Sorcha Eastwood MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I am really honoured that she is here today, because her voice is so important. When I was elected to the House last year, I was really proud to be here as part of a diverse Parliament. That diversity is welcomed across the House and is reflected on these Benches. That is good, but I have to be honest and say that we have heard from many parliamentarians—not just here, but across the UK—that if they had known what being an elected representative would bring to their life, they would not have stepped forward. But that is exactly what we need, because the social media companies want those voices to be silenced. This is not just about our agreeing with the political views we like—absolutely not. I will defend to the hilt the right of people to express views that I absolutely do not agree with, because they need to be heard too. The hon. Member made a really important point, and I thank her for it. The Northern Ireland Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election laid bare that over half of candidates reported harassment, intimidation or abuse; one in ten faced severe abuse; and women were disproportionately targeted, as were minorities, often by anonymous accounts—the point just made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The consequences were immediate: nearly 40% of candidates avoided solo campaigning and almost 20% avoided social media altogether. This is a system in which intimidation silences voices before they can even be heard. I have heard the same warnings from colleagues across this House, and the chilling effect is real. It is much bigger than this too. Let us be clear: our democracy is under threat, and the battlefield is not just in Parliament or the ballot box, but online, where rogue states and billionaire tech moguls are manipulating public opinion for their own ends. The recent Romanian presidential election should have been a routine democratic process. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. A pro-Russian candidate who did not debate, did not campaign and supposedly spent nothing suddenly surged to the top of the first round, and the election was then annulled. That was digital interference in action—a warning for every European democracy, including our own. If Members think that is just happening in Romania, they should think again. Here in the UK, over half of the public said they saw misleading information about party policies and candidates during the last general election. Nearly a quarter of voters say they have encountered election-related deepfakes, while 18% were not even sure if they had. The scale of the problem is staggering. Democracy does not function when voters cannot trust what they see or hear, yet the people in control of these digital platforms are not just bystanders, but active participants. How is it that Elon Musk, now sitting in Trump’s Administration, owns one of the world’s biggest digital platforms, which has spiralled into a far-right cesspit? Remember when we thought silicon valley’s tech bros were going to make society better—more open and more progressive? Those days are long gone. Now they have tasted power and they are in the White House, endorsing the AfD—Alternative für Deutschland—in Germany, while their algorithms push misogynists and conspiracy theorists to the top of feeds. This is not a glitch in the system; this is the system. It is a system that rewards the loudest, most divisive voices while drowning out facts and reasoned debate. If we care about democracy here in the UK, we need to stop treating social media giants as neutral platforms, and call them what they are: political actors. If we do not hold them to account, we are not just allowing misinformation to spread, but handing them the keys to our elections on a silver platter. For online abusers, anonymity is not protection; it is a weapon, and overwhelmingly it is used against women and minorities. For centuries, democratic debate was based on people knowing who they were engaging with. Anonymity once existed to protect the speaker from harm. Now it enables the speaker to inflict harm with impunity. This is not about free speech; it is part of a political strategy; a co-ordinated effort to undermine trust in institutions, silence opposition and create a hostile environment for anyone who dares to challenge the status quo. When those in power let this happen—by dragging their feet on game-changing legislation, by gutting a private Member’s Bill and by potentially scrapping a digital tax, handing more money to the very platforms on which these predators thrive—they are sending a message. It is a message to every woman in public life and every girl in this country that their safety is not the Government’s problem. What needs to be done? We must deprive these hate figures and predators of the oxygen of publicity. Why is it being tolerated? The Online Safety Act 2023 was outdated before it was even fully implemented. It is too slow and too weak, and the harms it was designed to address have only worsened. Regulators lack the power to challenge big tech, and Ministers are too afraid to stand up to Musk and Trump. Every concession emboldens these extremists, there is no appeasing them, and our children’s lives cannot be collateral damage in a reckless pursuit of growth. Australia has taken decisive, world-leading action. It has introduced a full ban on social media for under-16s. Meanwhile, the UK’s digital age of consent remains 13. That means children as young as year 8 can legally sign up to platforms awash with violent misogyny, porn, self-harm content and extremist material. What more proof do this Government need? The safer phones Bill could have been a game changer. Instead, it was watered down, gutted and abandoned. Why? It was because this Government prioritised big tech’s profits over our children’s wellbeing. We do not need any more reviews or consultations, but we do need decisive, courageous action. While this Government dither, the average 12 to 15-year-old now spends 35 hours a week—more than a full-time job—on their phone.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her comments, and I completely agree that that is the bare minimum that they should do. A report by Hope Not Hate found that almost 90% of boys aged 16 to 18 in the UK have consumed content from Andrew Tate. On Elon Musk’s X, a platform that has dismantled its trust and safety teams, Tate’s videos dominate young men’s feeds. If we allow this climate to continue, we are handing digital platforms the power to dictate political debate, poison young minds and do irreparable damage to our democracy. Of course, the loudest free speech warriors are the first to silence criticism, as I know from personal experience. After I called out Elon Musk for platforming extremism, Tate’s followers immediately descended on me with a flood of abuse and harassment. That was not random; it was a deliberate attempt to silence an elected representative. I was bombarded with death threats, rape jokes and abuse from accounts both local and international. Then the Tate brothers themselves came after me—two men running from the most serious criminal charges and propped up by the world’s most powerful leaders. They targeted me, an elected representative from Northern Ireland, for daring to speak my mind. It was not even about them—it was about Musk—but it was a calculated attempt to silence an elected politician. I was, in their words, “a nice target”. It was a direct attack on democracy and on this House itself. This is not just about individuals; it is about democracy. We have seen a deliberate, organised effort to create an online environment where extremism flourishes, where intimidation becomes the norm, and where women, minorities and political opponents are driven out of public life.

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

  More

  I thank everybody who has contributed to today’s debate, the Backbench Business Committee for giving permission for it, and those who supported the application for it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—I was privileged to have her in the Chamber for this debate, and her contribution was really poignant and incredibly moving. I thank the shadow spokespeople, and I thank the Minister for her remarks. Today should be the start of a conversation and a dialogue. It is clear that everybody in the Chamber is passionate about moving forward on this issue and defending our constituents, our country and our democracy. I look forward to working with everybody across the House on tackling this issue. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy.

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

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is a huge issue to grapple with, but I think the evidence is clear about what this has caused so far. There is a valid discussion to be had about the use of phones, and school is possibly one of the only places where our children’s devices will be taken off them for a set period, but the issue is what is on the phones when they get them back. For me, that is the point at hand. To conclude, who would want to be a child growing up in this world today? That question is really distressing and disturbing. It is a world in which radicalisation is just a click away, misinformation spreads like wildfire and people’s reputations are trashed in seconds, and it is one in which those who challenge it are met with a wall of co-ordinated abuse. I know I would not want to be growing up today, with political donations, foreign interference in elections, voter manipulation, online bullying, deepfakes, mental health problems and class disruption—and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, I do not have time to cover it all, but I do know that we have a moral duty to protect young people and future generations, and I truly believe that everybody in this House genuinely believes that and wants to act on it. This is now a national security issue. A society in which young men are radicalised against women is a society that becomes more violent, fractured and dangerous for us all. We are at a critical juncture. The question before us is clear: do we allow the likes of Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, Elon Musk and others to profit from poisoning the minds of our young people, or do we stand up for our children, our country, our democracy and the very fabric of our society? The Government must act, and act now. So I ask: what is stopping us? If not now, when? The time to act is today, for the sake of our children and, indeed, our very democracy.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to host this debate today, and I thank the sponsors and Members here present for supporting it. I begin by paying tribute to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, two public servants murdered in the name of hatred—the very hatred and radicalisation that digital platforms fuel. We are failing a whole generation. We are failing young women facing unprecedented levels of abuse and harassment. We are failing young men being radicalised and exploited in plain sight. We are failing democracy itself, as misinformation and intimidation silence voices and distort political participation. Today’s digital age presents a new, unparalleled threat to our democracy. Social media is not without its benefits. It allows us to connect with constituents and promote causes; indeed, I am sure that all of us would be looked upon very unfavourably if we did not engage in the online space in some shape or form. It has become one of the few ways that young people engage with politics, and it has played a pivotal role in promoting grassroots activism and greater transparency. However, we now face a national emergency of misinformation and digital violence. Families, teachers and even young people themselves are crying out for an overhaul. Just this past month, we have seen stark reminders of the harm that digital platforms enable. The release of “Adolescence” has rightly ignited a national conversation about online misogyny and radicalisation, exposing the toxic digital culture infiltrating our homes and classrooms. We only have to look at cases like the murder of Brianna Ghey to see the horrifying real-world impact. The reality is that young men radicalised online do not just stay there; they go out into the world and sometimes commit the most heinous acts of violence. The rising tide of online hate and radicalisation does not exist in isolation. Misogyny, incel ideology and far-right extremism, among others, are not just thriving in online spaces; they are being actively cultivated by algorithms that are designed to maximise engagement and profit. That is a really important point, which I will come back to later. Esther Ghey, Brianna’s mum, has called social media “an absolute cesspit”, and I am sure that we all agree. She has called for an under-16s ban, and she is right to do so. I want to make it clear that this crisis is not confined to one country, one background or even one ideology. The names change, but the pattern remains the same. Parents are terrified and teachers powerless, and children are being exploited right under our noses. All we have to do is look at the case of Alexander McCartney, a prolific paedophile who sat in his bedroom in County Armagh and abused thousands of children across the world. It is the UK’s largest ever catfishing case, involving a man who used social media to blackmail, torment and sexually exploit children across the world. When I participated in a discussion last year on the safer phones Bill, all the big social media companies were present. After they had boasted about how they self-regulated, I asked them whether they were familiar with the Alexander McCartney case.

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

  More

  Absolutely, and that is a really timely point. We should not outsource our children’s safety to social media companies. Indeed, we heard in a previous statement about the impact of content moderation and how it may or not form part of discussions on trade agreements as we move forward. When I sat in a room with all the social media companies, only one had heard of the Alex McCartney case. That tells us everything that we need to know about how seriously big tech takes child safety. It should not take a TV show like “Adolescence” to make the Government wake up to what has been warping our society for years. The actions that they have taken so far have been inadequate. Meeting the creators of “Adolescence” was indeed welcome, but it is simply not enough. Commissioning more reviews, talking about cultural change, and tinkering at the edges will not fix the problem. We must speak to the platforms in the only language they understand: profit and loss. We know what drives this issue: algorithms, content recommendation systems and the financial interests of the big tech companies actively steer vulnerable young people towards ever more extreme content. This is not a side effect; it is their business model. Fundamentally, this debate is about power: who holds it, who wields it, and in whose name are they acting? Right now, big tech billionaires and online extremists are working hand in hand, shaping our children and democracy, and warping our society. This Government have been too slow, too weak and too captured by vested interests to stop them. Figures like Andrew Tate have built empires by manipulating young men into their worlds of violent misogyny, lies and conspiracy. Tate has ingratiated himself with Donald Trump and Elon Musk, but does he care about men? Not a bit—he exploits them. This is not just an individual person behaving irresponsibly; it is a co-ordinated machine trying to drown out critical voices, spread misinformation and undermine public debate. Let us be honest: agitators and bullies like the Tate brothers have always existed. What has changed are the tools and the platforms that they have at their disposal, which give them access to young people in particular. Let us be clear: their reach is not accidental. Andrew Tate is amplified, promoted and monetised by the same platforms that claim to be unable to regulate online harm. This is not just about free speech; it is about radicalisation and control. Powerful malign actors—some overseas, and some home grown—are exploiting our young people and our political system for profit. Social media platforms are not neutral: they push extremist content deliberately, algorithmically and at scale.

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far on Northern Ireland. I trust that he will continue to engage with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive in the days ahead. However, he has not been able to allay my fears about the possible inclusion of online safety in any US deal. Can he reassure me and the Molly Rose Foundation that no more young lives will be sacrificed in order to try to get a deal with the US?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Prime Minister, I get it: nobody wants to get into a trade war. But, unlike Peter Mandelson, sometimes you have got to stand up for what you believe in. My friends in the DUP have learned nothing from their mistake of backing Brexit, and think that tariffs are a laughing matter. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to stand up for ourselves, we need to back our workers and we need to back our businesses—not just in Lagan Valley but, indeed, across the UK?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. We all know how the song goes:“You’ve got to know when to hold ’em,Know when to fold ’em, Know when to walk away,And know when to run”.We in Northern Ireland have done all of them, because the system of government that we have is a gamble. Well, I am not prepared to roll the dice on the people of Lagan Valley, who have already been without government 40% of the time. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that he wants to stop the cycles of collapse, and so do I, but do not then turn around and tell us in Northern Ireland that we cannot deliver public service transformation, if no steps are taken to stop the collapse. The people of Northern Ireland who I represent—nationalist, Unionist and unaligned, like myself—are all out of aces. Our public services are on the floor. Will this Government be the one to step up to the plate, reform the institutions, end the veto and stop rolling the dice on the people of Northern Ireland?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Member for his advocacy on this subject over a long time. The satellite centres are one thing. I represent Northern Ireland and my constituency of Lagan Valley, and I note that there are people in the Gallery involved in the All-Island Cancer Research Institute. Does he agree that geography is important and that cancer knows no boundaries, so our efforts to tackle it should also know no boundaries?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his responses so far. Does he agree that the first duty of the Competition and Markets Authority is to ensure that regulations are followed, and to break up monopolies at a time when our small businesses are suffering? The national insurance increase has not helped. If the CMA takes decisions that just so happen to have the by-product of stimulating economic growth, that is well, but the narrative that taking away regulation will promote growth is wrong.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the effectiveness of Northern Ireland’s political institutions. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will present three key points. I will show that Northern Ireland’s governance is structurally ineffective and keeps us trapped in cycles of instability and dysfunction. I will outline the modest, straightforward solutions to reform our institutions and unlock Northern Ireland’s potential. I will say why the UK Government must act, and why that action must be taken urgently. Devolution in its most recent form began in Northern Ireland more than 25 years ago. Since then, Stormont has been without a functioning Government for almost 40% of its lifespan. I am not good at maths, but that is nearly half, so it is not a new phenomenon. Stormont has been held to ransom multiple times since its inception, with prolonged collapses in 2000, 2002 to 2007, 2017 to 2020, and most recently in 2022 to 2024. Those collapses have left our institutions in a cycle of dysfunction, and our public services and finances in a state of decay. Some may question whether the subject of my debate undermines the Good Friday agreement, but that could not be further from the truth. I wholeheartedly support the Good Friday agreement and endorse its underlying principles, values and interlocking relationships.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. Today, close to 40% of the population hold a national identity that is not exclusively British or Irish, while the proportion of Members of the Legislative Assembly designated as neither Unionist nor nationalist has more than doubled since 2011. The days of defining Northern Ireland’s politics in purely binary terms is over—I am proof of that—yet our power-sharing arrangements continue to do so, at the expense of stability and progress. There is also a misconception that reform of the Good Friday agreement would be an unprecedented departure from our peace agreements. Again, that is untrue. For example, the changes made during the St Andrews agreement in 2006 on how the Executive operated were a significant departure from the Good Friday agreement, and increased instability and the unfettered power of the two largest parties to the detriment of good government. The proposals that I will outline would move us closer to the original purpose of the Good Friday agreement’s provisions. Although we will have had an Executive in place for the past year, the truth is that our institutions are no more stable today than on the day they collapsed. It is my firm view that it is not a matter of if Stormont collapses, but when. Over the past 12 months, any number of the political events that have unfolded could have triggered a collapse. That risk is never far from my mind or those of my Lagan Valley constituents. Most of all, that constant looming threat prevents the transformative, bold action necessary to get Northern Ireland’s public services and finances in order. That will remain the case for as long as our power-sharing structures grant individual parties the ability to veto the functioning of government. Who bears the brunt of ransom politics and those perpetual cycles? It is the people of Northern Ireland, whether they are Unionist, nationalist or neither, such as myself. For decades, our communities have yearned and fought for progress only to be shackled by a system that is fundamentally flawed. It is a system that allows one party to veto progress as and when it pleases, leaving the people and public services of Northern Ireland in limbo and decay. The outworkings of this system have been immensely damaging. As many hon. Members will be aware, Northern Ireland has by far the highest health waiting lists in the UK. Our schools are underfunded, our roads in disrepair, and our public services stretched to breaking point. At the same time, our talented young people are leaving for opportunities elsewhere because they see no future in a system that continually fails them. I asked myself whether I would mention that we have some of the longest waiting lists and that our public services are under pressure, because hon. Members across the UK—and we in Northern Ireland are part of the UK—have the same issues. The outlier is that we have the biggest spend per head in the UK on health, yet we have the worst outcomes.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. I am not sure of the provenance of that line on spend; as the former Health Minister for Northern Ireland, he will be aware of the intricacies. His point is well made, however, because there are structural issues within Northern Ireland. Simply put, our health issues in Northern Ireland are linked to the fact that we cannot manage to have Government long enough to embed a long-term system of public transformation, which is exactly what we need. For years, Alliance has championed practical, achievable reforms to restore stability, hope and trust in Northern Ireland’s governance. First, we must change the way that we nominate the First and Deputy First Ministers. Currently, the process allows one party to block the formation of an Executive, holding the entire system hostage. Indeed, whenever I was first elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, I sat in my seat on more than one occasion and we voted across the Chamber to elect a Speaker but, due to the rules of the game, we went away time and again for nearly three years because we could not form a Government. Reforming that process would ensure that no single party could veto democracy. We also need to replace the outdated system of parallel consent, which entrenches division rather than promoting collaboration. Instead, we should adopt mechanisms that reflect the diversity of our society and encourage cross-community support. The petition of concern is another area crying out for reform. Originally designed to protect minority rights, it has been weaponised to block progressive legislation time and again.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will make progress. All of us in this House, regardless of our political opinion, took a job to do what is right for people. I do not want to think that there are people who have different political persuasions from mine who think that it is right to deny people government. I do not regard myself as being better than anybody else because I do not designate as a Unionist or nationalist. Indeed, as time goes on, I sometimes have sympathy for a Unionist perspective and at other times I have sympathy for a nationalist perspective. Both those traditions are a huge part of my life. My family is drawn from across Northern Ireland and nobody can tell me that a Unionist is lesser than a nationalist, or that a nationalist is lesser than a Unionist. However, the system that we have has an in-built bias towards people such as me, who are drawn from across the community, and it says, “You are lesser than them. Your vote does not count the same as that of a Unionist or nationalist.” Although that may have been the predominant viewpoint at the time the Good Friday agreement was signed, it does not reflect the Northern Ireland that we live in today. This issue is not about people saying, “We are better than you, because we don’t involve ourselves in a debate.” That is absolutely not what we are about. We are about making sure that the Northern Ireland that we live in today, which is made up of minorities—there is no one majority view—is represented. I think others would do well to consider that viewpoint. If that is the situation, every single political viewpoint must be regarded as equal, not just because that would take my party up to the level it should be at, but because it is simply unconscionable for us to have a system that collapses time and again, and then to turn round and ask why our public services, our economy and everything else are not working. What else would hon. Members expect me to say? I am standing here because these proposals are what the people of Lagan Valley want me to ask for. I simply say to the Minister that they are modest proposals, which are not against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. In fact, I would say that they bolster the spirit of that agreement. Surely, that is the legacy that people of my generation—a new generation—were promised. Let us now get on and deliver.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will not; I will make some progress. It is in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement that I campaign for reform of our governance. The Good Friday agreement must be understood as it was intended, as a foundation for future progress, integration and normalisation, rather than a permanent solution to the divided society that we had in 1998. As far back as 1999, my Alliance party wrote of the inherent risks in embedding rigid consociationalism within our political structures. We have always been pragmatic about the need for our political structures to evolve. More than 25 years later, the political structures born out of the Good Friday agreement, and the subsequent agreements, no longer reflect the diversity and progress of our society.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will simply state, as I have already said, that time and time again we hear from people across Northern Ireland—whether they are Unionist, nationalist or other—that they do not want this system of collapse to be permanently baked in. When we stood for election to represent our constituents, we took a job.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, I mean the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann)—North Antrim was his old life; the new hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is here in Westminster Hall. What do we have to show for those Treasury costs? The outcome is directly related to our inability to plan and budget long term, and to take the brave action necessary to reform our public services.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will make progress. That tool has been used not to protect but to prevent. It is time to reclaim it for its intended purpose. Those proposals are modest and should not be controversial; they do not alter the fundamental principles of the Good Friday agreement. The reforms are not about party politics, but about people. I am sure that every single Member of this House who represents Northern Ireland, and every single Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, wants to put their constituents first and does not want a system in which they go without Government. How in all good conscience could they support such action? Finally, I turn to why Westminster must act. Some may argue that reforming Northern Ireland’s institutions should be left to the local parties, but let us be honest: that ship has sailed. The Secretary of State’s reliance on consensus has stalled progress and it is the people of Northern Ireland who are paying the price. Indeed, it is the people of Northern Ireland—whether they are Unionist, nationalist or other—who constantly say, regardless of their dearly held political beliefs, that they do not believe it is fair for one player to walk off the pitch and thereby, at a very basic level, deny people government. The UK Government are the co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement. They have both a legal and moral duty to ensure effective governance in Northern Ireland, and there is a precedent for that. In the past, when consensus has been unachievable because of our institutional framework, the UK Government have stepped in. On Irish language rights, marriage equality, organ donation and reproductive rights, consecutive UK Governments have stepped up to the plate to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland, which is a constituent part of the UK, are not held back by our institutional failure. Westminster acted because it was simply the right thing to do to implement what I would regard as long-held and settled policies across the rest of the United Kingdom. The reform that I am discussing today is in not just Northern Ireland’s interests, but all our interests. A stable Northern Ireland reduces Treasury costs and boosts economic growth across the UK. Many MPs have rightly questioned—indeed, the hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned—

• 21 Jan 2025 · Southport Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Constituents across Lagan Valley send their thoughts and prayers not just to the families of Elsie, Alice and Bebe, but to the community of Southport. Something that has deeply concerned me for a long time is the radicalisation of young people in particular. As the Home Secretary explicitly stated, there is an online surge of young people becoming radicalised, including those who are interested in and look at content on violence against women and terror-linked activity. How will a lack of ideology be captured so that we can identify potential perpetrators? What laws can we pass in this House not only to stop social media companies profiting, but to ensure that they are aware of such violent and terrorist content on their platforms?

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for bringing this matter to the House, and everybody who has spoken so brilliantly. This debate further proves the point that the issue of diet and health is personal to so many people, and it has been incredible to hear that echoed across the House. Food is essential for life. It is part of who we are, part of our story and, for many in this House and across the UK, part of our cultural heritage. However, so many families across the UK cannot make ends meet; they are literally struggling to put food on the table. I pay tribute to the Resurgam Trust community fridge based in the Laganview and Old Warren estate in Lisburn, and to Dee and Carol, who operate the St Vincent de Paul service at the chapel in Lisburn. I feel almost awful saying that, because people in our society should not be forced to use charity in this day and age. Food banks were not normal whenever I was growing up 30 years ago, and talking about them in this way still makes me feel really queasy. I want to call out something that for me is an elephant in the room just now. Like all thorny societal issues, it will not be addressed and dealt with in the Health Departments here in England and in Northern Ireland. We have people who work some of the longest hours in Europe. Workers on minimum wage, and often on zero-hours contracts, go home at the end of the day to houses that do not have big kitchens and fancy utensils. They might not know how to use pasta or this, that and the other. And why should we dictate what foods people should eat? It is up to them to choose what to eat. Yes, ideally it should be healthy, but we are now in a situation where we are saying, “Well, if you use your money wisely, you can spend £20 and buy a big job lot of pasta and a bit of pasta sauce.” What people eat is up to them; what we should be doing is ensuring that they are paid well and in stable work, and then they can choose the good, nutritious and sustainable foods that they want to eat, rather than having to go to some place to beg for food just to live. [ Interruption. ] Sorry, this is something I feel really passionately about. At the heart of all this is inequality. What the Resurgam Trust community fridge does well is link it all together. We are dealing with a situation in which some of the biggest issues of the day, including housing and health, are all linked. It is because we have taken things for granted. Some of the wealthiest people live in my Lagan Valley constituency—there are houses on the market at £250,000 to £1 million—but on the estates in Lisburn, what people are eating is not healthy and is not good for them. I can also list the associated health problems, which include various comorbidities, obesity, heart disease and cancer. I really worry about the impact of ultra-processed foods, particularly on young people. We are seeing a stark rise in colorectal cancer in particular. I know that some people are reluctant to make that link, and I am not explicitly making it, but we have fundamentally changed the sorts of food that we eat. I could go and do a supermarket shop today and buy something called noodles, but they are not noodles at all. I do not know what they are made of. I was not very good at science, but I know that margarine is one molecule away from plastic. Is that the sort of stuff that we should be eating? It does not sound good to me to eat plastic. That is the bare reality of it. We also tell people to eat their five a day. Yes, they should, but the number of pesticides and herbicides in some of our food worries me. Some people might not want to hear that. People think that they are eating healthy food, but we must consider how we process that food. I was shocked to learn about how we classify processed foods, some of which I, a relatively educated person, would have thought were unprocessed, but are not. I cannot remember which hon. Member said that ingredients are marketed as a cereal with certain vitamins, for example, which sounds great, but that actually that is nonsense. We could not put anything more unhealthy on our children’s plates. That goes back to my earlier point: if people are short on time and money, it is because of choices that we have made in this Chamber and in chambers right across Europe and the world. We have made the choice to deprive people and families, whether they are family units, carers or people who look after children. I do not think that that choice is right. We cannot turn around now and decry the obesity epidemic whenever we are not supporting people to live and work well. I simply ask that we look at the other external factors linked to this. Yes, it is about food, and yes, we should be doing more, but we should not be considering that in isolation. We in this House are tasked with the job of looking after every constituent in the UK. That should be as much about ensuring that they have a roof above their head as it is about ensuring that they have a choice of nutritious and affordable food because we have given them good, stable jobs. That is all I ask. I send that message strongly from my Lagan Valley constituents.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I am so grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way and indulging me. I simply want to add to his conclusion. These women have been part of a generation of women who have been discriminated against by statutory provisions over their lifetimes—whether by the reprehensible marriage bar, the gender pay gap or now this. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree. [Applause.]

• 15 Jan 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their responses so far. One response highlighted Northern Ireland as having dual market access. On that basis, do they agree that initiatives such as the Dublin-Belfast economic corridor in my constituency need support so that we can make the most of our economic opportunities?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and of course I will join him in that. In closing, I want us to keep talking about living and dying well because we cannot shy away from that debate. We owe it to our constituents, not just mine in Lagan Valley but those across the UK, to ensure that we get this right.