a stronger defence against owners who might have a dodgy track record, but there are still gaps at the back. The new owners and directors test still makes no explicit mention of human rights. That is a glaring miss. Sportswashing is an all-too-common tactic used by oppressive regimes to launder their reputations through our national game. As the historic home of the global game, we have a moral duty to seek to use the soft power of football. Those who want to run a football club in this country should not be able to do so while running roughshod over human dignity elsewhere in the world. Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to replace the red carpet for dodgy foreign owners with a red card. On broadcasting, not a single premier league match this season has been shown on free-to-air television. All 380 matches in the premier league now lie behind a paywall, while matchday tickets are increasingly expensive. The latest deals will see Sky Sports and TNT Sports have the rights to show premier league matches for a four-year period. That means that those without a subscription will have no opportunity to watch a live match on television until the 2030s at the earliest. Spain’s la liga has one free-to-air game per week, as does England’s women’s super league. We will continue to champion expanded access to free live sport broadcasting in this Bill. We will also call for the strengthening of the Bill to ban domestic games being played abroad. The thought of Manchester City playing Arsenal in Dubai should leave us all reaching for the sick bucket. We can go further to build a game that is open, accountable and properly rooted in its communities. Every good manager knows when to switch to a 4-3-3 and bring on the super-sub. It could be Steve Howard—I understand that the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is a Birmingham City fan. Now is the time for Ministers to embrace that principle of bringing on substitutes, changing the formation and being even more ambitious about this Bill; after all, they have more than enough players sitting on the Government Benches to be more ambitious. They should do that because football is not just a business. It is part of who we are as a nation, so let us treat it that way.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The football regulator would have a wider role than currently envisaged in the Bill if the Liberal Democrats were in charge. When the Lords tried to tackle the proliferation of gambling ads, the Government committed a professional foul. As the Bill makes its way through this House, we hope that MPs will show gambling companies a yellow card—yellow cards on this matter are very Liberal—not a red card; we do not propose the banning of gambling, shadow Ministers will be pleased to hear.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Well, that person will be working within the boundaries of the regulator, and he is obviously very good at striking deals, is he not? If the hon. Gentleman’s contention is that he did a good job in his old job, we can be confident that he will do a good job in his new role. The Liberal Democrats think that the redistributive mechanisms ought to go even further to promote financial sustainability, including by taking account of the restricted resources in the fifth tier, and redistribution beyond that level to cover more grassroots clubs in the national leagues north and south and beyond. Then, there is social responsibility. Football clubs are not just businesses; they are also civic institutions. They are often the most visible and well-loved organisations in any community. Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords pushed for clubs to be mandated to report on their community work, so I welcome the new clause requiring clubs to do so. In my constituency, the Cheltenham Town Community Trust delivered £5.4 million-worth of social value work with young people and older people, and to reduce antisocial behaviour, in its last reporting year. What gets measured gets done. Clubs want to continue doing such work, but they cannot keep doing it if they cannot afford to because the Premier League is hoarding all the money. We need to go further to support clubs in that, particularly by providing help for smaller clubs that may struggle to fulfil reporting requirements. I agree with the Members who have made similar comments. We believe that the Bill must go further on problem gambling. Nearly 30,000 gambling messages were posted across the premier league’s opening weekend this season. That represents a tripling of ads compared with the almost 11,000 recorded over the opening weekend of the season before. Such ads are normalising a dangerous relationship between football and gambling that is destroying lives. Football should not be a gateway drug to problem gambling. It cannot be right that, whether watching on television or in the stands, we are bombarded with gambling adverts to the extent that the enjoyment of the game is now, for so many people, culturally intertwined with placing bets. It cannot be right that broadcasters can launch their own gambling platforms, and use advert breaks to promote those platforms, using the pundits who describe the games as mouthpieces for gambling. That merger of journalism and advertising should give us all pause for thought.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Football is irrevocably intertwined into our national story. It is about belonging, about the communities we live in and about what we do in our spare time, and it is what we daydream about when we are supposed to be working—I feel that on a very personal level every day. Today I speak primarily not as a politician or a Liberal Democrat spokesperson, but as a football fan. I have been to more than 50 football league grounds, and to a fair few non-league grounds, too—Brimscombe and Thrupp FC in the Stroud constituency is well worth the attention of the non-league ground-hoppers out there. I have followed England home and away. These days, I mostly watch my local team Cheltenham Town, who have enjoyed a thoroughly mid-table season, but I grew up watching Southampton, and when time allows, I still watch them now—through the gaps between my fingers at the moment. Despite that, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who is no longer in his place, will remember when times were so much worse for Southampton. I am sorry that he is not here to hear this. I had a season ticket when he was chairman—[Hon. Members: “He’s there!”] Oh, there he is, speaking to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not listening to a word I am saying. I remember this from when I was a fan in the stands, calling for so much better. I hope for the sake of football that today this Bill does not go the same way as the Saints’ season. As Ministers know, the Liberal Democrats will support the Bill because the game needs financial sustainability. There have been too many Burys, Chesters, Herefords, Macclesfields and Readings. The heritage assets in our game need protection. Who can forget when Cardiff were forced to play in red, or when Wimbledon were moved against their will to Milton Keynes?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. There are too many examples of football clubs being separated from their stadiums, training grounds and assets, and it is a disgrace every single time when football clubs are asset-stripped. I mentioned sustainability, heritage and fan engagement. Those are the three things we think the Bill will bring about—those are its aims. Although the Bill is not perfect, it will make important progress on all those points. Indeed, shortly after I was elected, the board of Cheltenham Town and the Robins Trust both asked me clearly to back the Bill. We will do so because it is the right thing to do. The Bill is cross-party in origin. We should all thank Tracey Crouch for her work on the fan-led review and the shadow Minister for his subsequent work on the Bill in the last Parliament. It is a shame that Dame Tracey’s party has decided to score an own goal today. The Conservatives might seek to present themselves as akin to the England heroes in 1966, but in trying to kill the Bill, they are more like the villainous Maradona and his “hand of God” in 1986. By seeking to kill the football regulator, they are betraying football fans the length and breadth of the country—they are going in studs-up on football fans. That is the kind of political acumen that means that they represent only one football league club. Can anyone name it?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Bromley—there we go. I think that has rather proved my point for me. The Conservatives’ reference to the risk of increased ticket prices suggests that they are either uninformed about or wilfully ignorant of the existing problems that football fans suffer every week with ticket price inflation, as tens of thousands of fans will confirm. Unaccountable football club owners are not forced to engage with football fans on the issue of ticket pricing. In my reflections on how to improve the Bill, I will begin with financial fairness. According to Simon Perruzza, the chief executive of the Cheltenham Town Community Trust, the Bill is needed “to ensure clubs like ours continue to make a valuable contribution to supporters and the community, the game’s fractured governance model and inequitable distribution of finance need to be urgently addressed”. The Premier League generates more than £3 billion each year from media rights alone, yet the share reaching clubs further down the pyramid is dwindling; it keeps 84% of the revenue now, up from 74% in 2007. Any suggestion that the Premier League is a golden goose that will be killed by the Bill somewhat misunderstands the problem in our game. The campaign group Fair Game warns that the balance of funding between the top division and lower leagues in this country stands in stark contrast to that in other major leagues. The fact is that the money simply is not trickling down here as it does in other European leagues.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the birthday boy, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), on securing this important debate. In my constituency, we have thriving creative and tech industries off the back of GCHQ—Cheltenham has a lot of creative businesses. When I hosted my roundtable with the creatives, they told me that they are extremely worried about what they assume is being proposed in the Government’s consultation. When I talk to tech start-ups, they say they are also concerned about that because they are worried that the things they are doing to innovate are being scraped. That is a concern from an economic growth perspective, in both directions, and the Government need to acknowledge that. Intellectual property rights protect human ingenuity. They are the legal and moral foundations that allow creators to share in the value of what they create, but artificial intelligence is blurring the line between human and machine authorship, and is raising urgent and complex questions. Who owns an AI-generated piece of music trained on thousands of copyrighted songs? How do we enforce rights when the inputs and outputs are hidden behind proprietary algorithms? The answer must be that creators own the rights to their work, and those rights must be protected. For centuries, creators have honed their craft through years of study, practice and transformation. That contributes to what we all enjoy about the creative industries, but AI now allows machines to ingest and remix millions of works in seconds, fundamentally altering the relationship between inspiration and creation. If we talk to tech companies about this, we find that they do not quite grasp the difference between their innovation and that of the human mind. That unprecedented scale and speed demands stronger, not weaker, protections. Our creative industries generate £126 billion annually and are central to our economy and cultural identity. As AI continues to reshape content production, the intellectual property rights of our writers, musicians and artists must be safeguarded, not weakened. As we argued during the debates on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, when innovation outpaces regulation, we risk losing public trust and undermining the creative industries that employ 2.3 million people across the country. That is bad for our economy. Throughout the debates on data legislation, we have consistently argued that consent must not be an afterthought but should be the default. If a human being has created something, they have the right to know how it is being used and to be fairly recognised and remunerated for that use. That principle must carry through to how we approach AI and intellectual property. The tech companies claim that an opt-in system would be too technically complex to implement. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? But at its heart, this debate is not about technical feasibility. It is about being willing to respect creators’ rights from the outset, preventing theft, as Members have said, and supporting our valued creative industries. We have also warned against innovation washing: the idea that technical progress should come before ethical scrutiny. It is not anti-innovation to protect creators, but quite the opposite. A fair IP framework is what allows our creativity and innovation to thrive, and it is good for our economy, too. So what must we do? First, we must ensure that web crawlers and AI models are bound by existing copyright law. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would enforce existing copyright protections, rather than weakening them through a suggested opt-out system. Secondly, we need meaningful transparency. Our amendments would increase data and identity transparency for crawlers and models, ensuring that creators know how and where their work is being used to train AI systems. Thirdly, we need a clear path for consent and compensation. We have seen in the data Bill debates how opaque data-collection practices undermine public confidence. That lesson must apply here. Creators should have the right to opt in or opt out of their work being used in AI training, and there must be mechanisms for meaningful, proportionate compensation. I also urge the Government to lead internationally on this issue. We have an opportunity to establish stronger protections that better serve our creative sector. The Independent Society of Musicians, the Authors Guild, the British Copyright Council and the Association of Illustrators—to name just a few of the many organisations representing hundreds of thousands of creators—all support that stance. The global nature of AI necessitates co-ordination through the World Intellectual Property Organisation and alignment with international partners, but British creators deserve robust protections that travel with their work across international borders. This debate has repeatedly shown that, across party lines, we believe that creators must be protected—that is true of those who speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the Government, the Conservatives and the nationalists, and those elsewhere, too. Creators must be at the centre. Data and innovation policy must work for people, not just for platforms, algorithms or corporations. Let us remember that behind every dataset are human stories: the novelist who spent years crafting her narrative; the musician who refined his composition through countless hours of practice; the visual artist whose unique perspective shapes our cultural landscape. Their rights are not obstacles to innovation, but its very foundation.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is the same experience for residents, is it not? When MPs ask questions of FirstPort, we do not get any replies. People turn up, smile and say nice words—soothing things—but nothing happens. The residents get the same thing. That includes a 94-year-old woman whose daughter contacted me to say that she was refused a request to install a stairlift and she cannot sell the property, because the management fees that FirstPort charges are so high, so she is effectively trapped, unable to get up and down the stairs. Is that not a disgrace and does it not go to show that FirstPort just doesn’t give a damn?

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

  More

  A serious allegation was made recently that Liberal Democrats spend too much time in our communities fixing church roofs and are not on Twitter. Well, last night I logged back on, and let me tell the House that Twitter was absolutely brilliant. The quality and depth of political debate really was something to behold. Liberals and authoritarians, nationalists and internationalists, and people from the economic right, left and centre were engaging in well-informed, expansive and thoughtful debate about the most pressing issues of the day. I jest, of course—it was a total waste of time for everybody involved, including me. Elon Musk has made Twitter useful for some people, though. I refer to those on the hard right of politics, who are profiting by sowing the seeds of division. They are not just profiting politically, but lining their pockets with the money of social media barons. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have already told the Member to whom I am about to refer that I intend to refer to him today, because his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is revealing. The leader of Reform, the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has declared more than £10,000 in earnings from one particular source since he was elected. The address of the payer is in Market Square. I know what Members are all thinking: “It’s the charming covered market in Clacton”. No, that closed in 2022. It is Elon Musk’s X, based in Market Square in San Francisco, California. He has also declared more than £14,000 in earnings from Google, £98,000 from Cameo, based in Chicago, and more than £2,700 from Meta in California. One wonders where the Member for Clacton finds the time. As a 2024 intake MP, I encounter colleagues who basically do not have time to go to the loo. On a more philosophical note, for someone who claims to be a patriot, he is certainly taking a lot of money from international sources. That should give us all pause for thought when we consider the impact of digital platforms on democracy. We might conclude at the very least that it distracts some MPs from doing their actual job—and I do not mean the distraction of doom-scrolling; I mean the distraction of the grift. What of the broader threats presented by social media platforms? We have spoken on many occasions recently about the issues that young men face and the impact on democracy. It is my belief that, at heart, those issues are the symptoms of many problems, including the tone of debate about the roles and responsibilities of boys as they become men, a lack of routes to secure employment, and ludicrously high housing and rental prices. For someone who is stuck in their childhood bedroom looking for reasons why their life is rubbish, the digital world has no shortage of scapegoats: women, minorities, LGBT+ people, immigrants, foreigners, refugees, disabled people, the weak, single-parent families—the list goes on. There is also no shortage of snake oil salesmen out there to tell them who to blame and what they can do about it. Andrew Tate tells us it is the fault of women. I can tell any young men listening at home that nobody outside the manosphere wants to see pictures of bald middle-aged men with their tops off—I know from personal experience. My social media followers and, more importantly, my friends left me in no doubt about what a plonker I looked after I posted a photo of myself at Cheltenham Lido. Those who idolise Tate would do well to heed that advice. Jordan Peterson, another big thinker on the right, gives brilliant advice to young men. He tells them they must make themselves physically strong so that they can find a mate and get rich and powerful, or they will end up dying poor and alone, perhaps with melted brains like crustaceans defeated in a violent fight in the depths of the ocean. I am pretty sure that is not true. The lads should not worry about it, but so many do, thanks to these snake oil sellers online. Thanks to President Trump and those who argue for a bizarre form of freedom of speech—just not for everyone—the truth is now a contested concept, and it is intertwined with fear and hatred, which are both a threat to our democracy. We all know where the truth goes to die: whichever social media platform you like. You just start posting outlandish stuff. You keep going. You double down. You find a mad and hateful narrative. You tell everyone it is free speech, and before you know it, you might be lucky enough to become a successful online grifter with your top off. Perhaps you will be an MP, or maybe even the President of America. Two days ago it was April fool’s day. I hate April fool’s day, because the world is now so ludicrous that we do not know what is a joke and what is not. Even worse, what we post as a joke might end up being shared so many times that it becomes somebody else’s truth eventually. In the worst case, that becomes part of a hate-fuelled conspiracy theory. I will not mention it; everyone here knows what it is. There are many increasingly popular conspiracy theories online that have nothing to do with hatred but are plainly bizarre. I will not name them here for the sake of all our inboxes, but every single one of those outlandish claims is a threat to our democracy, and those views are going round the world quicker and quicker thanks to social media. What should we in this place be doing about it? While digital and social media platforms can be good for democracy, they are inherently vulnerable to misinformation and abuse, and they reduce the quality of public debate. We need look no further than the riots following the tragic Southport attacks. That tragedy for those little girls and their families was compounded for so many by what happened in the following days, when people were whipped up into a frenzy by false rumours leading to more violence. Musk’s X, Zuckerberg’s Meta and other social media companies facilitate that spreading of misinformation, and they have made it entirely clear to all of us that they do not care. Let us face it: platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat are making our children sad and depressed, they are putting a check on the development of the adults of the future, and they absolutely cannot be trusted. Musk used his purchase of Twitter to further leverage his influence over the world’s largest democracy. He changed the rules to boost his own posts and push aside those he disagrees with—freedom of speech, but for some more than others. From his own platform, the world’s richest man has made several direct interruptions in our democracy. Last summer he sought to further incite disorder, posting that in the UK “Civil war is inevitable”. He also called for America to “liberate the people of Britain” and overthrow the UK Government, and he has suggested he might bankroll the Reform party. While I have some sympathy for Ministers dealing with Trump, do they really think it is wise to be so gentle with him when his right-hand man, Musk, has called for them to be forcibly ejected from office? I realise that Ministers are limited in what they can say, but I am pretty sure I know what they think. Regardless of diplomatic norms, this is plainly absurd. Worse than that, it makes our once strong nation look weak. What should we do? Social media companies must take a larger role in tackling misinformation. It is clear that they will not do it without Government intervention, and they need to get on with it. Liberal Democrats believe that stricter regulations must be introduced to ensure that they properly challenge the spread of misinformation on their platforms. We must stand up to them. We must intervene to protect our democracy. As a liberal, I believe that unchecked power and wealth are inherently dangerous, and I often take my whip from John Stuart Mill, who warned: “the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods…which all experience refutes.” We must heed that warning.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Access to Sport: PE in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would always be my first pick. [ Interruption. ] Sorry, that was a terrible start, wasn’t it? Let me do better. Otherwise, my jokes will end up going down like the US stock market. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned rounders, and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) mentioned the school that I went to. That took me right back to my GCSE PE assessment, where we were told that we would do rounders because it was the easiest and we would get good grades as a result. I regret to inform the House that I got a three out of seven for rounders. I have no idea how, and that led to my failing to get a C grade at GCSE PE. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] I know, and I became the Liberal Democrat Culture, Media and Sport spokesperson despite that failure—not that a D grade is a failure. I will get serious now. We are in the midst of a crisis of sedentary lifestyles and obesity. Almost a third of children and young people are classed as inactive. More than one in four children is either overweight or obese, and the mental health crisis among young people is widely acknowledged to be totally out of control, not least because of the subject of the previous debate on social media. These facts shame our nation and store up huge problems for our economy, our health services and individuals. That is why the debate is timely, and I commend the hon. Member for Stafford—and the villages—for securing time in the Chamber, because instilling a love of sport and exercise in young people can do so much to turn around and tackle the public health crisis, and that starts in school. For me and for many of us, my earliest memories of taking part in sport are of playing football on the primary school playground, but I know from first-hand experience what happens when schools do not have the facilities to offer proper PE lessons. When I attended Broadoak school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, it was falling down, and we had one playing field left for the whole time we were there. We were all crammed on to it at break time. That meant we were not able to play as many fixtures as we otherwise might have done. I was too weedy for rugby, and the guy who was captaining the football team just picked his mates and did not like me, so it made little difference to my school experience, but it did have an impact on many others. It probably had an impact on what else went on at the school, which struggled with a difficult catchment area. Although I rarely took to the field for my school teams, I did achieve something brilliant in the fourth division of the Cardiff University intramural games: I scored from the halfway line against the Japanese society—a moment I will never forget, nor will anyone else who was on the pitch that day. On a more serious note, 42,000 hours of physical education have been lost from the curriculum in the last decade. That is a travesty. State secondary schools in England taught 284,000 hours of PE in 2021, down 13% from 2011. I have many high-performing independent schools in my constituency and many good state schools, but the difference in provision between the independent and state sectors is marked. We need to ensure that the state sector is providing the very best for children. The proportion of pupils in years 7 and 8 who can swim the standard 25 metres has fallen in the last eight years, with disparities evident among demographic groups, giving rise to concerns about equality. That is not surprising, because 217 school pools have been lost over the last 15 years. Swim England says that the Department for Education cannot even provide statistics due to the number of schools not properly reporting swimming lessons. Sport England suggests putting PE at the heart of the curriculum by protecting time for it and subjecting it to suitable rigour. It suggests a really important change from traditional school approaches—that we reimagine the PE curriculum, so that it is based on enjoyment and meaning, rather than forcing people to go into a scrum and run into each other on the pitch. That is wise, because not everyone is into that kind of sport; they might be into yoga, dance or something else. Let us be expansive about this. Enjoyment is the single biggest factor that drives up the number of minutes that children spend playing sport. The Lawn Tennis Association is among the bodies calling for us to enact the chief medical officer’s recommendation for one hour of sport and physical activity to be delivered inside and outside school every single day. To do its bit, the LTA is offering free teacher training and a grant for equipment. It is also asking for clarity about the future funding of the park tennis project, and I hope the Minister can provide that clarity or take the matter up with her colleagues. The medical experts and sports organisations know what is screamingly obvious to everyone else: sport and physical activity is the silver bullet for solving our public health crisis. If we can get it right by instilling healthy habits among people at an early age, and then providing them with opportunities through their life, much of the rest of the challenge we have in the NHS will fall into place. It is not fashionable to say that, because we are supposed to just stand up and shout, “Save the NHS!” but I think we in this place all know that it is much more complex than that. Facilities are core to the challenge. In my constituency, I am supporting Pittville school’s efforts to upgrade its badly outdated sports hall. When the kids play badminton, the shuttlecock hits the ceiling. The school has been waiting for ages to get its application through the planning system. One of the local councils has, remarkably, raised an objection on conservation and heritage grounds. I hope Ministers agree that the planning system should be making it easier for schools to build more sports facilities, not getting in the way. I hope Ministers will also consider designating sports halls and swimming pools as critical health infrastructure. That is a really important idea for Ministers to take forward, because in these straitened times, it costs the taxpayer nothing to do that. In February 2013—so long ago that I had a full head of hair—Ofsted published a report recommending that schools spend at least two hours a week on PE. All these years on, there is still no requirement for schools to provide those two hours. We want to ensure that every child has access to high-quality PE, as well as extracurricular sports activities. That would ensure that all children had access to some form of physical education, which is not always the case. We need to restore those two hours. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are considering that? School also serves as an important gateway to sports clubs. The Sport and Recreation Alliance is calling for better links between schools and sports clubs—something the Liberal Democrats passed a policy on as long ago as 2004. Is that one simple change part of the Government’s agenda? We all know that the Government are dealing with tight finances, but it is important to note that every pound invested in sport is likely to generate a return on our investment of more than £4. I cannot think of a better investment for this nation to make. We in this place often talk about the pressures on the NHS, and about making a proper effort to ensure that children benefit from a love of sport and activity. If we can marry those two up, we will ensure that many children who are growing up to be obese, unhealthy, and depressed are saved from that fate. If we fail to get this right, Members from across the Chamber can carry on saying “save the NHS” and complaining about waiting times as much as we like, but it will not make a difference. All we will ever be doing is dealing with an epidemic of chronic physical inactivity, and mental illnesses caused by inactivity. We will be denying generations to come a love of sport and physical activity, which would be a dereliction of duty on the part of us all.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Access to Sport: PE in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I recently played wheelchair basketball with the Harrogate Hammerheads, at the Liberal Democrat party conference, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). It was a joyful experience, and what I learned is that it is basically impossible.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Supporting Musicians · Hansard source

  More

  Music fans were left outraged last summer by rip-off prices for Oasis tickets. Many paid hundreds of pounds over resale value to access the concerts they wanted to get to as dedicated fans. Liberal Democrats are calling for an outright ban on resales above face value. At the moment, it seems the Government are “Half the World Away” from a solution. When the Ministers answer, “Whatever” they say, please promise me that the answer to whether we will have a ban above resale value is not “Definitely Maybe”?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  I do not wish to interrupt the discussion on the Front Benches. I have another opportunity for the Chancellor. In Cheltenham, we have a scheme that can produce jobs and growth and will support the defence industry: the Golden Valley development next to GCHQ, which will be a key part of this country’s defence investment over the coming years. Will the Chancellor take it upon herself to work with Ministers in other Departments who already know about that to ensure that we get the investment that we deserve and that GCHQ workers deserve too?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Cancer Care: West of England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answer. The Big Space Cancer Appeal being run by the Cheltenham and Gloucester Hospitals Charity is going on in my constituency. It is having to raise £17.5 million for a new cancer centre at Cheltenham general hospital, which is a regional cancer centre, because the previous Government did not fund it. I am proud of the fund-raising work that is being done by the hospitals charity, including by my caseworker, Mateusz, who is running two half marathons for the cause. Will the Minister meet me and Dr Sam Guglani and Dr Charles Candish to discuss how the Government might provide more support for this crucial piece of infrastructure?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Cancer Care: West of England · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps his Department is taking to improve cancer care in the west of England.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member reflect on the fact that although Help to Buy helped some people to purchase a new home, many others were priced out because of inflationary pressures and the exorbitant bonuses that were paid to the huge house building companies, which benefited the most from the scheme?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Jean told me that she is now washing in cold water as a result of this measure. She is one of those people right on the cusp. She might also be concerned by comments from the Leader of the Opposition about the potential means-testing of the triple lock after the next election, if the Conservatives are in government. Will the hon. Gentleman offer Jean reassurance that there will not be an even longer winter if the Government were to change next time?

• 17 Mar 2025 · NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister for Social Security and Disability was kind enough to come to the launch of the “What comes after education?” report by National Star and the Together Trust. One key finding of that report is that young people with disabilities face particular problems when trying to access work. The system is set up against them and workplaces are set up not to work for them, yet many of them want to do whatever they can to find meaningful employment. When Ministers are making decisions about upcoming welfare changes, I hope that report will be on their desks and that it will be properly considered.