Victoria Collins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  This might be the last time we face this ministerial team, but I hope that they will stay, because I know they have done a lot of hard work on online safety. With that in mind, I have recently spoken to students in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, who passionately shared their fears and hopes around AI chatbots. With the Labour leadership transition putting any major announcements on hold, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that, alongside the support of the right hon. Member for Makerfield—the Prime Minister in waiting—there will be an announcement in July about AI online safety, and vital protections will not be sidelined?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats of course support this instrument; Ofcom has fulfilled its duties under the original direction and the legislative housekeeping is sensible. However, the Minister talks about modern mobile services, innovation and investment, and in light of that it is right to use this opportunity to highlight that for millions of people across the UK, high-speed mobile broadband and mobile services remain a distant promise rather than a daily reality. In my own constituency, just 20 minutes from London, constituents regularly write to me about patchy or non-existent mobile coverage. That is not just a problem of rural remoteness; there are people living on streets where their neighbour has full signal and they have none. Michael from Gaddesden Row, for example, has no 4G signal and very slow wi-fi, while his neighbours just down the street have double his speed of connection. I have also heard from many constituents who cannot reliably pay for parking on their own high streets because the connectivity is simply not there. We are happy to support the removal of a direction that has served its purpose, but can the Minister tell me when constituents across the country will genuinely be able to access the high-speed mobile broadband infrastructure that this legislation was supposed to help to deliver?

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

  More

  I do not think that the hon. Member has understood our amendment, which is about having a strategy. It does not say that everything should be sovereign, but we need to look at our tech stack and have a strategy for what is sovereign and what requires the procurement of elements. I ask him to look at our amendment again.

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

  More

  I reiterate the importance of a digital sovereign strategy for our cyber-security. It is about our resilience, our security and our economic strength as a country and collaborative sovereignty. We very much welcome the extended scope of the Bill and we support it moving forward. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed .

• 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.

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

  More

  Before I withdraw new clause 2, I want to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in reference to my earlier speech. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause , by leave , withdrawn . New Clause 13 Digital Sovereignty Strategy on risks posed by foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a strategy (“a Digital Sovereignty Strategy”) which sets out the Government's approach to maintaining the security and resilience of relevant network and information systems by— (a) assessing, managing and mitigating risks— (i) associated with foreign interference, (ii) arising from reliance on foreign-supplied technologies, and (b) preventing over-reliance on foreign providers by building domestic capacity. (2) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant network and information system” is a network and information system belonging to— (a) an operator of an essential service, (b) a relevant digital service provider, (c) a relevant managed service provider, or (d) a critical supplier, within the meaning of the NIS Regulations. (3) A Digital Sovereignty Strategy published under this section must— (a) include risks associated with— (i) hardware, (ii) software, (iii) supply chains, and (iv) procurement processes; (b) include a specific focus on security and resilience in government digital procurement processes, detailing how the Government intends to reduce strategic dependencies on foreign-owned service providers to mitigate the risk of systemic disruption; (c) include a commitment to prioritise the use of technologies developed in the UK by UK organisations in relevant network and information systems to reduce reliance on foreign technologies, and (d) where risks are identified under subsection (1)(a)(i), state how the Government intends to address these risks by supporting the use of domestic technologies or systems for the purpose of ensuring the security of those systems.”— (Victoria Collins.) This new clause would require the Government to publish a Digital Sovereignty Strategy setting out how it intends to address risks to relevant network and information systems posed by foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies, including by supporting the use of domestic technologies. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his question. That is why we need a strategy—we need to be clear about the Government’s priorities. On procurement, we have heard from the National Audit Office that cost is often a priority, but at what cost? When the Government are looking for suppliers, what do we value? There must be a strategy for that, and we need to have that conversation so that the direction is clear, whether on hardware or software. Working internationally is vital, but it is also important to be clear about what is important for us, especially in the tech stack. That is the thing: it is about our security and resilience as well as our economy, strengthening those developing technologies as well as using technology. It is also about working together internationally and knowing that we have the resilience to look after and trade our technology stack.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 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.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  My very first letter as a Member of Parliament was to Thames Water, following the unacceptable fact that thousands of hours of sewage had been released into the River Ver, one of our precious chalk streams. Whatever the future structure of Thames Water, what guarantees can the Minister put in place that the environmental obligations will be strengthened rather than weakened?

• 16 Jun 2026 · National Planning Policy Framework and Tring · Hansard source

  More

  The people of Tring have spoken. This petition, signed by over 500 residents, rejects the top-down, developer-led approach to planning from this Government, which threatens to impose significant large-scale development on their community with little regard for its character, infrastructure or precious environment. That has been made even worse by the latest power grab from Whitehall, which will now take over large planning applications. Residents are not opposed to housing, but they are righty alarmed by the burden being placed on their town and deeply frustrated by the lack of a meaningful voice in shaping proposals that will define Tring for generations to come. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that Tring faces significant large-scale development proposals driven by top-down national planning policy, which is being imposed on local communities with insufficient regard for the views of residents or the detrimental impact on Tring ’ s character, infrastructure, and environment. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to schedule a debate in the House of Commons on the Government ’ s review of the National Planning Policy Framework and how communities like Tring can be better protected from inappropriate over-development, and how local residents can be given a genuine and effective voice in the planning decisions and infrastructure provision that shape their towns and affect their daily lives. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003209]

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of children and parents across the country, we welcome the Government finally taking action to keep children safe online. I know how important this issue has been to the Secretary of State. For almost 18 months, the Liberal Democrats—as the first party to force a vote on the issue—have been pushing for action to raise the digital age of consent and implement doomscrolling caps, health warnings and a film-style age rating to ban harmful social media for under-16s. Today, we welcome the fact that the Government have finally caught up with those calls to act and listened to the parents and tireless campaigners who have worked relentlessly, and often in difficult circumstances. It is just a shame that it does not seem that it was those cries for help from parents and young people, or the mounting evidence, that finally made the Prime Minister act. After months of dither and delay, what has been announced today seems more like a panicked policy cobbled together ahead of a by-election and a Back-Bench rebellion. It is a real disappointment that, in their last-minute rush, the Government have not learned from Australia and other countries about how we can do better and deal with the root causes of online harm. Our Liberal Democrat harms-based approach would deal with addictive algorithms and features, such as from chatbots—not just the romantic companions or therapy bots that the Government have highlighted, although we of course look forward to hearing more about that next month. Our approach is supported by more than 40 charities and experts who stand up for children and a safer online world. It would create a clear framework for new platforms and future harms that have already arrived, whereas Australia is playing a game of whack-a-mole. We can learn to do better, so why have the Government not learned from the experiences of other countries as the Secretary of State said she would? How will the Government protect children from emerging threats and addictive features elsewhere, and not just prevent young people from signing up? How are the Government deciding what platforms will be included? What framework differentiates YouTube from YouTube Kids, for example, and will children still be able to access YouTube without an account, as they can now? What addictive features will be tackled, beyond infinite scroll, and what assurances are there beyond the Government being “strongly minded” to act? We do not mind the Prime Minister borrowing our ideas; we just wish he had borrowed all of them, and sooner. Of course, we continue to offer our services to work together. Our approach would ban harmful social media for under-16s by default and set a new safety standard to make the internet truly a safer place, just like the standards for films and toys that we have had in the offline world for decades. Children are growing up in the attention economy, where their focus is being sold. They deserve a Government who treat this as a seatbelt moment, not a press release for Makerfield. Will the Secretary of State use this opportunity to truly hold the tech giants to account and back a harms-based framework that puts children’s safety at the heart of this quickly changing technological world?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Russian Shadow Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  Standing up to Russia, standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and supporting our military depends on our military infrastructure and our defence manufacturing. However, today a roundtable of advanced manufacturers across the whole supply chain has raised very loud alarm bells about the impact of steel tariffs, especially on category 14 and category 17. The deadline of 1 July is looming. Will the Secretary of State speak with his colleagues, especially those in the Department for Business and Trade, to ensure that those tariffs do not have an inadvertent impact on our defence capabilities at this important time?

• 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.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. This Government’s top-down housing targets, which are about to almost double in my constituency, mean that communities like Redbourn and Tring are about to see huge-scale development while infrastructure is bursting at the seams and a supposedly affordable new build in my patch costs more than £500,000. It is no wonder that Hannah, one of my sixth-formers, says that she can never dream of buying a new home and will have to leave the place where she grew up. Will the Prime Minister urgently review these targets, and come and speak to Hannah and other constituents to see how these top-down targets are not delivering the affordable homes and services we need, nor protecting our precious landscapes?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Defence Bonds · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Fraser puts it best when he says, “At a time when the world is increasingly dark and uncertain, and when the UK’s defence capability is well below the level required”, defence bonds “are surely one which would gain support across the political spectrum. I know that I would happily invest.” With all of us in the United Kingdom paying the price every time we check out or pay a bill, the Liberal Democrat calls to issue £20 billion of defence bonds would mean an injection of funding in our security, but also in our economy, so what are the Government waiting for?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Defence Bonds · Hansard source

  More

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

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

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

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

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

• 20 May 2026 · Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK Biobank Data · Hansard source

  More

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