What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I would absolutely be delighted to.
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.
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—
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I in my role as spokesperson today have acknowledged the mistakes that were made in the past. Frankly, I think that those mistakes need to be shared across the House, because they are shared across this House. Defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace. Small and medium-sized businesses have told me plainly that investment decisions are being delayed, expansion is on hold and contracts are being lost overseas. Ministers must publish the defence investment plan immediately to reassure partners and provide a road map for regenerating our armed forces after years of mismanagement. At a time when Europe is rearming, Britain is hesitating, and hesitation sends signals—to our armed forces, to industry, to our allies and, most dangerously, to our adversaries. The resignations of the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister were a clarion warning from those who have scrutinised the numbers that they were left wanting.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a curious argument. The United Kingdom is a modern 21st-century European nation. I had a very pleasant cycle to and from Fulham this morning on a Lime bike using our cycleways. Frankly, I do not think it is a choice between one and the other—I am perfectly happy for the Government to spend money on both cycleways and defence. It is a very strange equivalence that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is not in his place today, which is disappointing and shows a failure to engage with issues affecting our armed forces and defence. I would implore him to urge the Treasury to unlock the funding that we need as urgently as possible. Strength in this moment will be measured by investment, industrial renewal and the courage to deepen defence relationships with our European allies. That is why our amendment calls for the defence investment plan to be published urgently, alongside a plan to issue £20 billion of defence bonds, which would help to rebuild our armed forces, unlock investments, strengthen our industrial base and give Britain’s businesses the confidence that they need to expand and hire. However, the investment cannot stop there. The Government must commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest and convene cross-party talks in the spirit of collaboration across this House, which the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has talked about today—only then can we have responsible and sustainable defence spending. Britain must lead, and Britain must lead in Europe. Our European allies share our values, our geography and our commitment to collective defence. They are partners with whom we share intelligence, defend our sea lanes, protect our skies, secure our infrastructure and confront the same threats. Britain should now be leading European defence. That is why we have proposed a growth and defence partnership with the European Union. This is not about building an alternative to NATO, but ensuring that Europe carries more of the burden of collective defence. Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see that you are eager for me to conclude, so I will. We must never forget the people who serve our nation in our armed forces. The Government were right to accept the Liberal Democrats’ proposal that the decent homes standard be applied to service family accommodation, but it must now be extended to single living accommodation, too. The Liberal Democrats are clear that Britain needs the defence investment plan to be published now. Defence spending must reach 3% of GDP by 2030. A £20 billion defence bonds programme should rebuild capability and industry, and could do so quickly. Northern Ireland needs a fair, lawful and trusted legacy framework, including protections for our UK veterans, who served with honour. Our armed forces deserve the highest standards, so the decent homes standard must be extended to single living accommodation. Britain needs a new growth and defence partnership with Europe that places us at the heart of defence co-operation.
It was recently reported that the newly elected hon. Member for Makerfield had pledged that he would cut business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues by 20% if he became Prime Minister. Given that the hon. Member is facing the near certainty of becoming Prime Minister, I ask those on the Front Bench whether the Treasury has started modelling the numbers to deliver on that pledge, and if not, when that work will begin.
Today is exactly 10 years since the country voted to leave the EU, and thanks to the Conservatives, the post-Brexit red tape has created 2 billion pieces of extra paperwork for British businesses—enough to stretch around the world 20 times. The hit to growth is the equivalent of the Treasury losing out on £90 billion every single year. Surely by now the Labour Government and the Labour party must recognise that if they want to go for growth and raise revenue, they should drop their red lines on Europe.
5. What steps she is taking to reform business rates.
When I met Chipping Sodbury chamber of commerce recently, business owners told me that the business rates system is broken and unfair, in part because it is based on turnover, not profit. In response to a letter, the Exchequer Secretary promised to bear in mind the points that I had raised ahead of future Budgets. Does he now accept that the business rates system is broken, and that rather than being reformed it should be abolished and replaced with a fairer system?
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who made a very effective and powerful speech. All of us here today are concerned about the safety and wellbeing of children, and we want to ensure that young people facing a crisis of identity get the support that they need and that is appropriate for them. In many cases, that will be talking therapies. We need to give children and their families time to figure out exactly what the issue is and whether they will develop out of it in time, but that is not always the case. My concern, and I believe the concern of many here today, is for those children who do not, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) put it, grow out of it as if it were some problem—children who have a genuine fear of what puberty will bring, and of what adulthood in a body that they do not recognise as theirs will mean. Those children currently feel that they have no option. If we take away the possibility of puberty blockers, where will they go? Where will they turn? Too many young people are committing suicide, and we have to acknowledge that that is the very real danger of putting up a very different type of block—a block to understanding and to helping them develop.
I thank the hon. Lady, but I point out that that is not what I said. I said that we were leaving children without an option. I also point out that if we are going to be responsible, we should not accuse people of being homophobic because they are trying to support the transgender community. Many of those people who support the transgender community are lesbians or gay. I know this because I am the honorary president of the LGBTQ+ community within the Liberal Democrats, and there is a great feeling of community between the two. I would caution people not to call anyone who wants to support the trans community homophobic. These children need our support. In providing that, we should listen to clinicians and experts, such as Dr Hilary Cass, who has said, as so many Members have pointed out, that this trial will help protect children and will mean that they are less likely to be harmed. I think we should take that as our guiding principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) clearly laid out my party’s policy. I am proud of the fact that, as a women and equalities spokesperson, I was responsible for the formation of most of our policy on the transgender community. I have to say that I spoke to a great many of them, and they would be appalled if they felt for one moment that we were not going to support them, not going to support this trial or not going to stand up for them at a time when they are under increasing pressure and we are seeing the demonisation of that community. The young children facing a crisis of identity—wondering who they are, and wondering what support they will get—are looking to us to give them that support, and that is why I will oppose the Conservatives’ motion.
As another member of the liberal working class, I wonder whether the right hon. Member has the experience that many of us in this place have of talking to constituents, friends and family who have children who have struggled with their gender identity and have benefited from puberty blockers. While he says that there is no evidence, many of us have direct experience of seeing the benefits in action.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ten years ago today, the Brexit campaign became one of the first very successful disinformation campaigns. Ranging from Turkish immigrants to Spanish bullfighting, the targeted Facebook ads played on people’s fears and deceived millions. But today, disinformation is more pervasive, insidious and vindictive than ever before, so does the right hon. Member agree that we must learn the lessons of 10 years ago and introduce stricter regulations for social media companies to ensure that they challenge harmful disinformation and reduce its spread across their platforms?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing the debate and for his thoughtful contribution. He not only highlighted the dangers of content and addiction but made a power analysis when he talked about the threat to democracy of big tech companies. They have a supranational status now, and states are struggling to tax or regulate them—or to enforce the regulations that they have against them. That is a real challenge to democracy that we need to face up to across the House. At the heart of this is the fact that tech companies have simply been allowed to get too big. We have had a laissez-faire attitude towards their growth over the years, which is based on confused economic principles. Yes, we want frictionless free trade, but is a market really free if it has been captured by a handful of firms? I thought that traditional economic theory already warned us about that, but we seem to have become more naive about it in the last decade or so. Looking at the power analysis in the global market, this is really about the hegemonic role of the US. If we look at pension funds, for example, more of UK pension savings now go into Apple than into all UK firms combined. We can see how the problem accelerates over time. We wonder why our brilliant tech start-ups are not able to grow; it is because when they reach the point when they need more capital, all the capital is in the US. We get Google buying out DeepMind and the cycle continues. They get bigger and bigger, and we get weaker and weaker. For far too long, we have had an economic strategy that is naive about what happens in a free market if there is a hegemonic power in it. That power has to be challenged. Members have touched on this today, but the answer lies in a greater focus on tech sovereignty. It is not about gaining tech independence; we are not suddenly going to invent our own Facebook, ChatGPT or Amazon tomorrow—it would be naive of us to try—but about establishing our own niches within the global markets so that we claw some of that power back. It is about pooling our sovereignty and working with like-minded states, perhaps those in the EU, and collectively using our power to enforce tax, regulations and other legal limits on the activities of tech companies.
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is another item on the list of things that we have ignored for far too long. Ultimately, we need to shift the balance of power. As he said in his speech, the power has been shifted too far in favour of a handful of tech giants. This is not just about economic power; it is about our national security, the delivery of public services and, ultimately, our independence in the world and our ability to shape our destiny. I thank him for raising this important issue, and I hope we can have more discussions about power, as well as the impact of that power.
This debate is on a subject that, it goes without saying, is emotive and complex. We must therefore as always endeavour to have this conversation with compassion and empathy. The Liberal Democrats’ position is clear and simple, as reflected in our amendment to the motion: any medical treatment and the approval of any clinical trial, including the one we are discussing, must be led by expert medical advice. It should not be led by personal belief, no matter how sincerely and passionately that belief is held. Politics has a place, but not in questions of medical trials and clinical consensus—those are better left to experts. The Cass review, originally commissioned by the Conservatives, was clear that there was a need to gather more evidence. The safety of young people is paramount, and the experts involved in this space know that better than anybody; they work with these children day in, day out and understand the risks of both action and inaction. That is why we supported the previous decision to pause the trial after the MHRA raised concerns, and why we now support the decision to start it again. We will listen to the experts and the clinicians, but to build trust in expert advice we need transparency and clarity, and throughout the process, we have pushed for exactly that. We want the expert opinions on the public record, as that allows us as politicians, as well as the wider public, to approach this issue with clarity and facts, not ideology or misunderstanding. That is why we called for the Government to publish how the MHRA arrived at its decision when concerns were first raised, and yesterday we called for the Secretary of State to confirm that the MHRA had confirmed that its concerns had been substantially addressed. Transparency is needed so that people can be confident that clinical advice is being followed.
I am afraid that I will not. Liberal Democrats have been arguing for many years that improved access to better specialist healthcare services for children and young people struggling with their gender identity is extremely important. Those young people have been badly let down by low care standards and extremely long waiting lists. The closure of the Gender Identity Development Service made it clear beyond doubt that change was needed. We have consistently campaigned for real action to tackle the shocking waiting times across the NHS, including for gender identity services. Liberal Democrats welcome the move to create new regional centres to offer this care to the young people who need it. There is a need for multiple geographically dispersed clinics so that care is closer to those who need it, but roll-out has been slow, and more needs to be done to tackle the waiting lists—quite simply, a three-year average wait is not acceptable. For the centres to run effectively, we must support the specialists who provide children and young people with high-quality, compassionate and clinically appropriate care. Treatment, first and foremost, should be based on talking therapies. Space and time to talk through feelings is vital for young people struggling with their gender identity. It is a deeply complex set of feelings, and questioning and understanding one’s identity is never an easy thing, especially for a child, but for talking therapies to be an effective first step, children must be able to access them when they need them, not after years on a waiting list. The debate is about access to a form of healthcare—one that is led by doctors and clinicians—and, as for any other form of healthcare, we must listen to the experts: the people who have spent years training and years delivering care.
I will not. We must never lose sight of the fact that at the core of the debate is young people’s wellbeing and health. It is not about ideology; it is about what is best for young people. The Government must always prioritise clinical evidence and put the interests of patients at the heart of care.
I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing the debate. It goes without saying that big tech companies, like everyone else, should pay their fair share. They should not be allowed to harvest a child’s data or feature harmful content on their platforms. That is why the Government’s ban on harmful social media could be an important step towards better protection for young people online. However, I worry that enforcing a blanket ban will just see young people turn to virtual private networks and access totally unmodified content. VPN use went up more than 100% as soon as the ban in Australia was implemented. I also worry that taking away all social media platforms could be really damaging to some young people in Yeovil and beyond, who use social media to find their people, battle loneliness and express themselves. When done right, social media can be a space where young people can be so creative. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how we balance those concerns with the vital need to protect young people. We Liberal Democrats have suggested a film-style age rating system for these platforms to keep children safe online. One area where we really do need to crack down is protecting the creative industries. Artists should not be finding their art being used by generative AI without their permission. We need the Government to clarify how they will go further on regulating the small print that big tech uses when it comes to what is used to teach AI models. Beyond social media, the change and innovation coming out of big tech could be a real focus for good. For example, assistive technology for people with special educational needs and disabilities can be life-changing, whether that is AI note takers like Plaud or more specific tech for things like speech and language disorders. I know that the Department for Education is working away at this, but we need a cross-Government approach to fund and suggest the best assistive tech for schools and the workplace. Related to that point, I ask the Minister to set out what discussions he has had with big tech companies about making their platforms—from social media to chatbots—more accessible for neurodiverse people, as there are lots of simple steps we can take. I would welcome a meeting with the Minister to set those out. Finally, I want to talk about an issue where I am seeing impact: fraud and scams. One constituent with learning difficulties lost £70,000 to a romance fraud. There were no guardrails on social media, and nor were the protections on online banking apps good enough. Although we got Lloyds to refund my constituent, it was an uphill struggle. But it is not just that scam; scammers are everywhere and targeting everyone and anyone in our community. Fraudsters are even using sponsored slots on Google to act as fake clean air zone charging websites. Veterans are being targeted by scam wealth creation and property investment influencers, who use their background as veterans to sell worthless courses that trap those targeted in a spiral of spending more and more on such courses. A veteran from my constituency was worried at first, but after being reassured by a veteran recruiting for the course and the slick social media presence of the influencers, he invested. Ultimately, he faced bankruptcy and nearly took his own life. Regulation is not keeping up, and the Government and big tech need to be doing more to crack down on fraud.
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Will the Minister set out the steps that the Government are taking with big tech and the Financial Conduct Authority to crack down on fraudsters? It is important that the Minister clearly sets out what new protections and awareness campaigns the Government are putting together, because the approach so far has not been enough. We need action.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on securing the debate. In Manchester alone last year, there were around 15,000 reports of fly-tipping. That is more than 40 incidents every single day. In my constituency the situation is particularly bad. In Levenshulme, there was one fly-tipping complaint for every four households. In Longsight, there were more than 1,000 incidents last year, the highest in Manchester, with Levenshulme close behind on 952. Behind every single one of these reports is a person who cares about where they live and who deserves so much better than having to live with illegally dumped waste in their backyards. The chances are that it is even worse than the numbers show. I regularly speak to constituents who, understandably, have lost all faith in reporting at all, because, too often, it does not lead to any action and the waste remains in our alleyways, in our kids’ parks and on our street corners. This is not about blaming communities. It is about ensuring that people have clean, safe streets wherever they live, regardless of their postcode. Tackling fly-tipping means proper enforcement against rogue waste operators and fraudulent businesses, but it also means giving local authorities the money that they need to actually deal with it, and that is where things just do not add up. In Greater Manchester, we have seen huge development in recent years, with property and construction firms making huge profits. Yet very little of that wealth is being returned to the communities that made it possible. I see clean streets around glossy new developments, while surrounding areas and neighbourhoods are left littered with waste. A YouGov and Oxfam survey found that 78% of people support a 2% wealth tax on net assets over £10 million. If we are serious about fairness and cleaning up our communities, properly taxing extreme wealth is part of our solution. That is how we give councils the tools and the money they need to fix problems like fly-tipping. Today, I ask the Minister whether they will discuss with the Chancellor how to ensure that people who are getting super-rich from property development contribute fairly to the communities they profit from to fund the clean-up of issues like fly-tipping.
Is it not the truth that we have a Government who said they were prepared to meet the threats that we face as a country, yet are simply dithering and delaying? With all the infighting on the Labour Benches, what hope is there for our country at a time when we need sustainability and certainty, not chaos?
Will the Minister give way?
rose—
rose—
Absolutely not. I stand here not as a Brexiteer, but as somebody who was a reluctant remainer. I voted for remain partly because of the security of our country, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no way that I regret that decision. I am a pragmatic Brexiteer—like most of our country—but it is no good him standing there and bemoaning this, that and the other; the decision about the defence investment plan falls on his Government. If it is such a good idea, what has stopped them—I notice the Government Benches are empty—just getting on and delivering it for the sake of our country?