partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

   Transport Connectivity: Border Communities

   The TriLink scheme, which connects north-west England with the south of Scotland and upgrades the west coast main line—the busiest railway line in western Europe—has been deferred by this Government and their predecessors for years. This very likely contributed to the near-fatal derailment at Shap just a few months ago. Does the Minister think that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) believes that the north-west of England exists beyond the M62, and if he does, will he invest in upgrading the railway line, for the good of everyone in England and Scotland?

   Hansard source
2. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

   Defence Spending and Readiness

   The hon. Gentleman is right to hold the Government to account, because the plan is massively delayed. He is surely aware that all of us here, including those from my party, who spent time in government in the last few years, know that ever since the fall of the Berlin wall, we have been complacent as a country about the scale of the threat we face. Do not all parties need to recognise that? We have the smallest Army since Napoleonic times. We have 8,000 drones in stock, while Ukraine is using 8,000 drones a day. Is it not time that we worked together across the parties to make sure we defend our country in the way we all need to in the years to come?

   Hansard source
3. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

   Topical Questions

   T5. Today marks 10 years since the Brexit referendum. Since that date, we have had 10 Home Secretaries, nine Foreign Secretaries, eight Chancellors, seven Defence Secretaries and 6 Prime Ministers. Does the Chancellor agree that such instability has acted as a break on growth in this country and can she set out what she plans to do to reverse that trend?

   Hansard source
4. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

   Fly-tipping: Residential Areas

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate. The Government estimate that there were 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents across England last year and that waste crime costs the economy more than £1 billion a year. Such incidents represent an upward trend, with 3,000 incidents reported to Somerset council alone. However, those figures exclude incidents on private land and cases involving large-scale illegal dumping. Moreover, as is always the case, a substantial number of waste crimes are never recorded. I want to recognise the work being done in Somerset to tackle the problem head-on. Somerset council’s Recycle More initiative handles more than 170,000 tonnes of household waste every year. Major infrastructure investment in 2020 upgraded facilities and introduced more frequent collections. Somerset’s flexible plastics trial—now concluded—demonstrated clearly how targeted local innovation can reduce fly-tipping in residential areas. That trial is proof of what is possible, yet without sustained national funding to back such local initiatives, progress stalls. The will is there, but the resources are not. Waste crime has been dubbed the “new narcotics” by the former chair of the Environment Agency. That simply cannot go on. We must recognise it for what it is: a national emergency. We need to hold the perpetrators of these crimes to account. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to clean up illegal waste sites, catch those responsible and finally get a handle on the true extent of this environmental disaster. Organised crime gangs are making millions of pounds through illegal waste activity, without any regard for local communities, public health or the environment. Earlier this year, a spotlight was thrown on to the issue when an estimated 21,000 tonnes of illegal waste was found at a site near Kidlington in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). I thank him for his tireless campaigning on the issue, which led to more than 400 lorry-loads of waste being removed from that site alone. There are at least 11 other similar sites identified across England, demonstrating the scale of these organised crime networks. We are not just talking about a nuisance; this is waste crime on an industrial level. Unfortunately, it is clear that the Environment Agency is not currently equipped to tackle it. Enforcement responsibilities are dispersed across multiple agencies, with no single body explicitly accountable for both prosecution and clearing up waste crime. Local authorities and the Environment Agency have powers, but no duties to enforce, which weakens their overall enforcement effectiveness. The Minister for Nature made that point well in a debate on the Kidlington site earlier this year, highlighting the lack of a coherent body to which to report waste crime. If citizens are not clear about where to report, they are likely to do nothing. The Environment Agency is responsible for large-scale incidents or where waste contains hazardous materials. Smaller incidents are handled by local authorities, unless it is on private land, of course, where councils handle prosecution but are not responsible for clearing up the mess. The responsibility is on members of the public to be aware of complicated regulations and then report to the correct body. Given the clear under-reporting of crime, that is simply not happening effectively. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for a single national hotline for waste crime, to improve reporting, mapping and detection, because those responsible must be caught. Only 31% of incidents are currently investigated and more than half of those result in no further action, with only 13 custodial sentences handed down in England in 2024-25. As the National Rural Crime Network’s report into waste crime makes clear, the legal framework is not the problem. Unlimited fines can be levied, vehicles can be seized and prison sentences of up to five years can be handed out, but those powers are rarely used. In addition, there is an enforcement postcode lottery depending on where the offence occurs. A recent House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee inquiry concluded that serious organised waste crime is significantly under-prioritised, despite its environmental, economic and social impacts. It was therefore disappointing that the Government rejected the Committee’s recommendation for an independent review into the entire system of waste crime. The Liberal Democrats call once again on the Minister to reverse that decision, come forward with a review and set out a Government strategy to tackle illegal dumping, including measurable metrics and targets. The Environment Agency and the Joint Unit for Waste Crime must also be adequately resourced to tackle this crime. It is impossible to talk about enforcement without also addressing the conditions that allow this criminal market to thrive in the first place. We must review the current household waste recycling system that in part creates a market for criminal gangs to exploit. Further, decades of local authority budget cuts have eaten away at local services, with many now placing charges on the use of household waste recycling centres—an issue some residents in my constituency now face. Dorset council’s recent decision to charge Somerset residents an £8.50 fee to use the Dorset council household recycling centre in Sherborne has forced residents in Milborne Port, Henstridge, Charlton Horethorne, Corton Denham, Templecombe and surrounding areas to make a round trip of up to 28-miles to access a free household waste recycling facility in Somerset. In addition to increasing the environmental impact of residents’ waste disposal, the new charge risks pushing people to consider illegal methods of waste disposal. Criminal gangs know that, and they are ready to exploit that temptation. I brought a petition to Parliament on this matter earlier this year that had garnered significant local support. The solution is clear: fix the recycling system, or accept that we are handing criminal gangs a business opportunity. The choice is really that simple. The waste industry estimates that 35% of waste crime is committed by organised criminal groups, and there is reason to believe that that figure is increasing. The national rural crime unit took a report on waste crime and its links to wider rural crime to DEFRA, but it has not been published, despite repeated requests. I ask once again: will the Minister publish the report and show that the Government are committed to tackling organised crime gangs operating in the countryside? As with a lot of rural crime, local police forces can struggle to deal with waste crime effectively due to its organised nature and the cross-border tactics deployed by criminals; yet it falls short of the National Crime Agency’s responsibility, giving criminal gangs free rein to exploit this gap. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the National Crime Agency to take over investigations into illegal dumps in the most serious cases and to improve co-ordination with local police forces. The new national police service, which was announced in the King’s Speech, will assume responsibility for serious organised crime operations, but we wait to see how organised waste crime fits within that. I have raised my concerns about the Government’s lack of understanding about the specific needs of rural communities on many occasions, yet the policing White Paper from January made hardly any reference to rural crime. In fact, only 619 police officers and staff were assigned to dedicated rural crime teams across 37 police forces in England and Wales in 2024, representing a paltry 0.4% of the workforce. In Somerset, there are only two—sometimes a couple more—dedicated rural crime officers covering more than 1,300 square miles; rural communities know all too well what that means in practice when crime strikes. A farmer in Long Sutton told me they were recently hit by their second break-in within 12 months; thousands of pounds of equipment was stolen but, unsurprisingly, they received little meaningful police action. That is not an isolated failure; it is what under-resourcing looks like on the ground. Proper reforms are urgently required to increase both capability and capacity. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a “countryside copper” guarantee for properly resourced dedicated rural crime teams or specialists to be embedded in every police force. I hope the Government will consider taking those proposals forward. Criminal gangs are running sophisticated multi-cross-border operations, and the only response available is from fragmented agencies with under-resourced enforcement and powers that are almost never used. The problem is not the law, as there is already the option to levy unlimited fines and five-year sentences; they simply are not being applied. More penalties on the statute book will change nothing, if no one is resourced to enforce them. What we need is co-ordination, accountability and the political will to treat waste crime as what it is—organised crime. I urge the Minister to show that this Government are finally ready to do that.

   Hansard source
5. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate. As she is setting out, peatlands store more carbon than all the world’s forests combined, whether that be on the Somerset levels in my constituency or in the rainforests of Borneo, and their destruction accelerates the climate crisis. Does she agree that, rather than cutting climate funding, the Government should be investing in bilateral peatland partnerships, sharing our British expertise to protect these irreplaceable global carbon stores?

   Hansard source
6. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   The Minister is clearly setting out how the Indonesian rainforests and peatlands deliver irreplaceable global climate benefits. We know that conservation efforts have been severely undermined because of the funding issue and she is setting out that new funding will be available. Will she also set out a clear timeframe for that funding?

   Hansard source
7. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

   Defence Spending and Readiness

   As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in defence, I know that women make up only 11% of the regular forces. We cannot talk about defence readiness while failing to recruit and retain half the population. Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence investment plan must include a concrete plan to reach the women in defence charter’s 30% target by 2030?

   Hansard source
8. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

   Defence Spending and Readiness

   So far, the debate has been about how much funding should be found for defence. We should also think about the resignation speech by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who said last week that the DIP, which he has seen, does not strike the right balance between high-end sophistication and low-end mass. He said that “the defence investment plan does not strike that balance”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 732.] Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to think about the balance between sophistication and mass?

   Hansard source
9. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

   UK-EU Economic Co-operation

   13. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of increasing levels of economic co-operation with the EU.

   Hansard source
10. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    UK-EU Economic Co-operation

    Today does indeed mark 10 years since Britain voted to leave the European Union. One of the consequences of Brexit has been to bury my constituents in red tape. My farmers cannot export without doing reams of paperwork, and small businesses are seemingly locked out of European markets. The EU remains the world’s largest trading bloc, and it sits on our doorstep, so will the Chancellor set out a path to an ambitious UK-EU reset—something that my party has called for—including a new customs union that would slash costs for British businesses, open markets for our farmers, and bring down prices for the British consumer? Or will we have to wait for her successor to show that ambition?

    Hansard source
11. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

    Draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. It is positive that the Government are looking at costs and energy bills for businesses and non-domestic consumers. Extending the scope of the climate change agreements scheme is a good step to support our industries in the transition. Decarbonising our industry, and encouraging energy-intensive businesses to be more energy efficient and to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, will be vital to meeting our carbon targets. That could not be more relevant than in this week: not only is it London Climate Action Week, but for the first ever time we have a UK Health Security Agency red alert for extreme heat. Climate change is no longer a future threat; it is here with us now. We must do all we can to decarbonise and avoid the worsening of climate impacts on our economy and way of life, so it is right to include the three processes the Minister mentioned—the mechanical recycling of plastic, the packaging of spirits and the production of automative-grade battery cells—in the reduced rates scheme. Ultimately, to decarbonise industry we need a package of policies, including ones to make low-carbon actions and technology viable for businesses. We Liberal Democrats feel that the Government also need to take steps to simplify the current energy-tax system, and that once the emissions trading scheme is fully effective in the UK, complicated taxes such as the carbon price support and the climate change levy should be abolished. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. As we have heard, the price of energy is currently a huge and disproportionate burden for our businesses, across sectors, compared with other countries, which makes the UK less competitive. We need to take action to help businesses—not just energy-intensive businesses but the many small business that are currently left exposed to exorbitantly high energy costs—to decarbonise and have affordable bills. If the Government are serious about meeting our climate targets and driving British industry forwards, we need action and ambition to help to support businesses and industries to stay competitive.

    Hansard source
12. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Heathrow Airport Expansion: Economic Growth outside London

    16. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of Heathrow airport’s expansion on economic growth in regions outside London.

    Hansard source
13. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Heathrow Airport Expansion: Economic Growth outside London

    When the Chancellor announced her support for Heathrow expansion last year, she claimed that it would deliver 0.43% GDP growth. The Heathrow expansion national policy statement snuck out last week predicts a 90% reduction in that figure to just 0.05% growth; what little growth there might be will largely be sucked out of other parts of the country, such as Birmingham and Manchester. Will she now finally admit that Heathrow expansion is not the grand growth plan she thought it was, and that it will hurt areas outside London the most?

    Hansard source
14. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

    Puberty Blockers

    It is a great shame that this debate has been broken up along party lines. It should have been had as the debate on assisted dying was, where people from across the House could stand up and make their own case. Indeed, many Members from across the House have been supportive of what I am about to say. Following the publication of the Cass review in 2024, the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in children and young people was restricted by the then Secretary of State for Health due to an unacceptable safety risk, with their use limited to clinical trial settings. Polling by Whitestone Insight in ’25 showed that the public do not support a trial, with 67% of respondents agreeing that puberty blockers should never be given to under-18s, even as part of a clinical trial. That figure was 70% among parents of children under 18. Like his predecessor, the Secretary of State has declared that he is uneasy allowing this trial to proceed, and cites clinical advice and a need for scientific evidence as a cover to allow him to support it. I have worked with many scientists, and we should be wary of thinking that all scientists are working for the betterment of the world. There were clinicians who said that the drug thalidomide was safe and clinicians who promoted lobotomies as a breakthrough mental health treatment. There were also clinicians who assured parents that puberty blockers were safe and reversible. It was in the name of science that clinicians prescribed puberty blockers to children at the Tavistock clinic for more than a decade, with an estimated 2,000 children receiving these powerful drugs. Where are these children now? How have they got on? More importantly, I believe that as Members of Parliament, we have an overriding moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society, especially children. In our induction as MPs, we were told that we had a duty to speak out when things were wrong. It is clear to me that allowing possibly irreversible medical research to be carried out on 11-year-old girls and 12-year-old boys, when we know that some of these children at least will reconcile themselves to their biological sex at birth, is completely inhumane and uncivilised. Many of us feel uncomfortable about using beagles for medical research. How on earth can it be right to use children for irreversible and life-changing medical research?

    Hansard source
15. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·John Milne

    Role of Big Tech in Society

    In my constituency, scammers have managed to impersonate the council to demand bogus penalty charges from vulnerable residents. Meanwhile, the world’s leading deepfake expert, Hany Farid, says in The New York Times that he can no longer trust his own eyes. If he cannot, what chance do the rest of us have? Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to compel tech companies to crack down on deepfakes and establish an AI regulator to enforce a statutory code of ethics?

    Hansard source
16. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·John Milne

    Green Book Wellbeing Guidance

    In my constituency, Chess Dynamics, part of Cohort, is a world-leading developer of counter-drone and air defence technology, yet like much of the defence sector, it has been left waiting for clarity on future investment. Given the recent turmoil at the top of the Labour party, can the Minister assure us that the vital defence investment plan will not be pushed back even further and finally give defence manufacturers the go-ahead—

    Hansard source
17. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Sollom

    Forest City: West Suffolk

    My constituency is in the path of the Oxford-Cambridge arc. I welcome the proposed development at Cambourne; there is also a proposal for a new town just south of the constituency, in Tempsford. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Forest City could just be a huge distraction from the new towns programme, which is a credible way of getting on with delivering the housing for which we certainly see the need in my constituency?

    Hansard source
18. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Roome

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    The Defence Committee has just come back from Norway. It worries me that some defence programmes may be withdrawn in the DIP. Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence programmes set out in the defence investment plan are important for not only our national security but maintaining and deepening the UK’s relationships with our allies and partners?

    Hansard source
19. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Before the general election, I was the Liberal Democrat housing spokesperson, and one thing that came up regularly was how important housing is, and not just for obvious physical conditions—mouldy houses can cause breathing issues. Temporary accommodation is devastating for the long-term health outcomes of the people who are placed in it. Does the Minister agree that working with MHCLG to improve housing—particularly social housing—is critical to achieving the Government’s objective?

    Hansard source
20. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    One of the challenges of recruiting staff in Shropshire relates to exactly that point: some areas of the health service are perhaps less exciting to work in than others. Ensuring that innovation is driven across every NHS site and every region will help us understand the recruitment and retention problems that have plagued some of the country’s more rural areas.

    Hansard source
21. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I have concerns similar to those of the shadow Minister about clause 10. Proposed new section 12E allows Ministers to vary the proportion of activity by provider, and I am interested in the rationale behind that. The powers to retain the provider mix were put in place because of concerns that the NHS would be privatised by the back door, so the requirement to maintain the mix is there for a reason. As we heard earlier when discussing ophthalmology, there are risks to using private provision for certain NHS activities, as there can be unintended consequences—a bit like the deregulation of buses. In ophthalmology, private providers do thousands of cataract operations very efficiently, but the less exciting and more critical work of preventing people from going blind, which is done in NHS hospitals, is under threat because so many people want to work in easy and profitable areas. I am concerned that that will occur in more areas of the NHS if the Bill allows more privatisation. Although I do not have an ideological problem with the NHS contracting out to private providers—that has worked well to bring down elective waiting lists, for example—the provisions to protect the mix are important. I am not sure that amendment 53 really moves us forward; it just requires the Secretary of State to consider who benefits from the change in mix.

    Hansard source
22. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman outlines an unintended consequence of the NHS contracting out to private providers. There are ways to get the pricing of those services right, but the clause could introduce that unintended consequence. Why is this proposal included in the Bill, and what does the Minister see it being used for? Is there a risk that a future Government might use it to bring much more privatisation into the NHS? The general public consensus is that that would be a bad thing. What safeguards can she put in place to ensure that does not happen?

    Hansard source
23. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I mentioned in Committee last Thursday that the Liberal Democrats are worried about the risk in the Bill of political capture and the Secretary of State’s ability to meddle in day-to-day operations. As I am sure the Minister is aware, speaking at the NHS ConfedExpo this month, Sir Jim Mackey, the chief executive officer of NHS England, warned that the Bill may give Ministers too much control and that there has to be operational freedom; otherwise we will grind to a halt. I want to probe the process by which we got to this point. Originally, there was discussion about whether the seven NHS regional teams should become independent arm’s length bodies to mitigate such a risk. NHS leaders argued that this would mitigate the risk of direct political control of the service and pointed out that the 10 regional strategic health authorities had played a useful role in running the service efficiently before the creation of NHSE. That proposal was rejected by Ministers, and it is not entirely clear why. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on that. It is now being reported that a fresh attempt is being made to argue that regional teams should be hosted by an NHS organisation—probably an ICB—to protect their employment terms and, as staff would remain public rather than civil servants, provide some brake on political control. Can the Minister shed any light on all this? Does she recognise the importance of maintaining operational freedom in NHS decision making? We have discussed the reality that current Parliaments cannot bind future ones, and I take that point on board. However, current Parliaments do set precedents and establish the legal frameworks within which future Governments initially operate until they change the law. With the potential for more extreme Governments, there is a risk of discrimination and political considerations entering what should be clinical decision making—for example, decisions on whether to place a trust into special measures or what services are offered, such as sexual health, IVF, outreach to migrant communities and so on. We are concerned not about the current Secretary of State, or indeed the shadow Secretary of State, but about the risk of those sweeping powers being placed in the hands of an extreme Government. If we imagine for a moment that an incoming Government decided that they did not approve of diversity on an NHS board, for example, and replaced an executive with their own candidate, that would be a horrifying situation. I think we would all agree on that. It would be useful to include safeguards now and set a precedent that such action would not be acceptable under this Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that a future Government could come along and change that, they would have to be transparent about their reasons for doing so. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, claimed that he was taking powers back into DHSC in order to give them away to the system, but this Bill has a lot on taking those powers and very little on giving them to the system. How can we be sure that that will actually happen on the ground, and that ICBs, hospital trusts and other health trusts will have the opportunity to flex their local muscle and ensure that services are best shaped for the local population? The NHS Alliance has called for an operationally independent regulatory function in DHSC to oversee NHS organisations, or for an independent panel to make appointments. Will the Minister consider such practical changes to ensure that political capture is not an unintended consequence of the Bill?

    Hansard source
24. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I could not agree more with the Minister that when there is an obvious failure, either in a local system or in a trust, we would hope that the Secretary of State will intervene. She will know from our experience in Shropshire that, when a system is failing or underperforming, that intervention is welcome. But the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to intervene even when things are going well, which is quite an extension of power. Will the Minister comment on that?

    Hansard source
25. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Maguire

    Role of Big Tech in Society

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this important debate and for raising the very real issues of the impact of big tech on democracy. Big tech has in many cases become synonymous with US tech, but that is not something that we should accept. The UK’s technology ecosystem is worth nearly £1 trillion. It is the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world and the most valuable in Europe. The UK has a long history of technological innovation, from the industrial revolution to the creation of the world wide web. That legacy is still very much alive today, but we must continue to foster it. The shortage of STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—skills in the UK has been a concern for the past two decades, along with scale-up funding. Start-ups in the UK repeatedly say that their main challenge is finding funding to scale up, and that that is hindering the UK’s chance of having a thriving technological ecosystem with as large an impact as that of America. If we look at our pensions, for example, foreign pension funds invest 16 times more into UK start-ups than our own pension funds do. Overseas funds recognise the talent that we create, so why don’t we? Why are we allowing our brilliant British start-ups to be sold abroad? Backing British technology has never been so important, as we have heard in the debate, because big technology exists in every corner of our society. Even the Government run their computer systems on overseas cloud providers. As alluded to, the NHS data system is run by Palantir. The online systems used every day by workers across the UK’s economy are run by big tech companies, neither owned nor run from the UK. That is a question of not only economic security but, increasingly, national security. We cannot ignore the risks posed by overreliance on foreign technologies. That became apparent when the US Government switched off, across the globe, access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5. While Fable 5 may only have been a feature for a day, a worrying precedent has been set for the US’s role in turning off international access to its big tech. What if that tech had been powering public services, such as our NHS records, when it was suddenly cut off? This must be a wake-up call. Our reliance on the technology that fuels our economy and underpins our services shows how desperately we need a digital sovereignty strategy to support British tech. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to take the risk, which is why we tabled and voted in favour of a digital sovereignty strategy during proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. We would have required the Government to establish a digital sovereignty strategy that placed British tech procurement at its centre. In an increasingly unstable world, the case for British digital resilience, technology and sovereign capability has never been stronger, but the Labour Government voted the proposed strategy down. I ask the Minister to explain what his alternative strategy is. Unfortunately, we cannot talk about big tech’s role in society without also thinking about the online harms. The world is increasingly moving towards the regulation of social media, and the Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government finally took on that issue, but the fine print really matters. The burden of safety must be on big tech, not on parents. The Liberal Democrats are clear that we must implement film-style age ratings based on harm, addictiveness and mental health impact. That is supported by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and over 40 charities. Social media companies must also play a stronger role in tackling misinformation. The UK Government must introduce stricter regulations for social media companies to ensure that they challenge harmful misinformation and reduce its spread across their platforms. Social media companies must issue fact-checked corrections to scientifically inaccurate posts and ensure that those are seen by everyone who shared or saw the original inaccurate posts. They must also change their algorithms to de-promote misinformation and fake news. I recently witnessed the devastating and real-life impact of unregulated dis and misinformation in Epsom and Ewell when riots took place there in April. In analysing the social media around those riots, the Council for Countering Online Disinformation found that 62 right wing UK accounts produced 70% of the misinformation. It also found that 42 video posts containing misinformation reached 4.2 million views, accounting for nearly 25% of misinformation views, despite accounting for less than 1% of all Epsom misinformation posts. That false information reached at least 21.8 million views between 11 April and 23 April. It was also promoted by X’s algorithm and, alarmingly, it continued to sit in X’s trending tab for at least two consecutive days after it had been clarified by the police that the events in question never took place. Social media is not the only cause of online harms. Despite their transformative potential, evidence shows that AI and bots are also a cause of harm online. NBC News reported that 57.4% of search requests online are now initiated by bots, compared with 42.6% coming from humans—a terrifying reality where bots are outpacing and outnumbering humans online. At the same time, 70% of people are unable to correctly identify real and fake AI-generated content online. Those online harms have been driven by big tech, and current legislation does not actively prevent them. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content online. We would also introduce a digital Bill of Rights to protect everyone’s rights online, including the right to privacy, free expression and participation. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically. That is why we would establish a cross-sector AI regulator that combines flexible, ethical oversight and technical expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with the rapid advances in technology. The AI legislation promised in Labour’s manifesto and the 2024 King’s Speech has not yet materialised. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed—

    Hansard source
26. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Maguire

    Role of Big Tech in Society

    Absolutely. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed to cost Britain its technological future or the safety of our children. The Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government on the positive role that British big tech can have, while holding the Government to account. Getting that right is not politics; it is essential for Britain’s future.

    Hansard source
27. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

    Fly-tipping: Residential Areas

    On rural and private land, the Environment Agency in my constituency has said that there is a gap in regulation when it comes to privately owned sites that are used for one purpose initially but gradually accumulate waste and become fly-tipping destinations. The Environment Agency has no power to act against that because it is private land, and councils are also struggling to find the right approach. Does the hon. Lady consider that as a significant issue in rural constituencies such as mine?

    Hansard source
28. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Roz Savage

    Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

    I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her passionate opening speech, and for the many hours we spent in each other’s company on a long-tail boat when we were fortunate enough to visit Indonesia earlier this year. In honour of this debate, I am wearing my Indonesian jacket that I bought in Jakarta. On a day like this, in an increasingly tropical London, it is blissfully lightweight. The UK-Indonesia relationship is at a crucial point. In January, our Government signed a strategic partnership, committing to stronger ties on climate and nature and recognising that, despite our differences, we share a particular vulnerability to climate change as island nations. The Liberal Democrats welcome that partnership warmly and would like to see it deepened. That requires the UK to show up as a serious partner, not just in words, but in the consistency of our commitments. Indonesia’s forests are among the most biodiverse on Earth and are home to between 10% and 15% of all known plants, mammals and birds. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) particularly appreciated that during our visit. The forests also store billions of tonnes of carbon. As I mentioned, I was fortunate enough to go to Kalimantan on the Indonesian side of Borneo in March as part of a cross-party parliamentary delegation funded by ICCF-UK and the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation. It is wonderful to see representatives from both those organisations in the Public Gallery. I would like to report back on what I saw and what I believe it requires of us in this country. We visited Sabangau national park, one of the largest peatland ecosystems outside the northern hemisphere. I saw the Nyaru Menteng Orangutan Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, where 228 orangutans that have been orphaned, many because of the palm oil trade, were being prepared for a return to the wild. The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned the forest school for young orangutans, where we saw orphaned orangutans being taught to climb by their human surrogate mothers, and that memory will stay with me for the rest of my life. We met scientists, such as Nadine, who have spent decades studying the flora and fauna of Indonesia. We met Indonesian officials and conservationists who are doing extraordinary work to protect their vital, natural heritage. They expect the UK to be a reliable partner but right now we are falling short in two concrete ways. Today, the Government announced plans to consult on new rules requiring businesses to check that products—such as palm oil, soy, cocoa and rubber—in their supply chains have not come from illegally deforested land. Liberal Democrats have pressed for that since the Environment Act 2021 was passed, so we welcome today’s development—five years late is better than never. The Government’s own figures show that, in 2023 alone, UK consumption was linked to roughly 29,000 hectares of deforestation worldwide. In keeping with today’s trend, I will point out that that is equivalent to 15 Cirencesters. The rules will be aligned with the EU’s equivalent regulation, which has been weakened and delayed multiple times under industry pressure. They will cover only illegal deforestation in the host country, not all deforestation, meaning that products from forests legally cleared could still reach British supermarket shelves. The Government say that a fully deforestation-free standard is their ambition for the future. Liberal Democrats believe it should be made the standard now. When these regulations arrive, they must be robust and not leave the door open to destruction that happens technically to be lawful. They must also cover indigenous people’s land rights alongside deforestation, which are frequently the first casualty when forests fall. On aid, the Liberal Democrats believe that the UK’s commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas development is both a moral obligation and a matter of national interest. We have set out concrete, alternative ways to meet our defence commitments without cutting international aid, including defence bonds and an increase to the digital services tax. The false choice between security and aid is one we reject. That matters, because UK-funded conservation in Indonesia is working. Indonesia has reduced its primary forest loss more than any other country in recent years, and British investment has contributed to that, yet the Darwin grants, which have supported vital terrestrial conservation work, including in rainforests, have been cut. Projects and marine environments retain some funding, but projects in terrestrial spaces, including the rainforest, have been left without support. The ringfenced nature funding in the international climate fund renewal is also at risk. We are heading in the wrong direction. Institutions like Kew Gardens and the Natural History Museum have deep, productive partnerships with their Indonesian counterparts—the kind of long-term scientific relationships that take decades to build but moments to break. We should be strengthening them, not withdrawing. That brings me to the Government’s national security assessment, which concludes that global biodiversity loss poses a direct threat to UK national security. I sit on the Environmental Audit Committee, which scrutinises exactly these questions. We know that a fuller version of the national security assessment exists, and we have asked to see it repeatedly, even under confidentiality arrangements, and that has been refused. Although elements have apparently been shared informally outside Government with the media, the EAC should not be the last to know about a document that the Government say concerns national security. The Minister must release it. I will close with a story told to me by a young friend that really brought home to me what is at stake here. Bella is a passionate young conservationist. A few years ago, she visited Malaysian Borneo and went to see an animal called Iman. Iman was the last Malaysian Sumatran rhino on Earth—a species more than 20 million years old, reduced to one animal. Her keeper, Dr Zainal, had spent almost his entire career protecting Sumatran rhinos in Borneo. He had watched them go one by one. He was there in 2017 when Puntung was euthanised and there in May 2019 when Tam, the last male, died. When Bella met Iman, the rhino was calling out—a distinctive kind of call, a searching call looking for others of her kind, but there were none. Bella described how she stood there, looking into the rhino’s eyes—this ancient creature with leather-thick skin and a face that seems to have come straight out of prehistory—and understood viscerally in a way that no statistic can quite convey what extinction actually means. The name Iman means faith. She died in November 2019. The Malaysian Sumatran rhino is gone forever, but the Bornean orangutan is not yet gone. The peatlands of Sabangau are not yet destroyed; there is still time. I ask the Minister to honour the commitment in schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 with robust, enforceable regulations; restore the overseas aid budget; protect the Darwin grants and the nature earmark; and release the national security assessment. The time to act is now.

    Hansard source
29. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East highlighted extremely well the difficulties of accessing hospital services on an island, but it can be a problem anywhere, including in rural constituencies. Winchester is about 60% rural. Since I was elected, an issue that I have had a great deal of correspondence about—even protests and petitions—has been the cancellation by Hampshire county council of bus services, particularly from rural villages such as Colden Common. People need buses for a variety of reasons—obviously to get to work and school—but the No. 1 issue concerning people is that of mainly elderly people using the bus to access hospital and GP services. They are really worried. It is causing a huge amount of stress that they will not be able to access hospital and GP services and not be able to remain living independently in the village that they have lived in for years. One of the new hospitals in Hampshire is due to be built in south Basingstoke. Extraordinarily, the consultation on the location of the new hospital did not include consultation with the South Central ambulance service. When moving an A&E department and maternity service to another location, it seems blindingly obvious that the ambulance service should be heavily involved in deciding where a new hospital may be located, given that it is primarily responsible for ensuring that people can get there in a timely manner. Although there is obviously a need for local councils to ensure their constituents can get to a local hospital, it is important that we have some kind of obligation. I assume it would have been an obligation that when setting up the location of new hospital services, the ambulance services must be consulted and engaged with to get their input.

    Hansard source
30. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    It is a pleasure to speak in this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week, and as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—it has been the honour of a lifetime to be a member for the past couple of years. It has been wonderful to get to know friends and colleagues across the House on that programme. There is truly no better way to understand the challenges and opportunities of our armed forces than through participating in that scheme. I encourage all Members to consider it. In that spirit, I also encourage Members to engage with the defence showcase currently being held in Speaker’s Court. I had the privilege to speak to the bomb disposal unit based in Aldershot today, who do incredible work in hugely dangerous circumstances. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment because Britain needs a serious defence policy for a dangerous age. That sentiment is shared across this House, even if we sometimes disagree about how to get there. I will be clear about our position on the Conservative motion, because parts of it identify genuine and real problems. Britain does, undoubtedly, need to restore its military capability. Recruitment, retention and morale must be rebuilt. Service personnel and veterans deserve dignity, from suitable housing to mental health support. Recognising a problem, however, is different from offering a credible solution. We cannot support a motion that asks this House to forget—or at least fail to properly acknowledge—who hollowed out our armed forces in the first place. The motion talks of rebuilding the Army, after the Conservatives cut troops by 10,000. It proposes to pay for new commitments by punishing struggling families and targeting the two-child benefit cap, sacrificing human security for strategic security without doing the hard work to genuinely move people into the workplace. The motion fails to meet the central strategic reality facing Britain: Europe is rearming, the United States is less reliable than it once was, and Britain must be at the heart of European defence co-operation.

    Hansard source
31. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) acknowledged, parties across this House sought to leverage too much from the so-called peace dividend. While my hon. Friend and I have acknowledged that, will the hon. Member’s party do the same? On the question of defence investment bonds, it is about engaging the wider public and private finance institutions in common participation and the recognition that we need to invest more in defence. It is borrowing, but it is money that can be injected into the defence economy instantaneously, whereas the proposals from the official Opposition will take years to filter through, because cuts to welfare are not instant.

    Hansard source
32. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    I do not believe that there is a black hole, because international aid is not a zero-sum game. We cannot have defence and security in the modern world unless we are tackling the very challenges that drive contemporary conflict at source. International aid is a fundamental part—

    Hansard source
33. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    The money is there. If we do not spend it up front, we end up spending it further down the line in not only treasure but blood.

    Hansard source
34. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    I am going to make some progress. The Liberal Democrat amendment recognises the reality that I have outlined on Europe, the United States, and Britain’s role at the heart of European defence. It speaks of the scale of the threat, the urgency of investment, and the need for deeper, pragmatic co-operation with European allies. The threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since the end of the cold war.

    Hansard source
35. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    My hon. Friend has asked me to speculate on elements of the DIP that I have not seen; he has the privilege of the insights he has gained from his recent visit. I simply point out that investment in the kind of structures and networks that he talks about pays multiple dividends in defence co-operation and long-standing and sustainable defence diplomacy. At a time when the threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since they have been since the end of the cold war, that is particularly important. Vladimir Putin continues his brutal invasion of Ukraine, while expanding hybrid war, sabotage and disinformation across the United Kingdom and Europe. At the same time, Donald Trump’s wavering commitment to European security casts doubt on NATO’s collective defence. That is the world in which this debate takes place: one that is more fragmented and unstable, and in which Britain cannot afford delay, drift or self-deception.

    Hansard source
36. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    My hon. Friend speaks from a position of authority from his personal experience and his role in Committees in this House. I defer, as always, to his superior insights on the matter, and would not differ on anything he has suggested. Britain’s European allies share our values and commitment to collective defence. We cannot be a spectator while Europe rebuilds its defences; instead, we should shape and lead that effort. On the Conservatives’ watch, our Army fell to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, while the Navy’s surface fleet fell to its smallest size since the English civil war. We saw crises of recruitment, retention and morale and a failure to look after our service personnel and veterans properly, with shoddy housing and one of the worst privatisation deals in British political history.

    Hansard source
37. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    My hon. Friend puts her finger on an incredibly important point that is intrinsic to the publication of the DIP. We should never ignore the experiences of women in our armed forces, who perform brave service every day.

    Hansard source
38. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and, if I may say so, my friend; he has supported me in debates in the past—for his intervention. We are opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which delivers neither justice for victims nor protection for veterans. I will talk a little more about that as I conclude my speech—in fact, I will move on now to talk about the issue of legacy.

    Hansard source
39. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    The right hon. Gentleman clearly knew exactly the structure that I would adopt today. This is where the consensus briefly ends. I contend that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike. It removed legal avenues for justice, eroded public trust and, through its conditional amnesty, established a shameful equivalence between British service personnel and members of the IRA. Key provisions were found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights, which matters because a country that asks its armed forces to serve with honour must legislate with honour, too. The ECHR is too often characterised as a threat to those who serve, but in truth it helps to protect service personnel, families and veterans who seek accountability when the state has failed in its duty, and withdrawing from it would remove a vital safeguard and route to justice for victims and families, such as those in the Snatch Land Rover case. This is where the consensus returns. The Liberal Democrats are firmly on the side of veterans, which is why we voted against the carry-over motion for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. As drafted, the Bill lacks the safeguards that veterans deserve, including protection against repeated investigations without genuinely new evidence. The Government’s Bill should be human rights compliant and rooted in transparency and independent oversight, upholding victim’s rights while importantly ensuring that no process is used to discredit those who serve with honour and integrity.

    Hansard source
40. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my near neighbour and friend—for his intervention. The private Member’s Bill that he describes sounds entirely consistent with the argument that I am making today. I shall take the opportunity to study the precise wording of the Bill before fully committing to it, but it certainly sounds consistent with my argument today, and I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and I have engaged extensively with veterans associations. The amendments we will propose reflect their concerns by calling for enhanced oversight and the protection of veterans’ rights. At a time of acute threat, our military needs urgent restoration, but Labour has previously moved too slowly to undo the damage. The delay to the defence investment plan has created uncertainty for our armed forces, our industry and our allies. I note that His Majesty’s Opposition failed yesterday to back our new clause 22 to the Armed Forces Bill, which would have required a report into the damage done to British business by the delay to the DIP. That was a missed opportunity.

    Hansard source