Victoria Collins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree. Across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, there are incredible British tech firms. Many of them have said to me that their services are being procured by other Governments in Europe and around the world, yet they find their own British Government not using them or getting the value out of that British technology here by developing skills and jobs. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s hardware strategy, announced last week, which at least acknowledges the importance of British procurement, but acknowledgment is not a strategy. New clause 13, which I am pleased to say has drawn support from across the House, would make it one. In an increasingly unstable world, the case for British digital resilience, British technology and British sovereign capability has never been stronger. I therefore urge hon. Members to vote for the new clause. Cyber-security is no longer a technical matter confined to server rooms and IT departments. It is a question of national resilience, economic strength and democratic integrity. The Bill before us takes important steps, but important steps are not enough in today’s digital age. With these amendments, we have the opportunity to close the gaps, broaden the protections and build a framework that is genuinely fit for the digital age.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I first put on the record my appreciation of the heartfelt contributions about Jo Cox today? Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to highlight the case of Rasika, who is a care worker serving our community, and his wife Chamila, who is a teaching assistant in Northchurch who helps children with special educational needs and volunteers at the local church. They have built a life in my constituency for four years. They have done everything right, yet the Home Office told them and their three young children that they must return to Sri Lanka within 14 days. The community has rallied around them and has been in absolute disbelief, with one person saying that the family are such kind, good, intelligent and hard-working people. They are frontline workers and pillars of our community, and I am horrified that this is the Britain they know and that they do not feel welcome. I have written to the Immigration Minister, but I would like advice on how I can secure urgent action from the Minister and the Home Office to reassure this family and find a resolution for their case and for the many others who may face the same situation.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate, although the sentiment of my speech is not quite aligned with his. I was first elected in 2024, which marked 50 years since my mother came here from Malaysia, and I absolutely believe in the rich tapestry and diversity of this country. Just as we can see from my mum, who built great businesses and employed lots of people, and just as we can see from the doctor and oncologist who have helped my mum and dad through very difficult times, there is absolutely a value to the tapestry of the United Kingdom. The Liberal Democrats have always been clear that we need fair, controlled immigration. However, for Hongkongers with a British national overseas visa in my constituency, that has not been the case. I have constituents in Harpenden and Berkhamsted who moved to this country based on clear promises from the Government, including five years’ residency, B1 English and no income threshold. They have built their lives here, found employment, bought homes and contributed to our communities, just like my mum, only to be told that the goalposts have now moved. The Government’s proposed retrospective changes to the qualifying criteria for indefinite leave to remain undermine the fundamentally British values of fairness and respect, leaving those people in limbo and uncertain of their rights to be here while they invest in this country. Does the Minister agree that changing those residency requirements in this way risks damaging not only the economy but trust in the commitments this country makes to those who come here in good faith? Such changes to the UK’s visa system also risk harming businesses and economic growth. At a time when many businesses already face pressure from national insurance increases and energy prices, which keep the cost of running a business high, further uncertainty around visas can make it harder to retain skilled workers and talent. And that is not to mention the frontline staff I alluded to, whom many Members have highlighted today. From my perspective as a technology spokesperson, that talent particularly matters to this Government’s ambition on AI and quantum technology. As techUK has argued, if the UK is to remain world leading in this field, it must “remain open and attractive” to international innovators and the talent that supports them. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to reform the visa process to make Britain the obvious destination for AI companies. What is the Minister doing on these policies to support those ambitions, while also investing in home-grown skills? The previous Conservative Government got immigration badly wrong. After Brexit, they presided over a series of chaotic immigration policies that failed to deliver control, failed to meet the needs of the economy and contributed to a sharp rise in net migration. What Britain needs is a controlled, fair and responsive visa system that works for businesses, supports our public services, attracts the skills our economies need and commands public confidence. It is that balanced and compassionate approach to immigration that the Liberal Democrats believe in, and it is that approach that this country deserves.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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—

• 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 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I have been quite shocked at some of the procedural discussion for several reasons. First, we are acting like this has just come up, but even in the House of Commons under this mandate, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, the safer phones Bill was put forward in 2024. As Liberal Democrats, we put forward amendments to change the age of data consent to ban addictive algorithms. There have also been calls to act on doomscroll caps, and we have highlighted the harms of AI chatbots. Yet we are at a point—I absolutely respect what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was saying on this—where a consultation was proposed by the Government over a month ago, but we still do not know the details. There are things going through the House of Lords that, again, we do not know the details of. At the very least, Liberal Democrats are trying to give the space for that and say, “Yes, we need to start putting forward that legislation.” If there is another chance to debate that, what is the harm in this motion because this is such a crucial issue? Secondly, it is not as if this is an issue that turned up yesterday. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) talked about, these harms have been happening for years—over 22 years for Facebook. I will go on to say more about that in a moment. Other countries around the world are showing leadership on this and saying that we have to act now. My point is that at the very least, a consultation could have been launched earlier. This is not something new in this Parliament. We are saying that action needs to be taken. Most importantly, the parents, children and experts watching this debate want to see us taking this issue seriously. Children and young people are at the heart of this. I think back to the first time I met some of the sixth-form students at Ashlyns school in Berkhamsted. I will never forget sitting around that table with one sixth-former—let’s call him James. He told me about his fears for the mental health of his friends. He warned about the self-harm that he was seeing among his peers, which his teachers were not even aware of, and he talked about the role of social media. A few weeks later, I was pulled to one side at St George’s school in Harpenden, where some young women shared with me their concerns about the growing misogyny lived out by young men, which started on social media. Since then, I have carried out a “Safer Screens” tour meeting young people. Students have talked about brain rot and seeing the extreme content that the algorithm continues to push on them, even when they try to block it—the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) talked about that. One student said, “It is as addictive as a drug”, and they see the harms of it every day. This is the tipping point, and I am surprised that many Members think that it is not. This is that moment. Parents, teachers, experts and even young people are crying out for action, and have been for a long time, to tackle the social media giants that have no care for their mental health. As I said, this tipping point has been years in the making. Facebook was launched 22 years ago. Indeed, a Netflix documentary from six years ago started to highlight the warnings from people who worked in tech about social media. One expert said that it is “using your own psychology against you.” Having worked in tech myself, I have read the books and received the training on how these social media giants get us hooked—it is built in. Awareness is growing. I thank Smartphone Free Childhood, Health Professionals for Safer Screens, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and the Online Safety Act Network, along with projects such as Digital Nutrition—the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and others have made the analogy of an online diet—that have worked to ask what the guidance should be. Those are just a few of the organisations I could name that have worked tirelessly to ensure these voices are heard. I also thank pupils in my constituency from Roundwood Park, St George’s, Sir John Lawes, Berkhamsted and Ashlyns schools, and students who have openly shared their experiences, hopes and concerns about the online world. Their concerns are not just about content; they are also about addiction. Let me be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) mentioned, the core of this issue is that this is the attention economy, so our children are the product. Their attention, focus and time are being sold to line the pockets of tech billionaires. Governments around the world are taking finally action. This is a seatbelt moment where we need to say, “Enough is enough.” The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) talked about trying to get this right. I respect that, but I often think that if we were able to walk down the street and see a 3D version of what young people are seeing in their online world, action would have been taken much sooner. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) talked about holding tech companies to account. We need to start unpacking what children are seeing and finally take action. The Online Safety Act has done great work, but it does not go far enough. It sets out illegal harms and a code for inappropriate content for children and over-18s, but not a framework of legal harms or age-appropriate content. The social media age of 13 is based on data processing that is managed by the Information Commissioner’s Office and has nothing to do with what is age-appropriate in that context. Dr Kaitlyn Regehr, the author of “Smartphone Nation”, talks about how the Act is reactive, not proactive, and leaves it up to the user to report problems rather than putting the burden of safety on tech giants. We must ensure that we build on the OSA and learn the lessons from Australia. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central talked about this. In Australia, a wide definition of social media has left it to a small group to decide what is appropriate. That has meant that YouTube has been banned for under-16s, but YouTube Kids has not, with no real framework for why apart from the fact that they deem YouTube Kids safer. WhatsApp has not been banned, which is possibly the right thing, but legislators are left to play whack-a-mole as new social media apps pop up. There is no framework for harm from AI.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I will quickly add the voices of the Hong Kong BNOs in my constituency who feel just like that. One said: “We have built our lives—our careers, finances, childcare and caring responsibilities” on the rules that were promised by this Government. Does the hon. Member agree that this limbo and instability is a disgrace?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Holocaust Memorial Bill · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents, Kitty Hart-Moxon, helped to set up the Holocaust Educational Trust. She will be 100 this year. My hon. Friend has spoken about bridging the gap; Kitty is handing over that work to Peter and Moira in her family, who will keep that going. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a wonderful tribute to her to ensure that she can see this memorial and how important it is to the people of Great Britain?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, I carried out a “safer screens” tour in my constituency, hearing directly from young people, because the Liberal Democrats consider children and young people to be at the heart of this issue. Teenagers shared concerns about extreme content pushed by algorithms, but also about being glued to their screens alongside their younger siblings. One said, “It’s as addictive as a drug, and I feel the negative impacts every day.” Another pleaded, “Help—I just can’t stop.” Last week, more than 1,700 parents emailed me calling for a social media ban. One mother said that the social media used by her two boys “fills me with dread.” Another highlighted the way in which “anxiety, reduced attention, online bullying, and exposure to harmful content are becoming common topics among families.” Parents, teachers, experts and young people themselves are crying out for action, which is why the Liberal Democrats have long raised this as a public health issue. We pushed for the digital age of data consent to be raised to 16, and for the tackling of addictive algorithms. We voted to ban phones in schools, and called for health warnings. Now the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the other place to ban harmful social media for under-16s, based on film-style age ratings extending to 18. We would reset the default age for social media to 16 now, with strong age assurance, because enough is enough. This world-pioneering approach brings age-appropriate standards to online safety. We are learning from Australia, and preparing for today’s reality. Our risk-based approach, supported by more than 40 charities and experts including the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and the Internet Watch Foundation, will stop new platforms slipping through the net while addressing harmful games and AI chatbots, and protecting educational sites such Wikipedia and safe family connections. Crucially, it does not let social media companies off the hook. We have had age-appropriate safety standards offline, for toys and films, for decades. After 20 years of social media platforms clearly prioritising profit over children, building addictive algorithms that keep children and adults hooked, it is time to take action. We do not need consultation—we need that action now—but at least in this consultation we must look into how, not if, we will implement a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. I urge the Government to consider such a ban, with swift timelines, to address this growing public health crisis, and to act on our proposals now. Our children’s future is not something to be played with.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The insidious part of this issue is the normalisation of such harmful content. In a debate on Lords amendments to the then Data (Use and Access) Bill, on creatives and AI, I mentioned the fact that, in the two weeks since the previous vote, we had seen the release of Google Veo 3—the all-singing, all-dancing video creation software. We are moving so quickly that we do not see how good AI-generated content is becoming. Some content that we see online is probably AI-generated, but we do not realise it. On top of that, as the hon. Gentleman said, AI normalises extreme content and produces content that people think is real, but is not. That is very dangerous for society. My next point concerns deepfakes, which are undermining trust. Some deepfakes are obvious; some Members of Parliament and news presenters have been targeted through deepfakes. Just as important, however, is the fact that much deepfake content seems normal, but is undermining trust in what we see—we do not know what is real and what is not any more. That is going to be very dangerous not only in terms of extreme content, but for our democracy, and that argument has been made by other Members in this debate. It is also worrying that social media platforms do not seem to see that problem. To produce its risk assessment report, Ofcom analysed 104 platforms and asked them to put in submissions: not a single social media platform classified itself as high risk for suicide, eating disorder or depression—yet much of what we have heard during this debate, including statistics and anecdotal stories, shows that that is just not true. On the other hand, while there are areas where the Online Safety Act has not gone far enough, in other areas it has overstepped the mark. When the children’s code came into place, Lord Clement-Jones and I wrote to Secretary of State to outline some of our concerns, including political content being age-gated, educational sites such as Wikipedia being designated as category 1, and important forums about LGBTQ+ rights, sexual health or potentially sensitive topics being age-gated, despite being important for many who are learning about the world. Jamie from Harpenden, a young person who relies on the internet heavily for education, found when he was looking for resources that a lot of them were flagged as threatening to children and blocked, and felt that that prevented his education. Age assurance systems also pose a problem to data protection and privacy. The intention behind this legislation was never to limit access to political or educational content, and it is important that we support access to the content that many rely on—but we must protect our children and vulnerable people online, and we must get that balance right. I have a few questions for the Minister. Does he agree with the Liberal Democrats that we should have a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament to review the Online Safety Act? Will he confirm what resources Ofcom has been given? Has analysis been conducted to ensure that Ofcom has enough resources to tackle these issues? What are the Government doing about AI labelling and watermarking? What are they doing to tackle deepfakes? Does the Minister agree that it is time to support the wellbeing of our children, rather than the pockets of big tech? Will the Minister support Liberal Democrat calls to increase the age of data consent and ban social media giants from collecting children’s data to power the addictive algorithms against them? We are calling for public health warnings on addictive social media for under-18s and for a doomscroll cap. Most important is a digital bill of rights and standards that, in light of the fast pace of change, need to be agile. Our young people deserve better. We need to put children, young people and vulnerable people before the profits of big tech. We will not stop fighting until that change is made.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this lively debate and eloquently sharing his views and concerns. As Liberal Democrats, we hold a fundamental principle: freedoms belong to citizens by right. The Secretary of State spoke repeatedly about “giving people power and control”. —[ Official Report , 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 87.] But I ask the Minister—control over what and whom? This essentially mandatory digital ID for every person with the right to work in this country does not leave much choice or control. My constituent Julie, from Harpenden, does not have a phone; she does not want one. That is her choice, but she has written to me deeply concerned that she will be excluded from society because of this digital ID policy. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), cited that 93% of the population have a smartphone, as if that justified digital ID. That statistic means that approximately 4.5 million people—just like Julie—will not gain control but lose it. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) rightly pushed for during debate on the data Bill, people must have the right to a non-digital identification. That includes the right to work with non-digital ID. Where is the fairness for people such as Julie in this mandatory system? That is before we consider the 8.5 million people working in the UK who lack even the most basic digital skills. Leon, who works in IT in Tring, sees this reality every day. He has written to me saying that many of his colleagues struggle with basic smartphone tasks—a digital ID will force them to navigate an entirely new system on top of that. What are the Government’s plans to upskill millions of workers, or will this yet again be another burden dumped on businesses? Speaking of cost, experts are clear that the proposal will cost taxpayers billions, behind a trail of failed Government IT projects. Ask European citizens in the UK who have been plagued by the e-visa app’s failures, which have resulted in people being wrongly denied work, housing, education and welfare. Analysis commissioned by the Liberal Democrats shows that, of 24 major Whitehall schemes currently under way, two are already rated as undeliverable and 16 are facing significant issues. From NHS patient records to digital tax systems, the total cost of those failed or delayed projects already stands at more than £31 billion.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Ada Lovelace Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) on securing this fantastic debate marking Ada Lovelace Day, which I am delighted to contribute to as the Lib Dem spokesperson for science, innovation and technology, and the daughter of a woman who studied engineering. In today’s increasingly technological world, Ada’s vision is more relevant than ever, and it is vital that we celebrate her achievements and the opportunities they continue to inspire. In honouring Ada Lovelace’s legacy, we must also confront the challenges that have been put forward during the debate. In 2024, for every woman working in STEM there were three men. Women are less likely to be encouraged to study physics at school, to start coding or to pursue engineering at university. There may have been an upward trend in the proportion of women in STEM, but the workforce is still not equal. Stereotypes in education, lack of female role models and biases at university act as systemic barriers to inclusion for women in STEM, as many Members have mentioned. As has also been mentioned, failing to empower women in STEM is a loss not just for women, but for all of us, and for science, innovation and the economy. That is why, when I started a tech company, the very first thing I did was look for mentors, because I felt that I could not do it without them. It was by interviewing and talking to so many great women that I felt inspired and able to move forward. Ada Lovelace stands as a shining example of a woman who shattered barriers, paving the way for modern science and innovation. However, far too many women like her have been erased from history. Rosalind Franklin’s image of DNA was crucial, yet the Nobel prize for that discovery went to three men. Esther Lederberg made breakthroughs in genetics that were overshadowed by her husband’s receipt of the Nobel. Dorothy Hodgkin’s scientific achievement was reported in the press under the headline “Oxford housewife wins Nobel”. She remains the only British woman to win a science Nobel prize. That is not good enough. The instrumental role of women in STEM needs to be celebrated everywhere. Rothamsted Research in my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted stands as a strong example of inclusion. Pioneers like Katherine Warington and Winifred Brenchley, who worked at Rothamsted Research, are considered the first women in the UK to break into the field of agricultural science. It has been wonderful to hear about so many women’s initiatives from Members in the debate today. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned, in 2014 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee stated that the lack of women in STEM was a “leaky pipeline”. Women have the talent and want to pursue a career in STEM, but along that journey, systemic forces push them out at every stage of their career. More than a decade on, the problem remains. We must recognise that more must and can be done to fix the leak of female talent. We need to start challenging the core assumptions that push women out of STEM. For example, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) mentioned, childcare policy must be reformed so that nobody has to choose between a career and starting a family. Doubling the statutory rate of shared parental leave would be a significant start. The Liberal Democrats’ policy of six weeks’ use-it-or-lose-it leave for each parent at 90% of earnings would support women who want to work. In the long term, a committed vision of universal childcare is a lasting solution that would break down those barriers. It is not just childcare. Awfully, a UNESCO report stated that women in STEM are more likely to be a target of gender-based violence and sexism than those in other fields. We need stronger protections for women. More must also be done to include women and under-represented groups. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), we need better transparency on pay gaps and progression in the workplace. We need stronger support and career guidance from primary school onwards so that girls are always taught that women are in STEM. This also means talking about women in STEM that history has forgotten. Days like Ada Lovelace Day, International Women’s Day and the International Day of Women and Girls in Science are important. They start crucial and wonderful conversations like the one we are having today. They allow us to reflect not just on what women are doing today, but what women have done in the past. It is important to take these opportunities to push back and show that not enough has changed. There are still gaps that need to be filled to ensure that women are able to fulfil their potential. From Ada Lovelace to the countless women who have made significant contributions, history reminds us that barriers, not ability, have held women back in STEM. As my party’s spokesperson for science, innovation and technology, and the proud female MP for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, I want to ensure that every woman in the UK can imagine herself at the forefront of discovery and innovation. I look forward to working with the Government on such issues. By breaking down these barriers today, we can honour the pioneers of the past and empower the scientists, engineers and innovators of tomorrow.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Effectiveness · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the previous ministerial team and welcome the new one—I very much look forward to working together. Following the roll-out of the Online Safety Act, there is evidence that harmful content is still being algorithmically shown to young children and that artificial intelligence technologies, which have been linked to teenage deaths, are not covered properly in the Act, and concerns have been raised about data protection and inappropriately age-gated educational content. We must get the Act right, so will the Secretary of State consider our calls for a digital Bill of Rights to set the standard, in order that we can truly adapt to this era of technological change?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Keeping children and vulnerable people safe online is vital. For far too long, the online world has been a wild west, where children are subject to a torrent of harmful content, from pornography to suicide promotion. The call for this measure has come not only from parents, teachers and experts, but during my safer screens tour in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, young people themselves told me that the algorithms are pushing explicit and harmful content that they do not want to see. The topic is so important that students from Ashlyn’s and Berkhamsted schools have joined forces to lead the work themselves. Today this Committee looks at qualifying worldwide revenue, which is important as it is linked to the level of fines. With the roll-out of the Act, the Lib Dems call on the Government to ensure a review of Ofcom fines to ensure they are enforceable and act as a true deterrent, especially given the pushback already seen from companies. We also ask Government to ringfence the fines generated by Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, for purposes including funding the provision of stand-alone education on online safety and safer screens for all school children. Overall, it is important to highlight that the Online Safety Act contains vital safeguards against priority illegal content, requiring online platforms to tackle material depicting offences including child sexual abuse, intimate image abuse and sexual exploitation, but we know that concerns have been raised by many about the implementation of the Act, including about its effectiveness in preventing online harms and its impeding access to educational sites and important informational forums. Concern has also been voiced that age-assurance systems may pose a data protection or privacy threat to users. We therefore believe Parliament should have the opportunity to properly scrutinise Ofcom’s implementation. We use this opportunity to again call on the Government to conduct a full and urgent parliamentary review of the Act, to ensure that it meets its stated aim of keeping children and other vulnerable groups safe online, and to determine whether the Act is fit for purpose.