Victoria Collins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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. What is interesting about innovation is that it often thrives with constraints. As I have said, safety is about trust, which is good for business and our economy, and not just for our society. When will the AI Bill come to Parliament? We really need it; we need to discuss these things. What are the Government doing to reassess the Online Safety Act? Beyond that, in determining how we react to this rapid shift in technology, will they consider the Lib Dems’ call for a digital Bill of Rights to make sure that standards are set and can adapt to that? What are the Government doing about international co-operation on safety and security? As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) mentioned, we can—we must—have innovation and safety, and safety by design. We can choose both, but only if we act now.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) on securing this incredible debate. That so many issues have been packed into 90 minutes shows clearly that we need more time to debate this subject, and I think it comes down to the Government to say that an AI Bill, or further discussions, are clearly needed. The issue now pervades our lives, for the better but in many aspects for the worse. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on science, innovation and technology, I am very excited about the positive implications of AI. It can clearly help grow our economy, solve the big problems and help us improve our productivity. However, it is clear from the debate that it comes with many risks that have nothing to do with growing our economy—certainly not the kind of economy we want to grow—including the use of generative AI for child sexual abuse material, children’s growing emotional dependency on chatbots, and the provision of suicide advice. I have said for a long time the trust element is so important. It is two sides of the same coin: if we cannot trust this technology then we cannot develop as a society, but it is also really important for business and our economy. I find it fascinating that so many more businesses are now talking about this and saying, “If we can’t trust this technology, we can’t use it, we can’t spend money on it and we can’t adopt it.” Trust is essential. If the UK acts fast and gets this right, we have a unique opportunity to be the leader on this. From talking to industry, I know that we have incredible talent and are great at innovating, but we also have a fantastic system for building trust. We need to take that opportunity. It is the right thing to do, and I believe we are the only country in the world that can really do it, but we have to act now.

• 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.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about unreliable service. I have in my constituency Thameslink and London Northwestern Railway. Doreen, who is in her 80s, talks about cancellation after cancellation. In her mid-80s, she had to wait until past midnight. Then there is Katy, and others. For those cancelled services, the value is awful. They have to pay £30 for a 30-minute return journey. Does he agree that we need to know from the Government what mechanisms there are to hold operators accountable to make sure passengers get the service they pay for?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I do not know how the Government can go ahead with this scheme, when there is strong cross-party consensus that it is ill thought out. MPs from across the House and from basically all the parties have presented not only their legitimate concerns, but those of thousands of their constituents. Almost 3 million people have signed the petition, and that number of people who are concerned does not include those who are digitally excluded because it is an e-petition.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  This debate has shown a clear consensus that this is not the right scheme. We are pushing back on the fact that this is essentially a mandatory digital ID for anyone who wants to work in this country. What choice or control is left in that scenario? As Liberal Democrats, we believe in upholding freedom. This digital ID erodes long-held civil liberties, and the seemingly changing use of immigration enforcement and the slippery slope does not uphold freedom. As Liberal Democrats, we believe in individuals having more control, as do many of our supporters. This does not give individuals more control; indeed, it gives the Government more control. We have heard loud and clear across the Chamber today about the attack on civil liberties. The Government said that this is not about checking papers, but that is exactly what is being introduced. They talked about the right to work and someone needing to check papers, so it is about checking papers. The Resolution Foundation says that 91% of the working-age population will be employed at some point in their life. This is essentially mandatory for the whole population. The slippery slope—the mission creep—has been mentioned today. The right to rent has been mentioned in Government papers. I am sure that what the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) said came from a good place, but the fact that we are talking about whether the police can check these things shows that there is a slippery slope before digital ID has even been implemented. Whether digital ID will be for 13-year-olds has been discussed. There is a terrible hypocrisy in the fact that there is a massive discussion nationally about the impact of smartphones on young people, yet the Government are saying, “Actually, we should give them all digital ID,” when it is clear that that ID will be on a smartphone. Civil liberties are important. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about a two-tier Britain. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that some will use digital ID for good and some will use it for ill. The hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) talked about the many countries in which digital ID has not helped to tackle illegal immigration. So what is it for? Leon from Tring in my constituency says: “The idea of a ‘Papers Please’ Britain is appalling.” He says it insults our history and undermines civil society. Claude from Markyate says it is a curb on our freedom and privacy. How exactly will this system stop illegal working? How can the Minister guarantee that it will not undermine fundamental freedoms under this Government or the next? He cannot. Once Pandora’s box has been opened, it cannot be closed again. Digital inclusion is so important to so many citizens. As hon. Members across the House have said, it is not only about having the choice not to be online; it is about skills. Access to telecoms has been mentioned: in my constituency, just 30 miles from London, we have some of the worst data access in the country. Of course, there is also the cost. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) tabled an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill for the right to non-digital ID. The Government rejected that amendment because, as the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), assured us, people would be able to use physical ID “in every circumstance”. Where is that option in this scheme, under which people have to have digital ID to work? Where is the choice in that? Where is the alternative “in every circumstance” that does not require digital ID? The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) talked about inequality. That is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) asked the important question about how the scheme will help her constituents, who are some of the most digitally excluded in the country. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) talked about how it will impact BAME communities. All of those are essential questions that raise the big question: why are the Government pushing ahead with it? It is such a shame that the Government have undermined and halted progress on e-government, which could be improving our public services. Today’s debate and the cross-party consensus that this proposal has eroded trust are fundamentally important. We have seen flip-flopping and retrofitting of a policy that was first announced as being about immigration, and then suddenly in the Chamber came out as “Oh, no: this is about improving public services.” No one is buying it. That is why almost 3 million people have signed this petition; that is why we are all here today; and that is why there were not enough seats in this Chamber. People realise that this is a retrofitted policy undermining any progress on online government. A quite important point is that we already have voluntary online services that need improving. They are not doing very well. The gov.uk wallet definitely needs improving, and the gov.uk One Login—a voluntary system at the moment—has many flaws. Should we not be spending money on that? The Government have already invested £100 million in it. There are systems that need improving; the Government should do that, rather than spend £1.8 billion on a system that clearly does not have the support of our citizens or many MPs across the House. I respect the efforts of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and many others to talk about service improvement, but we can modernise without mandating, and that is essentially what this is. What are the Government doing to improve systems such as the Government One Login? Why are the Government conflating digital ID and e-services? That will not improve our public services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) highlighted, this is the “anti-Midas touch”. I am so angry about that, because the Government have undermined progress in improving our services and increasing trust in them, which are both so important. This debate has highlighted the importance of trust in data. Cyber incidents have increased by 50% since last year. A 2025 Department for Science, Innovation and Technology survey highlighted that almost 300,000 British businesses have been victims of cyber-crime in the past 12 months. The Legal Aid Agency has had cyber leaks, the armed forces have been affected, and as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, police in Northern Ireland had their personal details released. How can we trust the Government with our data at this point? One of my constituents, Jamie, from Wheathampstead says: “My concern is with the broader principle of trust. I simply do not have confidence that any government, now or in the future would implement digital IDs in a way that is safe, proportionate and free from mission creep”. That reflects the Government’s track record in oversight and protecting their own systems as critical national infrastructure. Yet as I understand it, public administration is not within the scope of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill. Given the Government’s proposals on digital ID, that is quite an oversight. A cost of £1.8 billion has been projected. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and many others said that this figure will rise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) mentioned, this comes at a time when our public services are breaking and when a Budget has just asked many people to pay more in tax, pushing up that bill by £67 billion in the next several years. With around 10 million taxpaying families paying more, how can the Government justify this £1.8 billion cost when their IT projects have already cost the taxpayer more than £31 billion overall? This will just add to that. All this is to say nothing about the impact on business costs. Who will pay for smartphones for those who need them? Who will pay for data for those who need it? And who will pay when citizens cannot work because this failed system does not work for them? That brings me to my final questions and closing remarks. Will the Minister set out the data security protocols that would apply to this system, including whether a digital ID would be treated as part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure? Will he look at publishing a digital exclusion impact assessment before any further steps are taken? Can he clarify the status of the gov.uk One Login and confirm how much of taxpayers’ money has already been spent on that? The Government have no mandate for these proposals. Across this Chamber today, we have seen Members of different parties and from across the UK speak up, and nearly 3 million people signed the petition—as I said, that is just those who are able to sign it. At a time when millions are struggling with the cost of living crisis, £1.8 billion being spent on digital ID cards is wasteful and indefensible. That money should be spent on fixing GP waiting lists, not funding Blair-era fantasies. Digital ID is not about empowerment in this sense, but about control. Today, we have heard about the end of end-to-end encryption and the end of trial by jury, and this is the worrying next step. Mandatory digital ID crosses a red line and hands the state more power over citizens while stripping people of their freedoms and choice. That is something that the Liberal Democrats cannot and will not accept.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Although there is much that I welcome in the Budget, overall I cannot help but be disappointed by a botched Budget that raises taxes to a record high and increases costs for businesses, while avoiding using tax levers on the largest, highly profitable corporations and ignoring our biggest lever for growth: a better deal with the European Union. The Chancellor insists that this Budget ensures that everyone pays their fair share, yet it seemingly allows the biggest tech giants, such as Elon Musk, off the hook through the absence of a digital services tax announcement. Freezing income tax thresholds continues the Conservative tax legacy of hitting people with years of stealth taxes, together costing 10 million taxpayers an extra £67 billion a year by 2030. Behind those numbers are families and individuals still struggling as costs go up and earnings do not catch up. One constituent from Gaddesdon Row told me that this Budget is “disconnected from the reality that families are under pressure today”. Earning just too much to qualify for targeted support but not enough to absorb rising costs, this constituent is being both overlooked and penalised by frozen thresholds. Another constituent, Harriet, a single mother from Berkhamsted, feels “unheard, unrepresented and unsupported” by the Chancellor’s Budget. Despite the fact that she is working harder than ever before, this Government keep squeezing her financially from every direction. This does not sound like a fair plan for working families. This Labour Government were elected on the promise of lowering the cost of living and stimulating growth, yet for the second consecutive year they are targeting businesses and employment, the very engines of growth. Richard, from Brash Solutions in Berkhamsted, shares the view of many by saying: “Once again, the Autumn Budget risks disincentivising entrepreneurs and small business owners by increasing taxes and eroding rewards for those who take daily risks to employ staff and drive economic growth.” For Hugh, a business owner in Potten End, this Budget is “another kick in the teeth”. Charlotte from Gatwards says: “The government appears to have completely abandoned their growth ambitions”. Angela from HJP Chartered Accountants says that their clients feel that the Government are treating them like a “cash cow” and warns that if this continues, investment in the people of the United Kingdom will reduce. Daniel, a general manager in Berkhamsted, warns of the tens of thousands in pre-profit costs yet again being placed on businesses such as his. The Government have done nothing to improve the situation for family farms. Also, last year we warned about the negative impact that the rise in employer national insurance contributions would have on jobs. Since then, I have seen charities and businesses in Hertfordshire let go of staff and establish hiring freezes. The Office for National Statistics has confirmed that fewer jobs are in the economy over the last quarter. We are ringing those alarm bells again. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that nearly one in three small firms expect to shrink, sell up or shut down in the next 12 months. I recognise that this Government inherited a difficult economic landscape after a decade of Conservative mismanagement. However, I still cannot get over the missed opportunities for a fair and growing economy. If the Government were serious about growth, they would back Lib Dem calls to boost high streets with a 5% VAT cut for hospitality, accommodation and attractions, something that the Robin Hood pub in Tring would very much welcome. They would also follow Lib Dem policies on reducing energy bills, which would go beyond the three years and look to halve energy bills by 2035. They would tax the big banks and social media giants properly, with a new windfall tax and digital services tax. They would also back Lib Dem calls for a better trade deal with Europe to repair the £90 billion Brexit black hole in tax income. That is how we would tackle the cost of living crisis, bear down on inflation, revive our high streets, grow the economy and deliver for our communities, with the fair autumn Budget that this Government have failed to provide.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Twelve-year-old Hollie Goodwin from Markyate last week won in her age category at the world trampoline, tumbling and DMT championships in Pamplona in Spain for British Gymnastics. Like the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), Hollie’s family had to raise money for her to get there, because they will not get funding until she is 18. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Hollie and help me to secure a meeting with Ministers to see how we can support young people in sport, especially young girls and women?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Reopening Railway Stations · Hansard source

  More

  Although train stations such as Harpenden and Berkhamsted are still open, to many residents, they feel closed. Frankie says that her train travel costs from Berkhamsted went from £19 to £37, and she can no longer get to work. Oliver from Harpenden says the same thing. Residents cannot use their train stations because the costs are too high, so there is much that we need to do. Will the Minister join Neill in Harpenden in calling for contactless to be linked to the network rail, to make it easier and cheaper for residents to use those stations?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument, which updates the Online Safety Act’s priority offences to reflect changes in intimate image abuse law. It is absolutely right to tackle the non-consensual sharing of intimate photographs and films, and to tackle self-harm. However, this is also an important opportunity to say that the Act must go further still. The Internet Watch Foundation reminds us that it is not currently illegal to retain, re-upload or trade abusive intimate image material long after initial distribution. The Molly Rose Foundation and Samaritans have raised the issue of self-harm, and I am pleased to hear that being addressed today, but the point about AI chatbots is really important. As I mentioned in DSIT questions, the legislation on user to user and search seems pretty clear, but what about one-to-one chatbots when there is a single user? It is not clear who is accountable when self-harm content comes through chatbots that are not user to user. I appreciate that the Minister said the Department is looking into that issue with Ofcom. The Act must also go further to address emerging online threats. The Internet Watch Foundation also reports that intimate images online are increasingly generated by deepfake AI, and that expert analysis now struggles to distinguish AI-generated content from real images or videos. At the beginning of this year alone, the IWF found 1,200 photorealistic videos of child sexual abuse material online. The Online Safety Act must do more to hold big tech companies to account, and to protect users from intimate image abuse at source, both real and AI-generated. Importantly, it must also tackle self-harm that is linked to AI chatbots, which are increasingly used by people of all ages. Although this statutory instrument is a step forward, we need regulation that keeps pace with the rapidly evolving technology, not just changes in statute. We must ensure that Ofcom is sufficiently equipped and resourced to deal with emerging technologies. Will the Minister confirm what assessment has been done of the adequacy of Ofcom’s resourcing to ensure that this statutory instrument and the Online Safety Act can be applied and enforced in this fast-moving environment? When can we expect updates on AI chatbots and the scope of regulation? Will the Minister also confirm what the Government are doing to effectively regulate deepfake intimate content? What steps are being taken to hold tech companies to account for the continued harm facing children, vulnerable people and, given that experts can no longer differentiate between deepfake and real images, all internet users?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Energy Costs: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses across my constituency, such as Redbournbury Mill and Total Cow Burger in Redbourn, have written to me about the crippling increases in energy costs. Coupled with the increased cost of national insurance and business rates, that means they are struggling to keep going. Ahead of the autumn Budget, will the Government commit to break the link between gas and electricity prices, as the Liberal Democrats have called for, to provide much-needed relief for businesses and families?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Energy Costs: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  5. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for businesses facing increased energy costs.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Illegal Waste: Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, a 200-tonne illegal dump has left a farmer with a £40,000 clean-up bill and the risk of criminalisation if he cannot afford to clear it quickly, yet a cross-agency meeting clarified that no single agency takes responsibility for investigating these large-scale incidents on private land. When perpetrators are caught, the fixed-term penalty is a pitiful £1,000—that is for a crime that costs the economy £1 billion. Does the Minister agree that the enforcement gap, where victims shoulder the costs of organised crime while the penalties remain pitiful, is completely unacceptable? Will the Government help to establish a single accountable authority to investigate waste crime on private land and ensure that penalties reflect the true cost of these offences?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Coeliac disease impacts one in 100 people, yet ability to access gluten-free food on prescription is a postcode lottery. For Ted and his mother, who live in Redbourn, that means they miss out, and they have seen costs go up by 40%. Can we have time to talk about the postcode lottery for prescriptions, including for those with coeliac disease?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Online Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to join hon. Members in really pushing on questions about AI chatbots. Their human-like, assertive nature is filling a gap and many people, including children, are entrusting chatbots with medical opinions, legal advice and emotional support, with fatal consequences and without clear accountability. I know that this has been touched on, but it is really important. Ofcom explicitly includes only user to user or search, so one to one, which is actually where there are some of the most acute harms, is not covered. Will the Minister commit to working with Ofcom on classification, so we can ensure the responsible use of this technology and protect children from the unregulated harms of the growing dependence on chatbots?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats support the statutory instrument, as it will simplify market access for manufacturers, reduce duplication in testing and certification, and facilitate UK exporters’ entry into Japan and Singapore for smart connected consumer products. It demonstrates the important principle that cutting red tape is vital to promoting economic growth and reducing compliance costs for businesses—which is why the Liberal Democrats, alongside many businesses, are also calling for a customs union with the EU. That would similarly break down the bureaucracy holding British businesses back and boost our economy. We must, however, ensure that safeguards remain. Given the critical importance of maintaining robust cyber-security protections, can the Minister confirm what oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor ongoing alignment with these international schemes, and how these measures will be integrated into the long-awaited cyber-security and resilience Bill, which will be vital in keeping our economy safe?

• 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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I would just highlight that what was stated was about the system being voluntary and about choice. We are saying that a mandatory system is a problem. Do this Government want to grow this economy or not? Do they want to give people who want to work a real choice? I do not see that at all.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and I was about to say that while frontline services are crumbling and people are needing those billions of pounds, we are seeing here is billions being spent, millions being excluded and freedoms eroded—and for what? How much taxpayer money are the Government prepared to waste on this scheme, for which they have no mandate and no public support? While those frontline services are bursting at the seams, the Government have squandered the opportunity to use technology to improve services by instead undermining trust, seemingly flip-flopping on this patchwork policy. On 26 September, the Prime Minister announced digital ID with promises to control borders and tackle irregular migration. Last week, that narrative had all but vanished, with a shift to talking about anything from handling daycare to buying a drink. The Secretary of State herself admitted that digital ID would not be the “silver bullet” to end migration as initially promised; as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted, as did many others, we know it will not solve the problem. Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary defended extending digital ID to 13-year-olds—something that the Government have still not ruled out. Why are this Government so determined to press ahead? I support improving digital services on a voluntary basis, but we can modernise without mandating and must leave room for non-digital choice. Allegedly, this is about easier access to Government services, but surely we should be working on improving what we already have. The gov.uk One Login, the voluntary gateway to digital Government, needs much improvement. As the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) highlighted, there are many concerns about security as well. Should we not fix those services, rather than create new ones?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Ada Lovelace Day · Hansard source

  More

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

• 14 Oct 2025 · Reducing Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  Carol from Harpenden is one of many constituents who are worried about energy costs. At 70, she stressed that she never imagined that she would have to scrimp and save in the way that she does just to get by. The warm home discount is a temporary lifeline, so will the Government commit to long-lasting solutions to end fuel poverty, including an emergency home upgrade programme that will include incentives to install heat pumps that cover real costs?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Reducing Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  21. What steps he is taking to reduce energy bills.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I join her in expressing solidarity with the Jewish community following the horrific attack. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must urgently address online spaces where hatred is radicalised and amplified? Will she work with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to review Ofcom’s guidance, and the categorisation set out in the Online Safety Act, to ensure that small, high-harm platforms are properly regulated to prevent the radicalisation that leads to such devastating attacks?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Secretary of State for advance sight of this statement, but I am quite frankly disappointed that this is how we are starting the conversation on digital ID in Parliament. We Liberal Democrats believe that freedoms belong to citizens by right, but the Government’s plans for digital ID for every single working person risk eroding the hard-won freedom to control the way we live our lives. They risk excluding millions of vulnerable people from their own society and wasting billions in public money chasing expensive solutions that will not work. Yet again, it is a gimmick to tackle irregular migration—something I had hoped was reserved for the Conservatives. Yet again, by eroding public trust with these rushed, retrofitted policies, the Government have squandered an opportunity to use technology to improve public services by bringing people with them. In addition, the Government announced this—a scheme that will impact every single working person in the UK—weeks before it could be scrutinised by Parliament. Any claims from this Government that this scheme will be non-compulsory and give agency are poppycock in reality. As a requirement for the right to work, it is mandatory ID in all but name—the Secretary of State said so herself just now. Where is the choice in that? Last week, the Foreign Secretary proposed issuing digital IDs for teenagers. This is clear Government mission creep, and it is dangerous. Liberals have always stood up against concentrations of power, and for good reason. We have seen the Government’s abject failure to secure people’s data before—just ask the victims of the Legal Aid Agency data breach or the armed forces personnel who were victims of the Ministry of Defence data breach whether they have faith in the Government to keep their most personal data secure. How can the public have trust in the Government to manage a system that will manage the data of almost the entire population? Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing an impact assessment for the 8.5 million people without foundational digital skills, such as my constituent Julie, who does not own a smartphone and is fearful of being excluded from employment, healthcare and other essential services? Will the Secretary of State come forward with a plan to reduce the risk of further marginalisation? All these serious concerns, from privacy to exclusion, come at a staggering cost. This scheme will cost the taxpayer billions—money that will be wasted on a system doing little to tackle the Government’s stated aims of immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, our public services are crumbling. Finally, I ask the Minister how much taxpayer money the Government are prepared to waste on this—a scheme for which they have no mandate and no public support—before they admit it does not work.