Sorcha Eastwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Investment: Technology Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her responses so far. Northern Ireland is indeed open for business, and I am delighted that companies are investing in my hometown. Does she agree that the Dublin to Belfast economic corridor, which includes my constituency of Lagan Valley, will play a key part and that it is a huge opportunity for investment?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Hospitality has also been hit by the apprenticeship levy. We used to have entry-level jobs in hospitality and tourism that gave our young people a chance to skill up, but those are now gone because of decisions on national insurance and the levy. Does the hon. Member agree that that needs to change?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his responses so far. I, too, stand in solidarity with workers at the Prax Lindsey site. Whenever big companies are responsible for the stewardship of our energy, and sometimes for its generation, I worry that the cost will be passed on to consumers. I am also worried that workers at the Tata Steel site in my constituency of Lagan Valley, who are currently engaged in industrial action, have had their meeting cancelled by management. Does the Minister agree that these jobs are important and key to our transition for the future, and that those workers should not be left behind?

• 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 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

  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?

• 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 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

  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—

• 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 · 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?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Town Centres · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the point that the hon. Member has just made. Does he agree that businesses are facing not just a cost of living crisis, but a cost of doing business crisis? In my constituency, a restaurant called Huxo, which only opened a year ago, has unfortunately had to close—he referenced that issue in his own constituency. Does he agree that it would be useful to hear from the Minister what the Government intend to do to help our local businesses with the cost of doing business crisis?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to have tabled several amendments to the Bill to support people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the organisations that lobbied me to do so. Amendments 10, 11 and 12 seek to protect Northern Ireland’s healthcare, social care, childcare, hospices, and community and voluntary sectors from the impacts of the proposed rise in employer’s national insurance contributions. Those sectors provide vital services in Lagan Valley and right across Northern Ireland, yet they are being asked to bear a disproportionate burden without the ability to mitigate the costs. Let me begin by recognising the importance of sustainable funding for public services. My party welcomed many aspects of the Chancellor’s inaugural Budget, including changes to fiscal rules, NHS investment, and the unpausing of city and growth deals. However, we are deeply concerned about the consequences of the national insurance increase for critical sectors in Northern Ireland that are already operating under immense financial strain. During the last five years, community and voluntary groups have played a critical role, from supporting our communities during the covid-19 pandemic to responding to the ongoing cost of living crisis. However, despite their vital contributions, they are once again treated as peripheral when it comes to matters of funding and taxation. In Northern Ireland, our higher public sector dependency and chronic underfunding mean that such groups in our region are uniquely vulnerable to the rise in NI. Indeed, the recent Executive monitoring round in October made it clear that the Barnett consequential remains inadequate to cover departmental overcommitments. Community and voluntary organisations are not an optional extra. They are currently a cornerstone of public service delivery, often co-designing and implementing essential programmes in partnership with Government. However, when financial pressures mount, they are frequently left to shoulder an unfair burden. The national insurance hike risks further entrenching that inequity. Such organisations should not be regarded as expendable. They must be exempt from the increase, which is precisely what my amendments seek to achieve. Northern Ireland’s hospices are overwhelmingly reliant on private donations, and Members from across the House have referred to the Westminster Hall debate that we had only a few weeks ago. Regardless of their opinion on the subject, everyone recognised the importance of hospices, yet the proposed NI rise will see some of their doors close. That is the reality of what we are facing today. As for trying to get a GP appointment, good luck—not just in Lagan Valley and Northern Ireland, but right across the UK—as general practice is struggling to meet the many demands that are put on it. Today I want to highlight the unique circumstances that we in Northern Ireland face. The challenges are not abstract; they are real, tangible and deeply felt by my constituents. It should come as no surprise to Members present that Northern Ireland’s health waiting lists are some of the longest in Europe, and far exceed those in the rest of the UK. Despite being the bedrock of our healthcare system and being under immense financial strain in Northern Ireland, providers such as GPs, dentists and pharmacists are currently not exempt from the rise in NI, even though they are already struggling under immense cost pressures. Capacity reductions in primary care are simply not an option for Northern Ireland. Dental practices, particularly those providing NHS services, which are in high demand, have seen operating costs surge by 30% to 40% since 2019. With Department of Health funding failing to keep pace, many practices are unable to provide affordable care to patients. Indeed, anecdotal and evidential data shows that, in some areas of deprivation, young children are presenting with extreme tooth issues and have nowhere to go. In a joint statement earlier this month, Community Pharmacy NI, the British Medical Association NI, the British Dental Association NI and Optometry NI said: “Medical, pharmacy, dental and optometry providers are the front door to the health service for families across Northern Ireland and vital for the transformation of care here. Yet these services are under extreme financial pressure, resulting in the closure of general practices.” Indeed, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) mentioned that many GPs are being forced to hand back contracts. The statement continues: “Without adequate protection from these UK Government policy changes, the precarious position of Family Practitioner Services in Northern Ireland will deteriorate further. It is now an urgent imperative for the UK Government to protect primary care or risk the collapse of these vital services in communities across Northern Ireland.” I turn to the voluntary and community sectors. The voluntary sector employs over 55,000 staff in Northern Ireland and delivers essential services, often on behalf of Government. New research from the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action has revealed the devastating impact this NIC increase will have on the sector. A recent NICVA survey of 68 organisations found that 76% expect major financial impacts, with additional costs of between £5,000 and £200,000 annually. One social care provider anticipates annual increases of up to £500,000. Many organisations predict inevitable redundancies, particularly in core administrative roles.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Unpaid Carers · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Member bringing this matter to the House. We can see clearly from the cross-party representation in the Chamber that it matters to everybody. Many in those roles are actually young people. Whenever we are talking about employment rights and workers’ rights, it is important that we remember young people, and particularly young carers, who may be care-experienced on top of that. Does she have an opinion on that?

• 9 Jul 2024 · Election of Speaker · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker-Elect. I warmly congratulate you on your re-election. I am here as the new MP for Lagan Valley and representative for the Alliance party of Northern Ireland. My presence here demonstrates a changing, more shared and more integrated Northern Ireland. Of that, we in Alliance are very proud. Mr Speaker-Elect, you have managed business smoothly and fairly, including ensuring that smaller parties have had their voices heard. Given the greater diversity of parties in this House, that leadership and precedent becomes even more important. I also want to put on the record how well you represented Parliament on the world stage, and at the time of the passing of our late Queen and the coronation of our new King. I also want to associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about this job being one of public service. All of us in this House owe a debt of gratitude to our constituents. I will never forget the constituents of Lagan Valley, and I join everyone in the whole House in looking forward to committing myself to public service for all.