Max Wilkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a very good point. That does sound like a potentially devastating blow to our nation. Britain has gifted the world the likes of Charles Dickens’s literature, the music of The Beatles and the best film of all time, “Paddington 2”. By amending our education system, protecting cultural spend locally, securing a fairer deal with the EU and protecting creatives from exploitation by AI, we can properly support our creative industry and ensure we continue to make a similar contribution for many years to come.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referred to his greatest creative output, which apparently is hitting bookshelves soon. I am afraid I cannot match that—a Jaffa Cake haiku, which was cruelly overlooked by the McVitie’s marketing department, and a local news story about gnomes being banned from the graveyard in Wrington in north Somerset are as good as I can muster. The creative industries are the lifeblood of our nation’s cultural wellbeing, and we neglect them at our peril. We must never ignore the voices of creators themselves. This weekend, many of us will have been disturbed to see the interview given by Paul McCartney about the challenge that AI poses to the creative industries and to creators. The Government are correct to pursue artificial intelligence as a route to solving problems in our public services, boosting economic growth and creating new jobs. Nobody would argue with suggestions for speeding up and improving NHS treatment, removing pointless interactions with local councils or smoothing out bureaucracy for businesses in their interactions with Government Departments. In the creative arts, however, we have a very different challenge, and the Government must not put at risk the value of human creativity. I will make no luddite arguments in this House—as the MP for the constituency that is home to the most influential cyber-cluster outside London, that would be daft. I am pro-business and pro-technology, as are the Liberal Democrats. I regard myself as a techno-optimist. Innovation is not just desirable but necessary. However, it is not an absolute, particularly when we are discussing threats to human creativity. I know that because my constituency is home not just to a cyber-cluster, but to a creative powerhouse. Cheltenham festivals bring visitors from around the world. Because we are a creative powerhouse, I receive plenty of communication from creatives in Cheltenham. Robin, a composer, told me that he could no longer advise young creatives to rely on a job in the industry, because it simply will not pay. He told me that things will get worse if the changes to copyright go through. Let us consider for a moment the ability of the human mind to compose a tear-jerking piece of music, or of the delicate human hand to paint an evocative landscape or write prose to persuade, inspire, or move the reader. That is innately human. Such creative endeavour can and does change the world. It brings us growth, and so much more besides. There is no doubt that technology has an important and positive role to play in this process, and it is already doing so. Technology and creative content must work side by side, but if original human creators are not compensated by default, we risk a future not of glorious, creative technicolour but of many shades of pale grey. Some have already warned that we risk a future of infinite pale grey, in which there is no incentive for humans to initiate any creative process whatsoever. It would be a dereliction of duty by Members of this House if they failed to engage with that risk as part of this discussion and the ongoing discussion about AI. Last week, along with other MPs, some of whom are in the Chamber this evening, I joined a meeting with a tech company and one of its social media creators. I will not name the company or the creator; that would not be fair and would not add much to the debate. We were told of the huge growth potential for creators that the online and social media world presented. We were told that creators are employing teams of people to produce their content—a big jobs boost. During the discussion, they were asked what happens to jobs growth when a creator’s work is crawled by AI to the extent that it is reproduced hundreds, thousands or even an infinite number of times. If an answer came, however, it was not comprehensive or persuasive. The mood music suggests that the Government and big tech firms favour an opt-out approach for creators, placing burdens on individual musicians, artists and writers to protect their work. I asked an expert about the potential risks of an opt-out approach and received an illuminating answer. The expert told me: “For human creators, an opt-in model generally offers stronger protection.” The first reason for that was control, as “creators retain explicit control over how their work is used by AI”. The second was compensation, as “An opt-in system could be linked to licensing agreements, allowing creators to receive compensation for the use of their work in AI training”.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  That sounds like a good idea. I think there are some really logical ways we could do this by ringfencing some assets for local value—attaching them to car parks, which are already producing revenue in local areas. There are creative ways that different local areas could do that. However, it is a concern, and I do not think that discussion on this matter has been had as part of the discussion on devolution and local government reorganisation.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Older people in care homes can benefit from such creative outlets—both from having people bring arts and culture to them, and from days out at our local cultural institutions. As some of the challenges we face are global, I will finish with a look at how other Governments are supporting their creative sectors. Since 2010, Germany, France and Finland have all increased their budgets. In the same period, the UK reduced its budget for arts and culture provision by 6%. More recently, Governments of EU nations and others around the world have begun spending more on their creative sectors, with the cultural centres of China, Russia, Portugal, France and Spain all increasing their budgets. This year, we cut the British Council budget by £12 million.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I agree that the concepts of opt-out and opt-in need to be pursued at greater length. Thirdly, the expert told me that the preservation of value offered stronger protection: “By requiring explicit permission, an opt-in model helps maintain the value of original creative works.” The expert did point out two drawbacks. First, an opt-in approach has potential drawbacks in the form of an extra administrative burden on creators. Interestingly, this expert’s second listed drawback was that an opt-in model would place limits on AI’s ability to gather data for training and development, which does not seem to me like much of a drawback for creators. I asked that very same expert what would happen if creators lost their intellectual property rights to AI. The expert told me there was a risk of “a loss of income and motivation, a devaluation of creative work, ethical concerns, legal uncertainty” and, intriguingly, “domination by AI operators.” I use the word “intriguingly” because this expert seems aware of its own power—the expert was Google Gemini. At this stage, those considerations are unknowns, and there is much uncertainty. Google Gemini is pulling information produced mostly thanks to human endeavour and discussion sourced from across the internet, but the fact that this view is being presented by AI itself surely suggests there is cause for some concern. Our role as parliamentarians must be to protect the interests of humans, not big tech companies; to scrutinise the proposals of big tech companies; to avoid the luddite tendency, crucially; and to build in suitable safeguards.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  Of course. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I will be moving on to that in a moment. If, against the will of the creative industry, the Government are to proceed with an opt-out approach—I hope they do not—it seems logical that such an approach must come with strong safeguards, which may come in the form of automatic attribution, in order to identify the creative inspiration for any work that has been crawled and reproduced. However, more importantly, we need suitable levels of compensation to be automatically awarded. In short, if the big tech companies want default access to our creators’ work, they must expect the default to be that they pay for it. Tech firms will argue that an opt-in approach, or one that places the burden on them, would place us out of step with other nations, and I accept that that might be the case. However, let us look at it from another perspective. Is the suggestion that we might give our creative industry more respect really such a terrible idea? I do not think so. Given the widespread threat to the UK’s creative industries from this and other economic circumstances, I would suggest not. Having touched on AI, I will now address a few other subjects more briefly. First, I turn to the unfashionable topic of Brexit. The previous Conservative Government’s disastrous Brexit deal excluded artistic provisions, and the effect of that is reflected in a shocking statistic: between 2017 and 2023, we suffered a 23% drop in the number of British artists touring the EU. The Liberal Democrats backed free and simple short-term travel arrangements for UK artists to perform in the European Union. Secondly, I turn to education. It is well known that changes to policy in the past decade or so have diminished arts education in state schools, with more than 40% of schools now no longer entering students for GCSE music or drama, and almost 90% not offering GCSE dance. Universities are also scaling back their arts offerings. The Liberal Democrats would restore arts subjects to the core of the curriculum, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to study music, dance, drama and the visual arts. Finally, I turn to local government. Local councils are historically the single biggest funders of culture in their areas, but their spending powers have been much reduced. There is a risk that as part of the devolution process, and as local government reorganisation happens, additional pressure will be placed on social care and children’s services. Although those things need attention, we must not allow the arts to be forced further to the fringes of public spending debates.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will of course also congratulate the Labour Government before 2010 and the Liberal Democrat coalition on their good work, and it is important, in the spirit of consensus, to do that. However, does he agree that one important issue that is always missing from the debate about climate is national security? If we can be self-sufficient in our energy supplies, that will be really important for our national security. We never talk about that issue in the context of climate, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman, as a Conservative, will agree.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Cyber Security · Hansard source

  More

  Ministers in this Department and in others have been generous in engaging with my repeated requests for engagement with Cheltenham’s cyber-security industry, where GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre are located. There is increasing evidence that having the private and public sectors co-located is important for our cyber-security sector. The Golden Valley development provides an opportunity to do that, and the Places for Growth scheme might give an opportunity for more public sector officials to be placed alongside one of our most influential cyber-clusters. Would the Minister be interested in having a meeting about that?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  Bence Builders Merchants in my constituency has been providing good local produce and good local jobs since the Earl of Aberdeen was in power. The owner, Paul Bence, fears that the combination of business property relief changes and changes to employer’s national insurance mean that there is a huge disincentive to invest further. Does the Minister share my constituent’s concern?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Obesity: Food and Diet · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my Gloucestershire neighbour for giving way. He mentioned the nanny state. As a Liberal, I believe in freedom, but there are two sides to it: freedom from and freedom to. Should not freedom from some of those representing the big, powerful vested interests in the food companies, who are not interested in our health, be at the centre of this debate?

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is entirely right. As she knows, the Bill includes a recommendation to set an industry standard, so that consumers can have confidence in what they are buying. Not only is the burden removed from homeowners and responsibility placed with developer, but the Bill creates an efficiency saving in human resources and materials. It is an entirely logical step to take. Installing solar panels on roofs while the houses are being built is at least 10% cheaper than retrofitting. There will be issues around cost, which Members might raise in interventions or in speeches, but Government estimates put the cost of mandatory solar panels on all new homes at around £5,200 per home. That sounds like a lot of money in isolation, but the average cost of a new build in the final quarter of 2024 was far in excess of £400,000, so we are talking about little more than 1% of the price of a new build home. That is next to nothing in the context of a monthly mortgage repayment, if we take the figure in raw form, and it would be offset by lower bills. This Bill would mandate that all new homes are built with solar generation technology covering the roof space—a minimum of 40% of the equivalent of the building’s ground-floor area.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his generous words. Although I accept that I will not be cracking open a beer this evening to celebrate the Bill’s passing—perhaps a bottle of Corona—this has been an important debate and it has demonstrated consensus across the House, save for the local difficulties of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), which we should not go into again. A range of views were expressed about the energy mix. My view is that we need a mix of energy generation that includes all the things discussed today. I am pleased to hear that the matter will be up for future discussion and I look forward to working on it with the Government—particularly on the important point of applying pressure to developers in a way that gets the pragmatic outcome that we all deserve. I thank all Members for their contributions to the discussion. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned—( Christian Wakeford. ) Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. He will recall that if we go back more than a decade, there was a thriving solar energy industry in this country. Sadly, we have taken steps back over the last few years when it comes to the skills pipeline. I know that issue is on this Government’s agenda, and I welcome that. On the date on which we might look at this, we hope that further education colleges will put on courses to train people up, and that there would be more industry work, too.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady speaks powerfully for her constituency, which I know has a specific issue. We mentioned housing developers, and one housing developer has put its head above the parapet to support the Bill. I am grateful for the support of Thakeham, and it is to be applauded for supporting the measure. Developers should support the Bill for sound business reasons. There is a clear market preference for homes with solar panels, and a relatively small proportion of the price will be rewarded with a decent payback, and customers want them. Politically, there is demonstrable cross-party support. In the last Parliament, 79% of Members were found to be supportive, and I suspect the percentage is higher in this new Parliament. The climate barometer tracks support for mandatory solar panels on new builds and found a clear majority of support among all parties’ voters, so doing this would place us at the centre of political gravity. Some 80% of Conservative voters, 89% of Labour voters, 92% of Liberal Democrat voters and 63% of Reform supporters responded to the survey in favour of mandatory solar panels for new build homes. Those same constituents rightly look to us to make the right and logical decisions on these matters. They back the measure because all the evidence points to clear benefits at every level, including the Government’s positive agenda on energy and climate. MCS Foundation research has found that mandatory solar panels on 1.5 million homes would be the equivalent of two additional Sizewell C nuclear power stations, which should give us all pause for thought. For a country that struggles to build infrastructure, we must not look past these easier, small-scale wins.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My strong suspicion is that the market will help to decide the answer to that question, but it is inevitable that if we produce more energy from some sources, it will lower demand in other areas. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I visited Hinkley Point on a school trip as an 11-year-old and was told, very excitedly, that a new Hinkley C was on the way. I regret to tell the House that I am now 40 and, on current projections, Hinkley C is not expected to generate any power until I am at least 44. On the point of time, the new homes built today will outlast us all. If we can make them work better for the planet, they will be a lasting testament to this House’s efforts to tackle climate change, and they will offer protections against the energy shocks we have all endured too. That is what we have the chance to do today, if Ministers are willing to support the principles of the sunshine Bill. We cannot and should not let this opportunity pass us by, and it is our duty to build a political consensus here to match the consensus among members of the public. So to paraphrase the great Morecambe and Wise in the song that shares the informal name we have given to this Bill, let our arms be as warm as the sun up above, and let us think about how much joy we can give to each brand new bright tomorrow—if only we can lower people’s energy bills and help to tackle climate change too.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady is entirely right. She and Members across the House will have noted that the Campaign to Protect Rural England has taken a strong interest in this issue and in the Bill, for precisely the reasons she describes, with which I have a lot of sympathy. Efficient use of land and space in this country is extremely important. If we are to achieve the new home building targets that the Government have set out, we must ensure that new build homes are equipped for the challenges of the future, which include climate change and looking after our environment. If we do not change the standards for new housing stock, we not only miss an economic opportunity but put the environment at risk. The Government’s own advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, has advised that the UK will not meet its emissions targets without the “near complete decarbonisation” of housing stock. That is why it is so important that the new Government, specifically the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, have moved the conversation along, not least as shown by the answer to a question that I asked the right hon. Gentleman before Christmas, in which he said he was “very sympathetic” to the case for mandatory solar panels on new build homes. He is right. The case for updating the regulations is irrefutable. The regulations that govern building work are set out in the Building Act 1984, which is the year I was born, and the Building Regulations 2010, which is so long ago that Members will be disturbed to learn that I still had a large Brylcreem bill in those days. The previous Government consulted on the future homes standard, but we were not able to respond before the general election. It is heartening that the current Government have promised a response and to pick up that work. There will of course be strong pushback from some developers, who will default to thinking about profit only. I understand that profit motive, but I urge developers to think about the planet and what their customers are demanding.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I take the hon. Member’s point on board entirely, and agree with him. This Bill is limited to residential new builds; I was very conscious that in the public sector, the cost of initial installation would be borne by the taxpayer. He was right to reference schools. In my constituency, Bournside school is installing a huge ground source heat pump. That is a national, leading case study. He is right that it is important that young people understand what is going on. With regard to industry standards, we need to make sure that there is an industry-wide regulator and a certification scheme. The industry needs proper regulation to give consumers confidence in the product. Supply chains were mentioned. To give supply chains, the construction industry and developers time to adjust, the Bill proposes that the regulations apply from 1 October 2026. Ministers may have comments on whether that is a realistic timescale—they might want to make it longer. I am sure that there will be a discussion. Reasonable exemptions need to apply, including for very tall buildings; for buildings on which it would not be economical to install solar panels, due to roof size or other factors; and for buildings that had other forms of renewable energy generation installed that were more appropriate for that setting. Where buildings cannot physically accommodate solar panels that cover at least 40% of the building’s ground-floor area, the Bill requires that solar panels are installed to the maximum extent possible. It is important to take part in some myth busting. To dispel one big myth about solar panels, they do not always need a clear, sunny day to work; they will continue to work in overcast, cloudy conditions. I think we can all agree that that is good news for this country. To dispel another myth, solar panels can be installed to good effect on north-facing roofs, although efficiency will be a little lower. The overwhelming strength of the case for the measure means that the sunshine Bill has gathered support from industry. Over Christmas, several businesses and industry organisations signed an open letter to the Government in which they declared their support for the Bill. I am grateful for the support of the MCS Foundation, Solar Energy UK, Eco2Solar, E.ON Next and Ecotricity. I am particularly grateful to the MCS Foundation for its assistance and advice on technical matters in these last few months.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I move the Bill with sunshine in my heart. I am an environmentalist, I have fought for years to improve the housing market in my town of Cheltenham, and I strongly believe that we all deserve a fairer deal on the cost of living. I was elected in July after campaigning on those three issues, and I move Second Reading of the Bill with those issues in mind. I thank hon. Members who have taken the time to attend today’s debate, and I urge them to retain a sunny disposition for the next few hours. I am happy to take interventions from Members from across the House, but I hope hon. Members will not use them to throw too much shade. I promise a warm response regardless, and I hope the Minister will provide the same. Today, we can all make a commitment to a brighter future by backing the sunshine Bill. It will be a future in which people have lower household bills; we are less reliant on dirty and expensive fossil fuels, often imported from abroad; and the country’s energy supplies are more secure. This future is a vision supported by voters across political divides, as well as by industry. Before I get to the core of my speech, I ask hon. Members to think back a few short years, to the start of the energy bills crisis. Householders endured a 54% rise in the energy price cap in April 2022, and bills remain 43% higher than they were before the crisis. That caused widespread fuel poverty. We witnessed another shocking increase in food bank use, businesses went bust, jobs were lost and family holiday plans were cancelled. The crisis also laid bare how short-sighted past ideological decisions were to slow down the roll-out of renewable technologies. Imagine an alternative. Imagine that more homes included solar power generation during that crisis, and in the ongoing crisis. Bills could and should have been hundreds of pounds lower for everyone; householders would have been insulated against higher bills; and our nation would have been safer and stronger. Food banks would have been less busy, and the Government would not have been forced to give such large subsidies to ensure that people could get by. At the heart of the discussion is a pressing need to tackle twin crises: the cost of living and climate change. As hon. Members will know, the climate change discussion often leads us to debate difficult trade-offs—the Government are grappling with those and they have my good wishes in doing so—but solar energy generation on new build homes is very much not in that category. The Bill helps us to tackle the cost of living and climate change—a clear win-win. MCS Foundation research has shown that the payback period for a solar array on a three-bedroom semi-detached house is just four years, when that array is combined with other technologies that will be widely available in the next few years. Over a 25-year mortgage, the savings stand at a whopping £38,000. Solar technology also offers homeowners the chance to profit directly. The Energy Saving Trust estimates that a typical household could make between £270 and £400 a year. On the environmental side, research by Solar Energy UK shows that buildings accounted for 20% of all UK emissions in 2023. The Government have placed building new homes at the heart of their agenda, which I support.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill focuses on solar photovoltaics. Solar thermal panels are a different type of technology and are not covered by the Bill. I would also like to thank CPRE. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke earlier about the preservation of land and fields in green areas, and the CPRE is specifically interested from that perspective.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very reasonable point. We need to be clear that our supply chains in this country are free from slave labour. That is a matter for Government procurement rules, and I understand that measures on that will come to the House in due course. As I was saying, I understand the developers’ motives and why some will push back, but developers know what we all know, which is that the technology already exists and that implementing the measures in the sunshine Bill will be relatively straightforward for them. Solar panel technology has been available for many years and the construction industry is accustomed to working with it. Mandating installation at the construction stage is logical; it removes the burden from homeowners, and places the responsibility with the developer.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Covid-19 Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  In Cheltenham, in Sandford Park, we have an avenue of trees that were planted in honour of the covid heroes and the many victims that our town lost during the pandemic. Not far from there, there is a playground, and that playground was shut. There is nothing more dystopian for children than seeing the playground that they cherish shut. Children do not often have a voice in these kinds of discussions. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the next time there is a pandemic, we will take a much more reasonable approach to risk, as raised in the module, and that children will have a bigger voice, so that they will not suffer the mental health problems that we know so many have suffered as a result of the pandemic?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Grassroots Sports · Hansard source

  More

  Sport and physical activity must play a bigger part in the debate on our nation’s collective health and the future of health services. Sport England reports that almost one in three children are classed as inactive. More than a third of adults do not meet the chief medical officer’s recommendations for physical activity. Sedentary lifestyles are associated with one in six deaths, and obesity costs the economy £58 billion per year. Those are truly shocking statistics that we should all be ashamed of. What conversations are Ministers in the Department having with colleagues in other Departments, most notably Health, to ensure an increased focus on physical activity to improve our nation’s physical and mental health?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Cheltenham has had a voice since Victoria was on the throne, and we need to be reassured by the Minister that we will retain that voice as part of any devolution and local government reorganisation. Otherwise, power will simply be taken away from my community and given either to Gloucester or as far away as Bristol, with a new regional mayor. Can the Minister reassure me that localism will be part of his agenda too?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Children’s Social Media Accounts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening it. There is nothing any parent fears more than the loss of a child. Tragically, in 2022, Ellen Roome suffered this loss. Her world was shattered when she came home to find her son Jools not breathing. He had taken his own life aged just 14. While Ellen was dealing with the enormous pain of her loss, she also had questions about what had happened in the days, weeks and months leading up to Jools’ death. Jools was a happy boy. A video filmed just before his death shows him playing happily with friends. The absence of any hints that he might have been inclined to harm himself led Ellen’s search to his social media accounts. In her search for answers, Ellen found herself blocked by a legal system unable to tackle the complexities of social media and obstructive social media giants that placed process ahead of compassion. The police had no reason to suspect a crime, so did not see a 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, citing regulations. A court order was needed to access his digital data, which required eye-watering legal fees. Ellen sought nothing more than what amounts to access to her deceased child’s personal effects. In years gone by, that would have required searching through a child’s bedroom, perhaps looking at diaries, notes, letters, toy boxes, stickers or any other clues. The modern-day equivalent of such a search necessitates access to social media accounts, but because the law has not kept pace with the realities of modern life, that search has not been and cannot be completed. This is a cruel and inhumane process to impose on a grieving parent seeking nothing more than answers about what happened before their child took their own life. That is all Ellen wanted. I ask all of us present, and anyone watching at home, to consider what we would want to happen if we found ourselves in Ellen’s shoes, and go further to think what rights a parent would assume in those circumstances, as a matter of natural justice. There is, of course, a much wider debate about online harms, but Ellen is using her experiences and her campaign to bring about positive change in this debate. She is seeking answers in order that others do not have to in future. The case of Jools and Ellen is not the first time that social media companies have come up short. The dynamic and fast-moving nature of the internet means that social media companies are able to act before legislators have a chance to catch up. This is a problem that has persisted for many years, but it is notable that they act only when pushed by brave campaigners like Ellen shining a light on what is happening. As we have heard, the Online Safety Act takes us a step forward, and it does improve rights of access. The current legislation, however, means that bereaved parents like Ellen are still left to fight bureaucracy. In Ellen’s case, she is seeking retrospective action too. The Government should look at how exactly they can rectify that urgently and in retrospective cases. There is now an acknowledgment that giving parents the right to automatic access to living children’s social media accounts may have unintended and undesirable consequences relating to child protection, but if the law and parents are to acknowledge that balance, social media companies must do their bit to keep children safe online from predators, inappropriate content and content that may cause children to harm themselves. Sadly, in recent weeks and months we have seen social media companies make increasingly vociferous claims that the protection of free speech and freedom of expression online must come above all else. The examples of Elon Musk’s bizarre approach to X and Meta’s decision to ditch moderation in favour of community notes are instructive of what is happening and what could happen next, and there has also been much discussion of the impact of the TikTok algorithm on children’s mental health. Other platforms and examples will come up in the future. We have also seen democracies start to act to curtail the power of social media companies—the example of the Australian Government’s approach is instructive, whether or not Members of this House agree with the detail. I thank the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for her support for my constituent Ellen; I know it has been valuable to her over the past few weeks and months. I thank Ellen herself and pay tribute to her: she is the person whose petition brings us here today. The heartache and devastation she has endured is unimaginable for the rest of us, but Ellen has turned her grief into something that is positive and could be even more positive for this country and other parents. Having watched her campaign so tirelessly, and provided support where I could for the past few months, I am immensely proud of what she has achieved. We should all be thankful for what Ellen and other members of Bereaved Families for Online Safety are doing. They know what we in this Chamber, the Government, the legal system, police forces and social media companies know: the system is badly failing children and families. Social media companies must now be placed on notice. They must protect children and respect families or face the consequences. They must protect children so that the Joolses of the present and the future do not meet a tragic and early end. They must respect the Ellens of the past, present and future so they can be confident that their children can be safe too.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Rail Passenger Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State’s constituents will also be affected. Compensation comes in many forms. It may be in the form of better wi-fi on trains to improve the service for business users. It may be in the form of more rolling stock to end the bizarre practice of running half-length trains out of Paddington at peak times. And it may be in the form of an investigation into how we can reduce the ridiculous turnaround times at Gloucester station that delay Cheltenham passengers so much. I hope the Minister will confirm that all these things are being looked into for passengers in my constituency and the Secretary of State’s constituency.