Victoria Collins MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  As the director of the National Cyber Security Centre has said, “Every organisation delivering the UK’s critical services…relies on uninterrupted digital operations. Disruptions to those operations isn’t simply an IT issue; it’s a…national resilience issue”. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support that point, and it is why we welcome the measures introduced by this Bill, which strengthen existing cyber protections to enhance national security. However, as the Liberal Democrats have made clear throughout the Bill’s stages so far, there are many missed opportunities to truly future-proof our country’s cyber-security to protect our democracy, economy and national security. I will speak to the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill, which we think would achieve that. First, on the scope of the Bill, last year we saw the costliest cyber-incident in UK history. The financial damage caused by the attack on Jaguar Land Rover is estimated to have cost between £1.6 billion and £2.1 billion—a cost shared between JLR directly and its supply chain. In the public sector, cyber-attacks are causing eye-watering costs too—just look at Redcar’s cyber-attack, which cost them a staggering £10.4 million. Despite that, the Bill takes no consideration of the significant economic cost of such cyber-attacks, excluding retail and manufacturing industries as well as local government from the scope of the Bill. New clauses 4 and 5 address a crucial gap. New clause 4 would bring the manufacturing of critical transport equipment and the retail of food and essential goods, where they form part of a large-scale distribution chain, within the scope of essential categories under the Bill. That means that companies such as Jaguar Land Rover would finally receive the protections that their strategic importance demands and protect their supply chains too. New clause 5 extends that same recognition to local authorities, whose digital infrastructure underpins the delivery of services that millions of people depend on. The Government’s own industrial strategy recognises that sustainable and secure growth requires strong levels of cyber-resilience across the economy, but their own cyber Bill does not live up to this. If a cyber-attack brought JLR’s production lines to a halt or crippled the digital infrastructure of a council, the damage to our economy and people’s daily lives would be enormous. Those are not the only issues within the scope of the Bill. Safeguarding our democratic processes must be treated as a national security priority, and here, too, the Bill falls short. At a time when foreign interference in our elections is not a hypothetical but a documented and growing threat, the Government have chosen not to act. New clauses 8 and 9 would begin to change that. New clause 8 would designate the administration of elections and voter registers as essential services within the meaning of the network and information systems regulations—a straightforward recognition that the machinery of our democracy is as critical as any power grid or hospital network. New clause 9 would designate political parties as essential services for the purposes of cyber-security, extending meaningful protection to the organisations through which the British people exercise their democratic voice. I understand that the Bill is not a silver bullet for cyber-security, but these amendments make the modest, targeted and entirely reasonable ask that vehicle manufacturing, food retail supply chains, local authorities, our elections and our political parties are brought within scope. In turning to online-generated fraud and scams, we can see the impact of a lack of action to secure online and cyber-spaces. Fraud makes up 44% of all UK crime, and online technologies—especially artificial intelligence—are supercharging that. According to reporting in The Times a few weeks ago, research by Lloyds bank found that Meta’s social media sites are a starting point for 76% of purchase scams in the UK, with the value of losses to UK customers estimated at around £66 million in the last year alone. Not only does the Government’s fraud strategy completely overlook the role of social media giants and big tech in the proliferation of online scams, but the Bill fails to address explicitly the risks that fraud and scams pose to critical infrastructure and organisations. That is especially striking when we consider that the Government’s official statistics on cyber-security breaches show that phishing attacks—scams—remain the most prevalent type of breach or attack by far in the UK. Amendment 1 would change that. It would amend clause 8 to add “risks arising from fraud” explicitly to the list of security threats facing relevant digital services so that those threats can be identified and managed. That is also why the Liberal Democrats are calling for social media giants to be financially liable for scams originating on their platforms and for an online crime agency to tackle these issues and standardise AI labelling. We must not forget that these threats do not fall solely on large institutions and critical infrastructure. Small and medium-sized enterprises are on the frontline of cyber-crime; they are disproportionately targeted and too often without the resources or expertise to defend themselves. Many of the businesses caught up in the supply chains of our critical industries and exposed to the fraud and cyber-risks that I have described are SMEs, yet there are no provisions in the Bill to help potentially under-resourced SMEs cope with the increasing threat of cyber-attacks. New clause 2 would require the establishment of dedicated cyber-security support services for those businesses. For the Liberal Democrats, backing British small businesses means ensuring that they are not left to face those threats alone. The Liberal Democrats have also tabled a series of further measures that would make the legislation fit for purpose over the long term. A law is only as good as its enforcement, which is why we are pressing for board-level accountability for cyber-resilience under new clause 10, regular proportionate testing of systems under new clause 11 and more frequent Government reporting every three years—rather than every five years—under amendment 2. Last week, at London Tech Week, as I was surrounded by experts across the industry, one thing became clear. We think that technology is moving quickly now, but with the growth and development of AI this is the slowest we will ever see change happen. That is why we need the framework to evolve, which means reviewing the security risks posed by foreign-linked critical suppliers, which new clause 3 would do, modernising the outdated Computer Misuse Act 1990, which new clause 6 would do, and assessing whether regulators have the resources they actually need to do their job, which new clause 7 would do. Those are not radical tasks; they are basic conditions for a cyber-security regime that works today and will continue to work in the future. If there is one matter that cuts to the heart of what the Bill should be about, and asks the fundamental question about Britain’s place in a contested digital world, it is digital sovereignty. All the protections we have discussed for our industries, our democracy and our small businesses will mean little if we do not first answer who controls the digital infrastructure on which all of them depend, and question whether, at every level of the stack, we have critical control over that. That is echoed loudly by the industry itself. A study by Civo, a UK sovereign cloud provider, found that 83% of IT decision makers in this country worry about the impact of geopolitical developments on their data sovereignty. When we look at the numbers, it is not hard to see why. About 55% of central Government organisations report that over 60% of their estate is on the cloud, and the vast majority of that is with just two providers, both of which are American. We have handed the keys to significant parts of our national digital infrastructure to foreign corporations, subject to foreign laws and exposed to foreign decisions entirely outside our control. That includes our public services. The Liberal Democrats are alarmed at the NHS’s growing reliance on complex, opaque digital systems set up by Palantir. With Palantir’s background in security and surveillance, that marks a divergence from the traditional relationship between the NHS and firms with specialised medical knowledge. The procurement process for the federated data platform, which was awarded to Palantir in 2023, is worryingly opaque.

• 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 · 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.

• 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?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes · Hansard source

  More

  For over a week, Grok has generated illegal sexual abuse material—non-consensual images of women and children—without restraint on X, which took the disgraceful step of putting it behind a paywall. That is abhorrent, and those images are illegal. Unlike the Conservatives, we very much welcome the action being taken and absolutely want to work together to stop this illegal, abhorrent use of AI technology. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called on the National Crime Agency to launch a criminal investigation into X and for Ofcom to restrict access immediately. We also called for Reform MPs to donate their earnings from X to those charities working for those victims of sexual exploitation. Where there are loopholes around AI creation of these horrific images, we are pleased to hear the Secretary of State announce the establishment of a criminal offence to create, or seek to create, such horrific content and the work to criminalise nudification apps. Regulatory gaps, however, are not the only problem; enforcement is failing, too. While other countries have acted decisively to ban X, Ofcom has taken over a week to start an investigation and lacks the resources to take on these tech giants. What has become clear is that with the pace of technology, the Government must look to future-proof online safety from new harms and harmful features. The Liberal Democrats have long been raising the alarm. We tabled amendments to raise the age of data consent, proposed a doomscroll cap to curb addiction and called for public health warnings on social media. Protecting women and children from online abuse cannot wait, so will the Government support our calls on these actions? This matters in real life—to my constituent who was harmed by strangulation in a nightclub following online videos, and to the victims of sexual abuse and violence, which often starts online. Given the pace of change, does the Secretary of State have full faith in Ofcom’s ability to enforce the Online Safety Act? Will she meet me because, unlike the Conservatives, I would like us to work together on this important issue and discuss the action needed on AI chatbots and emerging technologies? This is a moment for the House to act together. Inaction sends the message that abuse online is acceptable, and we must prove otherwise.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish you and everyone else in the Chamber a happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to finally address the long-awaited Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. As has been pointed out today, it is significant. The National Cyber Security Centre reported that nationally significant cyber-incidents had more than doubled since the previous year. The past year’s surge in cyber-attacks on targets ranging from supply chains to hospitals to critical infrastructure has made one fact clear: there is no economic or societal security without cyber-security. Cyber-attacks cost the UK economy £14.7 billion annually. There have been attacks on companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer. More important, however, is the impact on the real economy. Thousands of jobs and businesses are hanging in the balance, and our public services and our private data are also being impacted. As the Minister mentioned this morning, the NHS Synnovis ransomware attack resulted in more than 11,000 postponed appointments and procedures. It has even been linked to one patient’s death, which was attributed to the delay that the attack caused. This matters. We must do all that we can to upgrade protection and our security, because jobs, the economy and lives depend on it. Our economy—imagine it, if you will, as a house—is under attack. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill’s intent to upgrade our home security; the addition of data centres, managed service providers and large load controllers means that we are building stronger fences, and that companies with a master key to all our doors have stronger security. Also, the wiring has been upgraded, and the alarm system is being given an upgrade; there is increased incident reporting. However, the Bill leaves the back door wide open by leaving out key sectors. Our alarm system is not sure when it is supposed to ring, and the companies that have the keys to our doors, and are using our house, are asking for simplicity, clarity and support, so that they can do their job properly. While no single piece of cyber-security legislation can act as a silver bullet, those are gaps that we must address. We are failing to take the whole-economy approach mentioned by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). We are leaving out the public sector and economically significant sectors, such as retail and manufacturing. The Bill’s stated aim is to protect organisations “that are so essential that their disruption would affect our daily lives.” —[ Official Report , 12 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 26WS.] However, the Government apparently do not consider their own public services, provided by local authorities, to be essential enough for protection. The £10 million Redcar council incident proves that voluntary schemes are failing local authorities, but after the Bill is passed, Government institutions and councils will still lack statutory protections and ringfenced funding—and all the while, council budgets are getting tighter. I have no doubt that members of the public whose data, be it from the electoral roll or from social care records, sits in these systems would object to the public sector’s exclusion from the Bill. As has been mentioned, we are also talking about a potential mandatory digital ID system for the whole country. The Government have already said that it would be built with home-made technology. Where will the cyber-protection be in that? What is more, leaving out sectors such as retail and manufacturing would mean that the JLR and M&S cyber-attacks remained out of scope. These are significant sectors. They involve major employers and major parts of our supply chains, and they handle significant amounts of personal data. The Bill marks a failure of ambition. The Government claimed in response to a letter that we sent on this topic that they “do not need to wait for or rely on legislation” to implement cyber-security requirements in the public sector, and will instead use the Government action plan to ensure that the very same requirements in the Bill will be applied to the public sector. Why must we have this two-tier approach? Why leave out economically and socially significant sectors, such as the public sector? Does the Minister agree that we need mandatory cyber-security standards for those absent sectors of our society, governance and economy? If we are serious about national resilience, about protecting citizens’ data and about aligning with our European partners, let us vote on the issue in primary legislation in this Chamber, so that the issue has the full transparency and accountability that it demands. A further critical gap in the Bill is the failure to embed security by design, and a lack of clear accountability. This should be board-led, to ensure that each lock, door and window of our house is built securely. In 2019, the NCSC published design principles, and last October the Government launched a secure-by-design framework, which was seen as core to their cyber-security standard. However, the Bill not only excludes Government from critical national infrastructure but abandons that key principle, and fails to include the words “by design”, which matters, particularly as ISC2 research suggests that skills shortages are the No. 1 challenge for compliance with cyber regulation in the UK, with 88% of respondents experiencing at least one cyber-security breach as a result of skills shortages. This is also a missed opportunity for our economy and our cyber-security sector. Prioritising security by design would provide the baseline protection that our critical infrastructure so desperately needs. What consideration have the Government given to ensuring security by design? Effective regulation does not just mean future-proofing; it must be workable. While we welcome expanded incident reporting, the current definitions risk creating a significant regulatory burden. Over-reporting will overwhelm, rather than strengthen, our cyber-security systems. Those who are coming to upgrade our security systems are not being given clear directions. The definition of a “reportable incident” is so broad that it could extend to every phishing email. How will the NCSC feasibly manage the administrative burden when the alarm may be ringing non-stop? Other critical terms lack clarity for industry, including “managed service provider” and the criteria for “digital critical suppliers”, as has been highlighted by techUK and others. These are not just technical details to be ironed out later; they are the difference between a Bill that works and one that does not, and industry needs clarity on how to comply. Will the Minister work with us and with industry to tighten those definitions, so that the Bill is workable, and will he consider the best way to ensure simplicity and effectiveness in incident reporting? What is being done to support home-grown cyber-security in the UK? What is being done to defend us from hostile foreign interference? With one of the latest defence contracts going to Palantir, what is being done to support UK tech? Would the Government support a digital sovereignty strategy, as suggested by Open Rights Group? The Bill is yet another missed opportunity to support our domestic tech sector, at a time when we should be building UK cyber-security capabilities and creating highly skilled jobs here at home. How can we claim to be serious about national resilience when the very infrastructure protecting our critical systems could be entirely outsourced abroad? Supporting UK tech and businesses is not just about the providers in the Bill; it is about the thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises that form the backbone of our economy. For the few SMEs and start-ups that are directly affected by it, the Bill creates a regulatory thicket of overlapping rules, different timelines and multiple bodies. Cyber-security is complicated, and for this legislation to work, it must be simple and easily implementable for UK SMEs. What support will there be for those SMEs and start-ups? It would be remiss of me not to mention the wider cyber-crime landscape. SMEs make up 99.8% of UK businesses, and are often the most vulnerable link in cyber supply chains. The NCC Group confirms that manufacturing, retail and leisure, dominated by SMEs, were the sectors most targeted for ransomware in 2024. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to establish a digital safety net for SMEs—a nationwide first responder service that would provide free-at-the-point-of-use support for small businesses that have been victims of a cyber-attack. Australia is already doing that, providing person-to-person support during and after attacks. If Australia can do it, why can’t we? On top of all that, the biggest threat is actually fraud, which costs the economy hundreds of billions a year. Two thirds of all fraud begins online, much of it through social media companies with no liability. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for social media platforms to be made financially liable for fraud on their sites, which would create a clear line of accountability for criminal activity. Moreover, fraud is a cyber-security issue; it exploits weak systems and inadequate protections. Families lose life savings, elderly people fall victim to sophisticated phishing, and small businesses shut down. The Bill protects infrastructure, but by leaving the back door open, it ignores the billions of pounds of savings lost and the livelihoods upended through online fraud. The Government must address that in their long-awaited fraud strategy. We cannot protect systems but abandon our businesses and our people. The Bill is progress, but it is not the finish line. The cyber-threat is real, evolving and urgent. The Liberal Democrats will work constructively to strengthen the Bill through amendments, but we must ensure that we do not leave the back door open, and that we future-proof our security. We owe it to our businesses, our families and our national security to get this right.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who made a very eloquent opening speech, and Members from across the Chamber, who have touched on really important matters. As the hon. Member mentioned, the online space gives us great opportunities for connection and knowledge gathering, but also opportunities for greater harms. What has come across today is that we have addictive algorithms that are pushed in furtherance of commercial and malevolent interests—security interests, for example, although not the security of Great Britain—with no regard for the harm or impact they have on individuals or society. When it comes to the Online Safety Act, we must get the balance right. Its protections for children and the vulnerable are vital. Of course, it is important to maintain freedom of speech and access to information. The Act is a step in the right direction in protecting children from extreme content, and we have seen changes in pornographic content. However, there are areas where it has not gone far enough, and it is not ready for the changes that are coming at a fast pace. There are websites that serve a public good that are age-gated, and forums for hobbies and communities that are being blocked. As the Liberal Democrats have said, we have to get the balance right. We also have to look at introducing something like a digital Bill of Rights with agile standards in the face of fast-paced changes, to embed safety by design at the base. The harms that we need to protect children and vulnerable people from online are real. The contributions to this debate from hon. Members from across the House have been, as always, eye-opening and a reminder of how important this issue is. On pornographic content, we heard from the hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) sickening reminders of the horrific content online that young people see—and not by choice. We must never forget that, as has also been said, people are often not seeking this content, but it comes through, whether on X, which was Twitter, or other platforms. The Molly Rose Foundation highlighted that “children using TikTok and X were more than twice as likely to have encountered…high risk content compared to users of other platforms.” The online world coming to life has been mentioned in this debate. One of my constituents in Harpenden wrote to me, horrified that her daughter had been strangled on a dancefloor, because it showed how violent, graphic content is becoming normalised. That struck me to my core. Other content that has been mentioned: suicidal content, violent content and eating disorder misinformation, which the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) talked so eloquently about. The Molly Rose Foundation also highlighted that one in 10 harmful videos on TikTok have been viewed more than 1 million times, so we have young people seeing that ex content. Even beyond extreme content, we are starting to see the addictive nature of social media, and the insidious way that this short-form content is becoming such a normalised part of many of our lives. Recent polling by the Liberal Democrats revealed that 80% of parents reported negative behaviours in their child due to excess phone usage, including skipping meals, having difficulty sleeping, or reporting physical discomforts such as eye strain or headaches. Parents and teachers know the real harms that are coming through, but young people themselves do too. I carried out a safer screens tour in my constituency in which I spoke to young people. Many of them said that they are seeing extreme content that they do not want to see, and that, although they have blocked the content, it comes back. The Online Safety Act is helping to change that, but it has not gone far enough. The addictive element of social media is important. In our surveys, two quotes from young people stood out. One sixth-former said that social media is “as addictive as a drug”, and that they felt its negative effects every day. Another young person simply wrote, “Help, I can’t stop.” Young people are asking for help and protection; we need to hold social media giants and online spaces to account. It is welcome that some of those harms have been tackled by the Online Safety Act. On pornography, Pornhub has seen a 77% reduction in visitors to its website; Ofcom has launched 76 investigations into pornography providers and issued one fine of £50,000 for failing to introduce age checks, but we need to ask whether that goes far enough. It has come across loud and clear in this debate that the Online Safety Act has not gone far enough. Analysis has shown that Instagram and TikTok have started to introduce new design features that comply with the Online Safety Act, but game the system to still put forward content that is in those companies’ commercial interests, and not in the interests of young people. Other extremely important harms include the new harms from AI. Many more people are turning to AI for mental health support. Generative AI is creating graphic content, and the Internet Watch Foundation found that “reports of AI-generated child sexual abuse material have more than doubled in the past year” and the IWF says it is at the point where it cannot tell the difference any more—it is horrific.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and the point about global co-operation has been made clearly across the Chamber today. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) talked about what is now the AI Security Institute—it was the AI Safety Institute—and that point about leading and trust is really important. Indeed, I want to talk a little more about safety, because security and safety are slightly different. I see safety as consumer facing, but security is so important. Renaming the AI Safety Institute as the AI Security Institute, as the hon. Member mentioned, undermines the importance of both. The first point is about AI psychosis and chatbots—this has been covered a lot today, and it is incredibly worrying. My understanding is that the problem of emotional dependency on AI chatbots is not covered by the Online Safety Act. Yes, elements of chatbots are covered—search functionality and user to user, for example—but Ofcom itself has said that there are certain harms from AI chatbots, which we can talk about, that are not covered. We have heard that 1.2 million users a week are talking to ChatGPT about suicide—we heard the example of Adam, who took his own life in the US after talking to a chatbot—and two thirds of 23 to 34-year-olds are turning to chatbots for their mental health. These are real harms. Of course, the misinformation that is coming through chatbots also has to be looked at seriously. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned the facts and the advice coming through. We can achieve powerful outcomes, but we need to make sure that chatbots are built in a way that ensures that advisory element, perhaps by linking with NHS or other proper advice. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who has been very passionate about this issue, mentioned the Molly Rose Foundation, which is doing incredible work to show the harms coming through this black hole—many do not see the harms, which have an impact on children that parents do not understand, as well as on adults. The harm of deepfakes, including horrific CSAM and sexual material of all ages, has also been mentioned, and it is also impacting our economy. Just recently, a deepfake was unfortunately made of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). The Sky journalist Yalda Hakim was also the victim of a deepfake. She mentioned her worry that it was shared thousands of times, but also picked up by media in the subcontinent. These things are coming through, and no one who watches them can tell the difference. It is extremely worrying. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) said, “Rubbish in, rubbish out.” What is worrying is that, as the Internet Watch Foundation has said, because a lot of the rubbish going in is online sexual content that has been scraped, that is what is coming out. Then there is AI slop, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned. Some of that is extreme content, but what worries me is that, as many may know, our internet is now full of AI slop—images, stories and videos—where users just cannot tell the difference. I do not know about others, but I often look at something and think, “Ah, that’s really cute. Oh no—that is not real.” What is really insidious is that this is breaking down trust. We cannot tell any more what is real and what is not, and that affects trust in our institutions, our news and our democracy. What we say here today can be changed. Small changes are breaking down trust, and it is really important that that stops. What is the Minister doing about AI labelling and watermarking, to make sure we can trust what we see? That is just one small part of it. The other thing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) mentioned, is that often AI threats magnify what is already a threat, whether it is online fraud or a security threat. I believe that AI scams in just the first three months of this year cost Brits £1 billion. One third of UK businesses said in the first quarter they had been victims of AI fraud. And I have not got on to what the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley said about moving towards AI in security and defence, and superintelligence. What are the “exaggerated” threats that actually will become extremely threatening? What are the Government doing to clamp down on these threats, and what are they doing on AI fraud and online safety? Another issue is global working. One of the Liberal Democrats’ calls is for an AI safety agency, which could be headquartered in the UK; we could take the lead on it. I think that is in line with what the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley was talking about. We have this opportunity; we need to take it seriously, and we could be a leader on that. I will close by reiterating the incredible work that AI could do. We all know that it could solve the biggest problems of tomorrow, and it could improve our wellbeing and productivity, but the threats and risks are there. We have to manage them now, and make sure that trust is built on both sides.

• 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.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I join the House in thanking you for your work as Chair. It is an honour to speak in this debate, held in memory of Sir David Amess. His legacy reminds us what it is to be an MP—to show up and champion the concerns of the people we represent. That is the spirit I have carried with me throughout my first year as the Member of Parliament for the brand new seat of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Over this year, access to health and social care has remained one of the most pressing challenges. I have heard from a constituent in Berkhamsted who faces an eight-month delay for their NHS appointment; from Katie from Aldbury, an expectant mother who could not get an NHS dentist appointment within 50 miles; and Clare from Harpenden, who cared for her mother with dementia while juggling newborn twins and has been pushed to the brink with little support. It was an honour to welcome the family of Ed Holderness, who sadly took his life at the age of 24—they are campaigning on the importance of mental health care. Locally, I congratulate organisations such as Hector’s House and Youth Talk on their work. We have seen movement on the NHS, which I welcome, but we urgently need proper reform, including prioritisation of mental health and social care work. As I have done throughout this year, I again urge the Government to start cross-party talks on social care sooner rather than later. The environment demands equal attention. My constituency has four of the world’s rare chalk streams, which are beautiful places—the Ver, the Bulbourne, the Gade and the Lea—yet Markyate sewage treatment works has dumped sewage into the River Ver for almost 5,000 hours in the past 12 months, and around 3,000 of those hours were non-stop. It was an honour to secure my first Westminster Hall debate on tackling sewage in chalk streams. I have met Thames Water to push for action on upgrading Markyate’s sewage works, and I welcomed the Government’s proposals yesterday. I look forward to meeting the relevant Minister to see how those changes can be used to prioritise the upgrading of those sewage works. I thank organisations such as the Ver Valley Society, the Friends of the River Bulbourne, Sustainable St Albans, EcoBerko and Sustainable Tring, which will not let me stop campaigning on these important issues. Moving on to our high streets and families, small businesses are still struggling, and as someone who grew up helping my mum on the shop floor, this issue is close to home. Many businesses, such as Temptation in Berkhamsted, Threads of Harpenden and Almar in Tring, say that they are still struggling, and many are questioning how they can cope with the rise in employment costs, national insurance costs and rents, as well as other costs. They are struggling, and they are asking, “Will we stay open?” These businesses, as Members from all parts of the House have said, are the lifeblood of our local communities. I urge the Government to rethink some of those proposals and think about how we can support our high streets and small businesses. Transport is a growing concern in my constituency. We have seen continued cuts to vital services, including to the X5, which connects constituents across Tring and Berkhamsted. While I am pleased that the frequency of Red Eagle services has increased to every 30 minutes —we have worked hard with local campaigners—many communities remain isolated. I will continue that work, but we need more support from Government. Unfortunately, local authorities are struggling to deliver under the current financial constraints. Hertfordshire county council recently outlined grave concerns about the fair funding review, which sees the council face a reduction of £45 million to £55 million in its grant. That is not just a budget squeeze, but a direct threat to those social services and transport services that are delivered to our communities. On a positive note, I have been excited about the work we have done on science, innovation and technology, especially closer to home. A safer screens tour has allowed me to bring the voice of young people to that work nationally. It was a real proud MP moment when, after I had visited and spoken to two of my local schools—Ashlyns school and Berkhamsted school—they decided to get together and students themselves wanted to campaign on online safety. I urge the Government to listen to those calls for change. Throughout the past year, my team and I have handled more than 10,000 pieces of casework. It is some of the most enriching work that we do. I have held more than 300 local meetings and raised questions and issues more than 500 times with the Government. Every one of those has been on behalf of residents of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. I thank colleagues across the House for their support, and I especially thank my team, who have helped deliver for local residents as I have found my feet in my first year as an MP. I hope that my time as an MP reflects the principles I put forward in my maiden speech: to be guided by the values of community, tolerance and perseverance. Most importantly, I thank the community organisations that deliver for Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring and my beautiful villages, including the Harpenden Trust, the Swan Youth Project, Open Door, food banks, the Harpenden Money Advice Centre and many others. I wish everyone a fantastic recess as we go back to our constituencies to be refreshed for when we come back in September.