Victoria Collins MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 1 Jun 2026 · Defence Bonds · Hansard source

  More

  14. If he will take steps with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to issue defence bonds to help increase funding for military capabilities.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  May I gently but urgently reiterate the previous two questions? Sam, one of my constituents, has raised Dynamic Metals, an independent British supplier working on specialised steel and metals for aerospace and motorsports. We have to champion those industries in this country. From 1 July, his business will see import tariffs go from zero to more than £3 million. That is pretty much insurmountable, and this policy could have an awful impact on industries that we must champion. Will the Minister consider the points raised in the previous two questions, as well as extending the deadline and meeting my constituents and those of many others in order to understand the full impact? That way, we can stand up for our industries and support our steel partners.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  In the two years since the last King’s Speech, and my maiden speech, the world has changed dramatically. The global insecurity we face was always real, but now the insecurity has come to our shores. It is felt in our economy, our homes and our everyday lives, and we are living in a global tinderbox. The voters spoke in the local elections: they sent a clear message that they do not trust the current Government to defend their interests or to create resilience, stability and growth, which are key to our nation’s defence. In Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring and the villages, families feel the instability every day, with many struggling to pay their bills and wondering how they will pay their fluctuating mortgage or rent. They see the high costs of childcare and worry about their children getting the right education or staying safe online, all while costs continue to rise. Parents, such as Louisa from Wheathampstead, are worried about getting their kids into the right school. Her child, who has specific SEND needs, has already been through failed placements. She says: “It is only in a specialist school that they feel safe, settled and able to learn.” The younger generation look at the broken system, and it is no wonder they question whether they should pay into it. Hannah, a sixth-former from Harpenden, says: “I’ve never considered living in Harpenden in the future because it’d be far too expensive to buy a place to live.” Despite the official definition, new build homes are nowhere near being genuinely “affordable”, given that they cost half a million pounds. The older generation, who worked hard and paid into the system, have not got what they were promised. One of my constituents says: “I started work at 15, and the deal was that I would finish working at 60.” Another says: “I struggle with poverty and exhaustion, and I was told to carry on working until I was 66. I have been plagued with heath issues ever since.” In the middle, the young and middle-aged professionals are squeezed. The path laid out before them has shifted beneath their feet. They were told, “Buy a house, have kids if you want to, and work in a job that you love. You will have more wealth and freedom than your parents did.” However, each generation now faces less wealth, less freedom and fewer opportunities. No wonder politics is being turned on its head, all while people scroll through a picture-perfect world that falls apart with every news headline. The businesses in our communities—the backbone of our economy—are finding it harder, more expensive and more challenging. Darren, who runs Faire at 190 in Berkhamsted, is a serial entrepreneur who knows what he is doing. He is finding the costs and burdens unsustainable. He says that the continuing rise in staff costs is killing the hospitality sector, and goes on to say: “This Government is driving experienced entrepreneurs away, quietly draining the UK of the people most likely to build, hire and invest again.” Our communities feel again and again that they are done to, not worked with. There is no greater example than completely undemocratic top-down development plans that bypass local communities, who understand the need for housing but not on a scale that the local infrastructure cannot handle. Like many people, Lucy from Tring is genuinely concerned about the impact on our communities and landscapes. Liz from Redbourn says that the legacy of this Labour Government will see the death of our villages. She says: “The effect on wildlife and the chalk streams will be immense.” For our communities and our country, the time for action is now. This King’s Speech could have been an opportunity to reset the direction of this country. Although I welcome the action to tackle energy costs and sewage, and to end unfair residential leaseholds, such measures do not go far enough. Where is the urgent action to end the social care crisis? Where is the “good food” Bill to back British farmers? Where is the commitment to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030? That is vital to keep our borders safe. Where is the digital sovereign strategy? Where is the defence readiness Bill? And where is the ambitious EU reset Bill that we desperately need to grow our economy? That would empower our communities and make us richer and safer. This country is at a crossroads. Our current Government are not delivering. The two old parties are finished. The populists and extremists want to burn things down. Millions of people want change, which is about building things up. That is the kind of positive change that the Liberal Democrats are offering—change that brings people, communities and our country together, and which makes us ready to face the international insecurity that rocks our borders. We believe in a better, stronger trade and defence relationship with Europe, one that truly delivers for Britain. I believe in collaborative sovereignty that values our resilience through prosperity, production and partnership, backing British domestic strength while working with our allies to be stronger, whether through military sovereignty, digital sovereignty, energy sovereignty or food sovereignty, but being stronger as a nation and being stronger partners internationally. As politicians, we must turn up again and again. We have to turn up in the messiness but be honest about what needs to be done. And with that comes hope: hope for a better future, for growth and for prosperity. So the time is now. The moment for us to be radically reasonable is now. It is time that the system worked for local people. In my maiden speech, I shared that my mother came to this country in search of opportunity, and through everything that I do here, I want to ensure that same opportunity is available for all who seek it. That means a bolder vision for our Great Britain, and that needs to start now.

• 20 May 2026 · Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  Having worked across Departments and with my technology counterpart in the Lords, we have published a comprehensive paper on how Britain can thrive in the age of AI. It calls for a digital sovereign strategy and an integrated approach to AI that is bold, responsible, pro-innovation, pro-trust and built alongside industry and civic expertise. I would be happy to discuss this. We see Britain having a leading place in AI services, but we have squandered leads before, and the Government have not offered a coherent, joined-up strategy on how to do this differently, in a way that is centred on trust and standards. Where is the Government’s AI Bill? Can we have guarantees that Labour’s latest internal drama will not cost Britain its most important economic opportunity in a generation?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister talks about swift action, but the timelines put forward in the Lords still add up to 21 months before there is action. Does the Minister believe that that is at all swift? I do not think that parents will.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  You talk about swift action, but actually what you talked about—

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Over the Easter weekend, a 6-acre site in the Chilterns national landscape saw a massive unauthorised development. Despite swift action from Dacorum borough council to issue a temporary stop notice and an injunction, the work continued, with the police powerless to stop it and the council without the resources. What will the Minister do through cross-departmental work to uphold the rule of law and protect our precious landscapes?

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK Biobank Data · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join the Government in thanking the volunteers who have given researchers access to deeply personal medical records. A very close family member of mine has recently taken the decision to share medical data—although not with UK Biobank—in order to advance such research. It is not an easy decision, but this is such an important cause. Without the many people who have handed over their data, many of the transformational medical breakthroughs of recent years would not have been possible. That is precisely why what has happened is so serious. This is not the first leak from UK Biobank. In March, The Guardian reported that sensitive medical data donated in good faith had been posted online without the consent of donors, and records have now been put up for sale on a Chinese e-commerce site. This is a profound betrayal of the people who trusted this institution with some of the most intimate details of their lives. UK Biobank has sought reassurances that no names, contact details, NHS numbers or phone numbers were leaked. That is reassuring, but the dismissal of privacy concerns shows a shocking lack of understanding of how easily individuals can be identified, especially in today’s world of artificial intelligence and social media. I urge the Government to hold UK Biobank accountable, and to ensure that protocols are followed and that confidential patient data is not shared online. Although we are pleased to see a quick and full response from the UK Government in this instance, volunteers need more. Will the Secretary of State require UK Biobank to provide a full, step-by-step breakdown of how it will reform its data privacy once and for all? We need not just guidance or reassurance, but binding commitments that this will not happen again, and that includes some of the technical elements. We cannot just rely on people’s commitment not to download something; the technical barriers should be there. Will the Government ensure that any new guidance strikes the right balance between enabling vital research and guaranteeing watertight protections for patient data? Such data is vital for research, which is so important for the future. Finally, has UK Biobank even offered an apology to its volunteers? We cannot find one, so we are calling on UK Biobank to issue a full apology without delay. People gave their data to save lives, and they at least deserve accountability.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Young Adult Carers: Education and Training · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate. Like many, I think this debate should start with a very strong and clear thank you to carers across this country. Young adult carers are one of the most overlooked groups, as mentioned by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Harlow. In that moment just after formal education, when young carers become young adult carers, they move into an informal space where care for them is even more desperately needed. As many hon. Members have today, I will put on record the scale of the work that young carers do. More than 131,000 young people aged 16 to 24 provide at least 20 hours of unpaid care every single week, and more than 40,000 of them care for more than 50 hours a week, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. That is more than a full-time job. As the hon. Member for Harlow highlighted, there are many who do not even know they are caring. They are just showing love to their family members, but they give so much. I mentioned young adult carers, who are past formal education, but the question of access to education and training starts before that. In 2025, fewer than half of young carers left secondary school with five GCSEs including English and maths. By the time young carers are doing their A-levels, they are 60% less likely than non-young carers to achieve the equivalent of three A-levels. Nearly half of young carers were persistently absent from school last year through no fault of their own. We talk about almost 1 million young people being not in education, employment or training, but we need to make sure that Ministers do not overlook this group as part of that picture. When we look at NEETs, how many of them are carers, as the hon. Member for Harlow mentioned? Just last week in Harpenden, I met the organisation Carers in Hertfordshire. There was a mix of ages, including a young carer named Jordan, who spoke so lovingly about how he supported his mum. Themes were raised that ring true for this debate. One carer described unpaid caring as “a one-person care home” with “no place to think and no headspace.” Another spoke of feeling invisible, living “behind closed doors”, and said that simply meeting other carers was itself a lifeline. Many young carers, as I mentioned, do not know that they are carers; they are simply doing what they can for loved ones. Identifying who they are is key, as the hon. Member for Harlow highlighted. Jordan, whom we spoke to, highlighted the choices he is making now about the college he is going to and about work, and shared lovingly how his responsibilities shape those choices. It does have an impact. What came through these discussions was that triple failure: lack of funding, lack of support, and the all-encompassing life of being a family carer. The APPG inquiry confirms that this is systemic. As care increasingly shifts out of hospitals and into homes, more young people are quietly being handed responsibilities that the NHS used to carry, with nothing offered in return, and their education and training options are impacted as a consequence. The Liberal Democrats have for a long time been champions of carers. I am sure many know that our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), knows first hand what it is to be a young carer for his mother and is now a carer for his son. We believe that education, apprenticeships and employment must be genuine, accessible options for every young adult carer, no matter where they live. We must ensure that young adult carers get the full support they need to have the chance of the future that they deserve. My very first question in the Chamber was about having cross-party discussions on social care, because at the heart of this is also the caring system that encompasses our NHS, and that is vital. To further support young carers, the Liberal Democrats would abolish the 21-hour rule for carers’ allowance, which is also part of the recommendations. That 21-hour rule forces young people to choose between studying and surviving. We would require every school and college to appoint a young carers lead; fund proper breaks for young carers; restore maintenance grants; and make caring a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Will the Minister commit to abolishing that 21-hour rule, which is actively pushing carers out of education? Will he look at a youth guarantee and jobs guarantee, specifically addressing the needs of young adult carers, and not treat this as an afterthought? Young carers give everything to their families, as do carers. However, young adult carers are at the cusp of coming out of formal support, and that is so difficult. We must ensure that the Government do as much as they can to give back to them. I again thank the hon. Member for Harlow for securing this debate.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  After years of Conservative failures to do so, Liberal Democrat councils across Harpenden and Berkhamsted are working hard to secure a local plan for housing. However, the Government’s work on top-down planning, which gives Dacorum an increase of about 40% in housing numbers and St Albans an increase of almost 90%, and the Government’s grey belt proposals are literally giving developers a field day in Harpenden and Berkhamsted—including in Tring, where we see proposed increases of about 40% across the village. Now that the Government are seeing the impact of that policy, will the Leader of the House help us to secure a debate on grey belt—and a visit from the Minister to see those green belt areas, which are supposedly grey belt, right on the Chilterns national landscape?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this debate, and I commend the APPG on gambling reform for its report. This has been a fascinating exchange. We have been told that the gambling industry is worth billions of pounds to this country, but here we are discussing advertising. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) argued that if we over-regulate the regulated market—especially advertising—we might grow the unregulated market. There is an argument to be had about whether we can regulate the black or unregulated economy, but that relates to enforcement. The fact that an element of gambling is unregulated and takes place in an even more unsafe space is an argument for increased enforcement, not less regulation. As the hon. Member for Worthing West said, gambling advertising is a public health issue. Of course, there is a great industry, but we are talking about the public health element of advertising, including advertising to vulnerable people and children. The question is: what is the cost of that advertising? The financial cost is £1.4 billion every year drained from our economy in the form of financial harms and the associated impact of problem gambling—but there is another cost, which has not been mentioned today and cannot be expressed in monetary terms. Public Health England highlights that every year 400 people take their own lives as a result of gambling. That is 400 families shattered—it is more than one person every single day. The damage from gambling runs through our society in many ways. As the hon. Member eloquently put it, there are fun and light elements of gambling, but the addiction runs deep. My brief covers social media, so I know how much addictive behaviour has been built into that technology. That is exactly what happens with a lot of online gambling apps—and it goes deep. Today’s debate has helped us to look at that more clearly. There are other harms too. Nearly two thirds of those who gamble carry gambling-related debt—not “many”, not “some”, but two thirds. That is the true scale of what we are dealing with. It is not all fun. Those statistics about the money, the debt and the lives are not statistics that we should accept. The report from the APPG on gambling reform highlights that it is vital to question the role of advertising within that. I have constituents who worry about gambling. Some have written to me specifically about young people being increasingly and dramatically harmed by gambling. Members across the Chamber seem to agree with that. Some 30% of 11 to 17-year-olds regularly spend their own money on gambling—that is driven largely by unregulated gambling, but that is about enforcement. Importantly, nearly half of young people see gambling adverts online weekly, predominantly through social media. As the hon. Member for Halesowen highlighted, those targeted ads are really pernicious—the algorithms are so strong. It is strikingly clear that we need reforms to protect the young people and adults impacted by gambling. It is not just the Liberal Democrats and Members across the Chamber who think so: the World Health Organisation and three leading public institutions in the UK alone recommend ending gambling advertising. Many countries have already acted so, as the hon. Member for Worthing West highlighted, the UK is falling behind. Although the Liberal Democrats welcome the statutory gambling levy and the increase in gaming duty, we do not think those steps go far enough. The evidence is there. Gambling advertising leads to people starting to gamble; it leads those who already gamble to gamble more, and it leads those who have stopped gambling to start again. There are clear solutions to reduce the harm that gambling is causing in this country, and it starts with questioning the role of advertising. Will the Minister help to curb the negative impact of gambling advertising, whether it is sponsorship or direct gambling marketing? Will she end pre-watershed gambling advertising? Will she look at a statutory independent gambling ombudsman with real powers to protect consumers and resolve complaints? Will the Government finally replace the failed self-regulatory system with independent, enforceable regulation that actually protects people? There is harm from gambling, as we have discussed, and that speaks for itself. There are 400 gambling-related suicides a year in England alone. That is not inevitable. The Government have the power to fix it, but that starts with taking this seriously and with tackling gambling advertising.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I have a case from Berkhamsted. Louise’s entire estate relies on heating oil, and the price for filling her tank went from £1,080 to £2,500—a more than £1,000 increase—over a weekend. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £35 per household will not touch the sides?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Government Review of the National Planning Policy Framework · Hansard source

  More

  The people of Redbourn have spoken loud and clear. This petition, which has been signed by 1,427 residents, rejects the top-down, developer-led planning approach by this Government, which could see the village of Redbourn increased by 70%. Residents are not opposed to housing, but they are rightly alarmed by the burden placed on their community, including on infrastructure, and they are deeply frustrated by the lack of meaningful voice in shaping the proposals that will define their village for generations to come. From top-down targets to grey-belt policy, community voices have been diminished. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to schedule a debate in the House of Commons on the Government review of the National Planning Policy Framework and how villages like Redbourn can be protected from over-development, and local communities given real power over planning decisions and infrastructure provision that affect the lives of village residents.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Redbourn and the surrounding area, Declares that Redbourn village faces large-scale development proposals driven by national planning law pushing development onto green and grey-belt land; further declares that government policy is having a detrimental impact on Redbourn village’s character and environment. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to schedule a debate in the House of Commons on the Government review of the National Planning Policy Framework and how villages like Redbourn can be protected from over-development , and local communities given real power over planning decisions and infrastructure provision that affect the lives of village residents. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003178]

• 18 Mar 2026 · UK Research and Innovation · Hansard source

  More

  UK Research and Innovation funding will continue to be undermined if the Government’s own procurement strategy sees billions going to companies outside the UK, such as Palantir in the US, when British tech has the solutions. Although we welcome the announcement of AI investment funding, it pales in comparison with the ongoing procurement investment. Will the Government back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill for a comprehensive digital sovereign strategy, backing British tech, research and innovation, which is vital for both our economy and our national security?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Carnivals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and it has been a real pleasure to hear about the different carnivals today; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for that. I am sure everyone here, and everyone listening, has taken note of all the carnivals that we have to visit this year—and, of course, that everyone will remember to clean up their litter afterwards. Carnivals are quite special to me, Mrs Harris, but not for the reason you might expect. In my last year at Durham University, the first house party that my flatmates and I had was carnival-themed, and henceforth we were known as “House Carnival”. The five other girls that I lived with got me through a dissertation, last-year exams and heartbreak, and we have been best friends for life. Almost 20 years later—that sounds far too long; I do not want to believe it!—we are still close friends who gather for the weekend, even from across the UK. But I digress—I may come back to that. Carnivals are also special to the people of Harpenden and Berkhamsted—and, as we have heard, to people all across the country. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, and from across the Chamber today, about the celebration of multiculturalism, the carnival clubs, and the volunteers who dedicate hours of their lives to them and that history that is so special. I loved what she said about not just the importance of a living heritage and the stories that it tells of our past, our present and our future, but the opportunities and challenges; there is the wonder of carnival, but also the practicality around it—the skills and what we learn. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare shared beautiful stories of those celebrated family memories—that light and joy. I loved hearing him talk about shaking off normality; I think we all need a little bit more of that. He also reminded us that carnivals bring people together not only locally but globally, and of that idea of a rite of passage—that, actually, it is not just being there, but being present, because either we have taken part or someone we know has—and how special that is. The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is not far away from my patch. Given the history and the fantastic multiculturalism that she mentioned, especially with the Caribbean and Ukrainian communities who are integral to that, means that I have noted down the 50th Luton International Carnival for this year. In Harpenden and Berkhamsted, we have our Tring summer carnival, organised by Tring Together, where people are sure to be offered some award-winning beers from Tring Brewery, or Puddingstone Distillery’s Campfire Gin—I have a little bit of that in my cupboard. They can hear from Tring Music Partnership, Tring school’s swing band and Tring’s glee club, see the Tring Youth Theatre Project and Tring Shotokan karate club, and have input from the youth town council in Tring. I thank Tring Together, the many dedicated volunteers across this country, and stalwarts such as Vivianne Child. Tring Together works with the Tring Team Parish and the Tring town council, but it is involved in much more than just the carnival—the Tring Business Mart, the Spring Fayre, Tring cinema, Group Action and the Christmas festival. In Tring, we also have the Apple Parade, led by Mr and Mrs Green and supported by Sustainable Tring. That is something to celebrate. This weekend—sadly, I cannot make it—we have the Tring Spring FEASTival. In Harpenden, we have the summer carnival, the Christmas carnival, and all the other joyous occasions that bring the town together. As has been mentioned today, these events also raise money for local charities and support so much of our community. In Berkhamsted, we may not have a carnival by name, but we have BerkoFest. BerkoFest was where I first met John from Herts Welcome Refugees, who was in Parliament just yesterday—it brings so many of us together. It is also where I heard the world-class violinist Nikita Vikhorova from Odessa in Ukraine, just a few months after we lamented Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the war that, sadly, still continues. We also have the festival of light with Berkhamsted town council, bringing joy and festivities and filling the 800-year-old St Peter’s church with candles for a magical evening. In Aldbury, we have the May fair, a wonderful summer day with beautiful colours and the “May Queen”. It is just so special. All those traditions represent, as I said and as has been mentioned, the history, the present and tomorrow. On behalf of other hon. Members, I will mention Somerset, where the carnival tradition stretches back hundreds of years and is one of the most distinctive and cherished cultural traditions in the south-west. It is important to note for the record that Somerset carnival, which runs across four circuits and draws around 150,000 people each year, is a carnival of carts, not floats—I believe that has been mentioned, and that it is a small but important distinction. The modern carnival raises vital funds, and the circuit passes through Shepton Mallet, Glastonbury, Bridgwater, Burnham-on-Sea and Midsomer Norton. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who could not be here today, tells me that the year’s standout achievement went to the Huckyduck carnival club, which won the overall tableau category with its cart “Scarecrow Partea”, achieving maximum points at all seven carnivals on the circuit—a remarkable achievement and testament to the dedication and craft involved. This is a timely debate, however, because that tradition faces a real challenge. It is largely kept alive by the older generation, with their concerted effort and their knowledge, skill and passion, which are so vital but risk being lost. My question to the Minister, which I think has been asked already, is, “What more can be done through arts funding, heritage programmes and community support to help to pass this tradition to the next generation before it is too late?” Each of these town and regional carnivals reflects its own characteristics and community. Carnivals bring together people of all ages and backgrounds. Just like “House Carnival”, which brought me joy, comfort and community and helped to bring out the best in me, carnivals across this country do the same for communities, and we must do what we can to support them. I hope that today has inspired many more to get involved and to visit their carnival, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

• 11 Mar 2026 · UK-based Tech Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I commend the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on securing this essential debate. Entrepreneurship is in my blood. Both my parents ran their own businesses. My mum launched the website for her business over 15 years ago and was so tech-savvy that she had a larger Twitter following than me—and that is when it was called Twitter. As someone who went on to launch my own tech company and took part in the New Entrepreneurs Foundation, I have met so many fantastic entrepreneurs and I am so pleased that we are debating Government support for UK tech, but, boy, do we need more from the Government. On one hand, the UK tech sector is an immense success story, and one that we should be proud of, built on the legacy of Ada Lovelace, Alan Turing and Tim Berners-Lee. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) mentioned DeepMind. We have the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world at nearly £1 trillion. On the other hand, the UK tech sector is a story of frustration, stifled potential and a looming threat that great companies and ideas that are incubated here will be sold off because of a ceiling of funding. I felt that the most powerful way to tell that story today was to amplify the voices of tech leaders themselves. These are the people who are passionate about growing world-class companies here in the UK, but their frustrations are real. It often seems more of a fight to innovate than a celebration of progress. I thank the scores of tech leaders who shared their views with me. Sadly, I cannot get them all in today, but that shows how vital this debate is. I hope that the Government will give this issue more time at some point. I have five requests, and I ask the Minister to address as many as he can. The first one is “procurement, procurement, procurement”. Even the National Audit Office concluded that the Government’s procurement strategy actively favours large, predominantly foreign suppliers, which was brought up in a debate yesterday. Stephen Kines, the co-founder of Goldilock, an award-winning cyber-hardware company, called for the Government to buy UK products and said, “Don’t endlessly innovate in ‘innovation theatre’ programmes only”. I also heard from Doug Monro, the CEO of Adzuna—I am pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells that Adzuna was able to get a public contract eventually, after two and a half years. Doug urges the Government to “buy tech and AI from British startups, not build in-house or buy from massive American companies”. He shared the powerful message that, “We can transform public services, cut the welfare bill, and reduce taxes if you’d only let us.” The Government should be celebrating “made in Britain” by buying “made in Britain”. That is why the Lib Dems have called for a comprehensive public sector technology policy and investment plan and tabled digital sovereign strategy amendments to the cyber Bill. As the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned, this is about growth. My second call is to fix funding fast. The funding desert for scale-ups, that valley of death that we heard about, is well known, but it is worrying how normalised it has become. Ben Rose, the co-founder of Supercede, warns that many tech firms are forced to attract capital from overseas to continue growing at pace—we all know that story, unfortunately. Mark Thomas, the CEO of Appnalysis, notes that the £250,000 limit of the celebrated seed enterprise investment scheme has been eroded by inflation and rising costs to the point that it barely buys 12 months of runway. He asks that the Government look at increasing the limit of the scheme. Leo Rogers, the CEO of Curvo AI, calls for R&D tax credits to be extended to cover compute costs, which in the world of AI are really important. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) mentioned the important issue of financing smaller start-ups, which was mentioned by several entrepreneurs who contacted me. They said that would be helpful to get off the ground and to keep going. Sometimes the funding is there, but the communication of where to find it is not. That is why the Lib Dems have called for, among other policies, an increase in R&D spending to 3.5% of GDP and better support from the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank to de-risk and unlock innovation. We also want a review of IR35, because that is where a lot of the workforce in tech are. The university spin-out support that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) mentioned is important. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells talked about pension funds, and the use of those mega pension funds and where that money can go will be vital to unlocking a lot of innovation in the UK. My third point is that we must treasure our talent. Great talent helps to grow great companies, not only by upskilling at home but by attracting experts from overseas. There are many calls to align, for example, the innovator founder visa with Innovate UK. Claudia Radu, the CEO of Circe, says that we must make sure that talent visas are easier to get. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the skills for the next generation, and we must ensure that our talent and workforce planning as a country is aligned with the skills we need for the future. That is why the Lib Dems believe that there needs to be a national people strategy alongside an industrial strategy, because without those skills and that talent, we cannot deliver on economic ambition. My fourth call is to “think smart regulation”. Tech founders understand the importance of avoiding a race to the bottom, but they are often bogged down in red tape. The App Association warns that tech companies are “overburdened with regulation, tax, and uncertainty caused by ever-changing rules”. That is why I increasingly believe in standards and smart, outcome-focused regulation that supports innovation—and the pace it requires—and helps to build trust. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill talked about the use of competition, which is a vital aspect of that. The fifth call, which is also vital, is to lift up small businesses and start-ups—do not forget them. Not only are SMEs and start-ups the backbone of our economy, but all scale-ups started there; several were mentioned today. Karen Atkinson, the CEO of Mediaholix, says, “I don’t feel that there is any support for small companies. It feels like the government are focusing on the big companies like Meta and Google, which really doesn’t benefit this country in the long run. Quick wins and vanity rather than a true understanding of what it takes and how. Overall the Government are making it exceptionally difficult for small companies to grow.” Another founder put it more starkly, saying, “Currently, Parliament has gamified the system against the success of British SME and micro-SME innovators.” That support in the beginning, whether staff costs or business rates, is something that the Liberal Democrats have raised the alarm on. We call on the Government to do more. Finally, Alex from Synthesia sums it up well. He says, “Buy software made in the UK, simplify procurement for British start-ups, and keep regulation simple and outcome-focused.” I have a dream that we will grow our fantastic UK tech landscape. As my Friend the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) mentioned, we can solve the biggest problems, such as climate change. We can drive that change, but more than that, we could be the country that takes in scale-ups and does not fear that the companies that incubate here will go elsewhere. Anthropic, for example, may not be welcome in the US; I hope it would be welcomed in the UK. The Government must do more to back British tech for our security, economy and the great people driving innovation in Great Britain and around the globe.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I massively thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, not only for securing this debate on one of the biggest issues of our time, but for opening it so eloquently and constructively. We do indeed live in a digital world: our jobs, our banks, our transport and our national security all run on technology. The question of who owns that technology and who controls the data that it generates is not an abstract one; instead, it is the defining question of our time. It is about choice for our Government and for consumers, it is about growth for British tech in a global world, and it is about creating resilience by diversifying risk. A bold strategy on technological sovereignty is how we meet the challenge that we face. Such a strategy means backing British tech, supporting innovation by British businesses that pay British taxes, strengthening our economy and—crucially—protecting our national economy. As Members from across the House, including the hon. Member, have discussed, such a strategy is also about security. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) talked about the risks of foreign interference, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) highlighted that Palantir felt it was too big to follow national law. This issue is about our security, so it is vital. Across the pond, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his willingness to weaponise American power, and especially American technology, to exercise his own political will. Even at home in the US, we see what has happened with Anthropic: he called the people who run it “left wing nut jobs” and directed all Government agencies to stop using it just because the company refused to allow the military unfettered use of its AI tools. We have also seen that approach with the International Criminal Court. The chief prosecutor of the ICC was personally sanctioned by the Trump Administration, including through the disconnection of his Microsoft email last May. Such episodes expose the reality of the world’s increasing vulnerability. The digital infrastructure underpinning international institutions—and by extension our own public services—increasingly can be disrupted at the discretion of a foreign Government. Such concerns are shared. In June last year, a study by Civo, a UK provider of sovereign cloud, found that of 1,000 UK-based IT decision makers, 83% were worried about the impact of international developments on their data sovereignty, with the majority considering data sovereignty a strategic priority. Yet even though the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West highlighted the statistics on the technology used, it seems that that is not a concern of Government. We directly asked the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology how dependent our public services are on US-based cloud technology but the answer was that the Government do not know: it is not being measured at a Government level. That is a serious concern. One of the most basic requirements for resilience is knowing what we depend on. I ask the Minister: do we intend to start collecting that data? At this moment, our essential public services may be running at the mercy of Donald Trump and these big tech firms, yet the Government cannot even tell us by how much. Sovereign technology is not just a matter of national security. As many hon. Members have highlighted in this debate, it is about our economic advantage, growth in this country, improving national standards for technological development, boosting public trust in modern technology, and increasing tax revenues for the UK. Luca Leone, the chief executive officer of Kahootz, wrote for techUK, “The crucial question is no longer only who builds our platforms, but who owns and operates the systems that underpin our most critical capabilities. This is where digital sovereignty meets supply chain resilience.” The hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) spoke eloquently about the skills, the businesses, the spin-outs, and the university research that is so strong in the UK. We need to help those things stay here and scale up—scale-up finance was talked about a lot in this debate. We can be that global leader and we should be. This debate has also highlighted that much of the money set aside for technological investment is not going to UK companies. The National Audit Office concluded that the Government’s procurement strategy actively favours large, predominantly foreign suppliers. The Government have a budget of £14 billion for such investments; where does that money go? Dan Jones, the defence account manager of 4Secure, wrote for techUK that “Digital sovereignty…is not just a single procurement decision. It is an ongoing commitment to control, assurance, and resilience”. Public service contracts go worryingly against that trend. We talked about the contract for Palantir in the NHS, and we talked about Palantir in defence. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West eloquently questioned how much the leaders of such tech firms are aligned with British values, and talked about ensuring that the tech we have is aligned with such values. I ask the Minister to explain why Palantir was prioritised over UK tech in the NHS contract, and what work is being done to review our Government processes. This is about not just software but our telecoms infrastructure—the reliance on Starlink is increasingly worrying—and of course our cloud. I will wrap up by saying that, ultimately, sovereign tech is about power over our everyday lives. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to secure our technology sovereignty? Will he support our new clauses to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill about digital sovereignty—

• 10 Mar 2026 · Digital ID: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s announcement that they have listened to the concerns of the Liberal Democrats and the public about the mandatory system, but the loss of trust resulting from these flip-flopping policies has caused much damage. There remains a question about whether connected systems and better services can be accessed through one login, which is the case in France. Why are the Government not focused on fixing one login, which they spent £100 million on last year? If they do put this system in place, what support will there be for individuals and businesses, which seem to be carrying the burden of this digital ID?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with parts of the hon. Member’s intervention. The developers have armies of legal teams and, as I will come on to, the national legislation is open to interpretation when it comes to roads. Councils are essentially left powerless to enforce the legislation, because developers find the loopholes. They have the money and the power to push past.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. On top of that, councils also warn that when they get section 106 money or funding from the community infrastructure levy, the funding available is not enough for the new roads needed for development. They also warn that if we expect section 106 contributions to deliver all new infrastructure, the burden will often be pushed on to new homeowners, as prices can be pushed up. What is more, there is no guarantee on the delivery or timing of infrastructure plans, often because major infrastructure depends on external bodies or funding cycles, such as for highways and regional transport, as well as on NHS capital planning cycles or educational funding cycles. The Government must adopt an infrastructure-first approach. How will they empower communities to take a cumulative view of the infrastructure impact of planning? What action are the Government taking to address the train capacity and service issues I have highlighted? Let us turn to the reality on the ground for transport services, starting with roads. Local people put it best. Fiona from Berkhamsted says: “The roads are completely overwhelmed by traffic through Berkhamsted.” Anne captures the absurdity of national planning guidance: “The biggest issue for Berkhamsted is a one-size-fits-all NPPF”— national planning policy framework— “for a valley town where the only place left to build is at the top of valley sides, and ancient narrow streets give little scope for cycle routes—certainly not a joined-up network.” Having once been a keen cyclist in Berkhamsted, I can confirm that the difficulty of getting around means that my poor bike has been left locked up. Sarah from Berkhamsted asks: “What’s the point of building new houses if there are no pavements for people to walk or safe roads for cars to use?” Gill from Harpenden is direct, saying: “The town has so many pinch points on already narrow roads that are already causing jams.” As I said, the towns and villages in my constituency are old, and many of the roads were built for horse-drawn traffic. Berkhamsted is a hilly place, but there is not a single mention of topography in the national planning framework. Yet the loose definition of “severe”, in terms of cumulative impact tests for roads and traffic, leaves another door wide open for developers. If someone cannot get around by car, perhaps they can use the bus. Well, that is a whole other story. Under the Conservatives in Hertfordshire, we saw a 56.5% reduction in bus mileage between 2017 and 2023—the biggest reduction in England. That has left us with inaccessible areas where people need a car to get around. The 307 bus in Redbourn runs to Harpenden station only from 9 am, with the last departure at 2 pm, and on Sundays there is no service at all. There is no direct bus connection to local secondary schools. Catherine from Redbourn says it plainly: “While you might have had to wait ten minutes in London for a bus, here we have three buses a day to Harpenden—you cannot rely on the buses.” In Berkhamsted, we worked with local campaigners to bring back the 500 bus every half hour, but the service stops at 7 pm. It is a similar story in Tring. I once tried to get a bus across my constituency, from Wheathampstead to Berkhamsted, but what should have been a 30-minute drive took four hours. The recommended route from Harpenden to Berkhamsted is actually via London and costs £35 one way. Hannah, a sixth-form student from Harpenden, makes the point well: “Public transport allows me as a young person to visit friends and do activities outside the House—it gives me independence.” She adds: “I have never considered living in Harpenden in the future, because it would be far too expensive to buy a place to live.” That is a double failure by this Government that needs to be heard. Young people say they cannot afford to stay and cannot get around even if they could. So what about the train? In the last four weeks, only seven out of 122 daily trains from Harpenden to London ran 100% on time. From Berkhamsted to London, only three out of 78 daily departures ran 100% on time, and from Tring there were also only three. From driver availability issues to Thameslink core infrastructure failures and a bottleneck around Croydon, it seems that things will only get worse as pressures grow around the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton. Beyond housing development, I have mentioned the other pressures from the expansion of Luton and Gatwick airports, and the Universal Studios development. There is a two-track bottleneck through central London, and when it fails, the whole line fails. Govia Thameslink Railway has asked the Government for funding for a back-up system; has that been agreed? What are the Government doing to work with rail operators to prepare for the pressures that are building up on the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Let me start by making something clear: the local people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and the surrounding villages are no nimbys. They are not against housing. They are raising the alarm against top-down national planning that does not serve local housing needs; that leaves local services bursting at the seams without adequate investment, or with investment that is delivered far too late; that fails to deliver the transport infrastructure that communities actually need; and that is eroding precious landscapes, some of which are home to rare chalk streams found nowhere else in the world. Some of those people have joined us in the Public Gallery, and I thank them. This debate is about the impact of planning on transport infrastructure, and to understand that, we need to see the big picture. The towns and villages in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, including Tring, Redbourn, Wheathampstead, Sandridge and Markyate, are steeped in history. The beautiful Chilterns national landscape can be found around Tring, Berkhamsted and Aldbury. Four rare chalk streams thread through the constituency, alongside the Grand Union canal. Settlements that appear in the Domesday Book can be found, and the old Watling Street runs through the centre of Redbourn. There is also Berkhamsted castle, where the English throne was surrendered to William the Conqueror. But there are also towns in the constituency that were originally designed for horse-drawn traffic and are now gridlocked with commuter cars. The M1 cuts right through the middle of the constituency, and every time there is an accident, it causes further gridlock on country lanes. The capacity of Luton airport, which is just seven miles away, is nearly doubling, going from 19 million to 32 million passengers a year. That will add roughly a million passengers per month, many of whom will travel on the same routes as local people. On Thameslink and London Northwestern services, rammed trains are cancelled almost daily—indeed, a group from the Probus club in Harpenden arrived after their train was cancelled today—and bus services have been decimated. That is before we even talk about the impossibility of finding an NHS dentist, the pressures on GPs and the desperate need for additional school places, particularly for children with special educational needs. These old towns and villages are not built for growth of such scale. We must, then, look at the Government’s approach to planning. Labour has continued the top-down numbers legacy that the Conservatives left behind and, in some cases, made it significantly worse. From top-down targets to grey-belt land, developers are literally having a field day, using loopholes to get unplanned development through. This matters. Giving developers the green light leaves us with an unco-ordinated approach, and infrastructure and communities are coming last. The new methodology for calculating housing supply has hit St Albans council particularly hard. Its targets have almost doubled, from 855 to 1,660 homes per year, and the numbers in Dacorum have gone from 1,016 to 1,380 homes per year. Both those increased figures will have to be dealt with in further local plans, because they do not even include the massive housing development that we are seeing now. The changes have left us facing substantial housing sites, such as the 1,400 homes in the Marshcroft development east of Tring, the 850 homes at South Berkhamsted and the more than 700 proposed homes in north-east Harpenden. The Marshcroft development alone would increase the population of Tring by a potential 40%. As Lucy from Tring says: “It makes no sense…our roads can’t handle it.” The town got its market charter over 700 years ago, and it has the roads to match. It is also buttressed against the Chilterns national landscape. I warned the Government from the outset that their plans for development on grey-belt land would hand the advantage to developers rather than communities, which is exactly what has happened. The unclear definition of the grey belt creates a wide-open door for developers, not for communities. Crucially, by focusing protections on towns, the guidance leaves villages, which often have fewer services and weaker infrastructure, far more vulnerable to unplanned development. In Berkhamsted, developers have used the grey-belt back door to push applications adjacent to allocated sites. For example, the grey-belt back door was used in the Haresfoot farm application to get permission to build on green-belt land. The situation in Redbourn is even more alarming. The latest proposal is a 1,000-home development that is not in the local plan but claims grey-belt status. If that is combined with other sites, Redbourn faces a pipeline of development that could see its population grow by over 70%. As Jen from Redbourn says: “I am hugely concerned that there is no local democracy that allows villages to stop disproportionate housing development.” Catherine from Redbourn is equally clear: “When it comes to measuring green belt, brown belt and grey belt land, villages should not be measured in the same way as a town. This is green-belt land with rare chalk streams, water vole and flora that you don’t find in Europe—it should be protected.” Redbourn is precisely the kind of village with less infrastructure that has been left more exposed by grey-belt development. Will the Minister speak with colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the top-down practices that take powers and critical infrastructure away from communities? Although the previous Conservative administrations left Dacorum and St Albans without adopted local plans, which left our area ripe for speculative development, Liberal Democrat councils in the area have worked hard to finally get local plans to the examination stage, but while the plans remain in inspectors’ hands, the Government give no protection from unplanned development. Despite continuous calls on the Government to help to protect us, we have been left exposed. All that is before we even consider the wider pressures bearing down on local councils, which leave the looming threat of Government takeover when too many appeals are overturned. Nor have we covered the lack of teeth for neighbourhood plans, or the proposals in the planning legislation to make it easier to build near train stations. All these rules put the power in developers’ hands and take it away from communities—so no wonder developers are popping up across the constituency. Does the Minister agree that tackling unplanned development and giving communities more power is vital when preparing transport infrastructure? Underlying all this is a structural failure in how infrastructure can be planned. The speculative and unplanned development I have outlined sits entirely outside of planned growth modelling. That means that unplanned sites are assessed site by site, in isolation, and with no cumulative way of seeing what they mean together for the roads, buses, rail, cycling, schools, GPs or dentists that communities need. It is wholly inadequate, fragmented and reactive. Local plans cannot account for national infrastructure decisions, either. The Luton airport expansion, the Universal Studios theme park, and even a rail freight development, approved by the Government, have taken the place of thousands of potential homes elsewhere, and cannot be accounted for. When councils do secure investment for infrastructure with section 106 money or the community infrastructure levy, the current viability criteria mean they can often get out of building more affordable homes, or limit that investment.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. I reiterate that the people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and all our local villages are not nimbys. They understand the need for housing—and genuinely affordable housing. However, it is clear that they cannot understand a planning system that hands power to developers and takes it away from communities. This debate has shown that many Members and their local populations have the same frustrations. What the Minister talked about is a nice display of how, while local councils supposedly have these powers, in many ways the reality undermines their use of them, as I outlined, leaving communities still facing a developer-led system. That means doubling housing targets without doubling infrastructure. Nor can people understand a system that leaves villages such as Redbourn facing 70% growth through the grey belt. As the Minister mentioned the grey belt, I should clarify that it does not protect villages, it protects towns. That is a problem with the NPPF, and something that I will be putting forward in the consultation, and yet local people are also being expected to sacrifice precious landscapes for homes their own children still cannot afford. Trains cancelled daily; buses that stop at 2 pm; roads built for horse-drawn carts that are now gridlocked—that is the reality of planning without infrastructure. I welcome the current reviews of the NPPF, but what will happen to villages such as Redbourn and others under the current planning system, still outlined by Labour, if they turn out to have been dealt a really bad card? Will they be able to retrofit some of that planning infrastructure? It really is an issue for our local communities. I would also push gently on the Thameslink question. Some of the proposals are welcome, but it is going to be a massive issue for so many communities all along the Bedford-Brighton link. We really must look again at that infrastructure. There is a real issue at the core of Thameslink, whether around Croydon or elsewhere. I ask the Minister to take back one message to his team: communities like mine do not want to choose between housing and infrastructure; they both need to be planned together from the start. That infrastructure and community-led development are the least that our communities deserve. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; I agree completely. I come back to the promise that I would like to make to Hannah but cannot. Given that the average house price in Berkhamsted is over £650,000, and in Harpenden is more than £900,000, and given that last year the median new build price across the constituency was £747,500, so-called affordable homes—an average house—in expensive postcodes like ours, priced at 80% of market value, still cost more than half a million pounds. How on earth can we say to local people that they are sacrificing green belt so that their children or grandchildren can afford to buy? Local people know that is not the truth, which is why they are pushing back. Local people understand the need for housing, but they cannot understand why powers are being taken away from them, top-down targets are pushing expensive homes on to communities that need genuinely affordable housing, and precious landscapes are being sacrificed. They cannot understand why Labour have not learned the lessons from the last Government. Communities will again be left without the transport infrastructure they need, and local people will be forced to move away. I call on the Minister and the Government to hear our calls for infrastructure-first and community-led development. It is the least that our communities deserve.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  Quite frankly, I find it shameful. It is no wonder that communities are pushing back on development if they see that the infrastructure is not there, and if they cannot get around and cannot get a GP appointment, yet they see thousands of new homes being built. No wonder public trust has been lost. I could not cover every application across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, but the story is repeated across our corner of Hertfordshire and, indeed, up and down the country. I thank the thousands of constituents who have contacted me. Thousands have written to me about their concerns—94 alone with comments for this debate—and, as I said, several have joined us in the Public Gallery. Here is the nugget of the issue: if I could say, hand on heart, that top-down planning would, in 10 years’ time, truly deliver affordable, sustainable housing, and houses that local teenagers like Hannah could afford, if I could look her in the eyes and tell her she is wrong about not being able to afford a home, and if I could say that the infrastructure would be built, that developers would not squeeze out of their commitments and that trains and buses would catch up and be up to scratch, I would be making very different arguments. But I cannot.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Catherine from Redbourn has shared that she has to wait weeks for a GP appointment, yet her village faces an increase in residents of up to 70%, which means thousands of new patients. Some of that is through speculative developments. Does the Minister agree that councils should have the powers to ensure that planning approvals are dependent on first securing healthcare to serve those new residents? Will he commit to ensuring that NHS planning cycles are aligned with housing developments to ensure that communities do not have to wait for weeks, months or years?