Liberal Democrats MP for Frome and East Somerset since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
179
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lib Dem | MP | Frome and East Somerset | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page
Does the hon. Member have any examples of how the age of a child could be proved if that child had never been on social media? How would a tech company that, theoretically, <span id="284WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="284WH"></span>would not know their information, be able to verify the child’s age without effectively using some form of digital ID by the back door?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank all hon. Members in this Chamber; I found myself nodding along extensively during other Members’ contributions. I absolutely support banning children from accessing harmful social media. The Liberal Democrats have long called for decisive action in this space. The Government joined us in those calls earlier this year, announcing proposals for a social media ban, but it has been many months since the initial announcement, and we are still not entirely sure what to expect. That uncertainty over what a possible ban will look like may be driving many of the concerns of those who signed this petition. What we know so far is that the Government have plans for an Australian-style ban; not only is that vague, but the Liberal Democrats have concerns that an Australian-style ban will ultimately fail in its role to reduce the harms faced by children online. As we have heard from other hon. Members, after a few months of the Australian ban, early data suggests that it has had a limited impact on prohibiting young people from accessing social media. On top of that, the Molly Rose Foundation found that among children aged 12 to 15 who had social media accounts before the ban came in, more than half said that the ban had made no difference to their online safety. I would add that, while my children are too old to be affected by the ban, I was often a very busy and tired single mother while they were being raised and using social media, and I totally understand the points being made about the possible unfairness and social justice issues with a blanket ban. This is important because, as we know, the message of this petition is not that children should keep access to harmful content; it is that a ban could cut young people off from safe spaces. For vulnerable children, online communities can often be a lifeline. A blanket ban risks cutting children off from that support. If the Australian evidence is anything to go by, the Government’s proposals could take away those positives without making the online world any safer. A few weeks ago, I met pupils from a local primary school, Peasedown St John, here in Parliament, and they shared similar concerns. In the Q&A session with a class of six and seven-year-olds, the first question was: “Are you going to ban social media?” When I asked what they thought, they told me, in six and seven-year-old terms, that they wanted inappropriate content restricted, but that they still wanted to use educational platforms. Even at that age, they recognise that different platforms carry different levels of harm, and I must admit that I agree with them. This is exactly the nuanced approach the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Unlike an Australia-style ban, the Liberal Democrats would assess and regulate platforms based on the harms they cause, with film-style <span id="288WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="288WH"></span>age ratings reflecting that harm. Platforms that cause the most harm would be closed to children—but, if a tech company did the work to redesign the platform, removing addictive algorithms and harmful content, that form of social media could possibly be accessible. Unlike a fixed ban, that would give tech companies a reason to change. It would preserve safe spaces for young people to talk online and make safety part of the design of these platforms rather than an afterthought. While we are considering safe spaces, I appreciated the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) that there has been a deterioration in alternative spaces—practical, real-life spaces—for young people to go to over the past 10 or 20 years. I notice that the excellent campaign group Make Space for Girls has been making the point that specifically for young women and girls—particularly as the nights draw in—it is unclear where they will be going to spend their time. The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) also made the point that rural communities particularly face this challenge. As someone who represents a semi-rural community, I know that many young people simply do not have anywhere to go if they are not going to be on their phones. I am not saying that that makes it right that they are on their phones, but it poses a challenge when that phone use is suddenly cut off. The Liberal Democrats are also clear that protecting children online should not come at the expense of privacy. Several constituents have asked me to attend this debate; again, they are not in favour of children accessing harmful content, but their concern is that a ban may effectively require a form of digital ID to be enforceable. The Liberal Democrats have always criticised plans for mandatory digital ID, and we will properly scrutinise any regulation of social media to make sure both that it is effective and that it safeguards personal privacy. I am wholeheartedly in support of a ban on harmful social media, but I think that this debate has allowed us to raise important questions about what a ban should look like. I will therefore finish with a few questions for the Minister. Do the Government believe that the best way forward is still a harms-based approach to banning social media? Can we still expect to see a ban by spring 2027? If so, could the Minister lay out exactly what we can expect to see, and confirm that any regulation will always prioritise privacy and that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise any proposals?
The hon. Member is absolutely right—that was poorly worded. I should have said, “Alongside the safety of children, we should be prioritising privacy.” I thank him for allowing me to make that clarification. Finally, on 8 September, the Government also announced legislation to enforce device and app-level restrictions to stop children taking and sharing nude photos of themselves. Could the Minister tell us when we will see that come into force? The Liberal Democrats want to protect young people from online harm. We believe that the only way to do that successfully is through a harms-based ban on social media. I hope that the Government will today agree.<span id="289WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="289WH"></span>
The hon. Gentleman is being kind in giving way. Does he recognise that the point about subsidies is really important in constituencies like Frome and East Somerset? We have fantastic, hard-working and very overstretched posties who are each trying to cover a large area. We also have people who may not have access to broadband, and who rely even more on the post that they are not getting.
At Sulis Down, a housing development in my constituency, residents have moved in to find that planning obligations and landscaping have not been completed by the developer, the Vistry Group. Once people move into new estates, they have very little leverage over developers; in this case, Vistry is refusing to meet them. Will the Leader of the House help me secure a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss how residents of new developments can be given real power to challenge developers?
On the point about rurality, I was alarmed earlier in the week to hear NHS chiefs talking about the fact that in order to consolidate services they may have to cut rural and coastal maternity services further. In Frome and East Somerset I have mothers who routinely travel over an hour to access maternity services. I know they are not the distances that my hon. Friend and other colleagues are talking about, but efficiency of maternity services should not come at the cost of women living in rural areas simply being able to access maternity care in a safe and timely way. Does he agree?
Last week the Government declared severe drought across parts of Somerset. Experts suggest we need at least seven months of above average rainfall to recover from droughts across the country. There can be no question that we are in a climate emergency and the approval of Jackdaw shows that as a country we have not moved fast enough to switch to renewable energy. Do the Government agree that the only way we can stop depending on gas is to generate more of our own clean power? Will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrats and implement our 10-year emergency home upgrade programme so that Britain is less dependent on projects like Jackdaw in future?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will permit me to quickly put on record my thanks to the broadcasting unit in Parliament, which has been so helpful in providing me with additional support while I have been trying to speak in the Chamber while struggling with vocal cord paralysis. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am privileged to represent nearly 200 farmers in Frome and East Somerset. They are critical not only to the rural economy of Somerset, generating hundreds of jobs in the wider economy, but to providing the UK with much of the dairy and other food products that it relies on. Every time I meet farmers in my constituency, <span id="1227" class="column-number" data-column-number="1227"></span>I hear the same thing: that this Government do not understand rural communities and do not see that penalising farmers undermines their own goals of growth and stability. In order to survive, many of my farmers are running a range of side hustles, from cafés to ice cream companies and farm-stay accommodation. They are stretching themselves to extremes to try to keep their farms going. The SFI is one of the few forms of funding available to those farmers but, as we know, after spending precious time preparing long and detailed applications, in September farmers in my constituency were not even able to load up the application form, because the money had already gone. Money was not awarded to the best farms with the best plans to feed the nation and restore nature; it was awarded to whoever clicked the fastest. Surely, regardless of attempts at political point scoring, we can all agree that despite any improvements that the Government have made to the SFI, that is not a fair or smart way to spend public money. As a result, for the first time since 1945, many UK farmers now have no universal payment offer. At the same time, the Government are chopping and changing the agricultural property relief and making cuts to DEFRA’s farming budgets.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Funding decisions such as those really matter for farmers in rural communities, but they also matter for the environment. Today the Government have announced that Jackdaw is going ahead—a stark reminder of the UK’s continuing dependency on gas and how far we must still go to reach net zero. If we are serious about getting there, farmers are part of the solution. The SFI rewards the kind of sustainable choices that we want farmers to make more of, yet many of the farmers who want to protect nature are being locked out of the very funding that makes it possible. British farmers are the foundation of rural communities such as mine, and they are key allies in tackling climate change in this country. The Prime Minister promises growth in every postcode, but he cannot even ensure that farmers in my postcode receive funding to help to feed our country. Will the Government finally support farmers and guarantee long-term funding for all eligible SFI26 applicants?<span id="1228" class="column-number" data-column-number="1228"></span>
I intend to press to a vote all the amendments relating to the additional condition to be met in the case of domestic sporting events set out by Government amendment 30. I also want to speak to Government amendment 28 and press that to a vote. In the other place, Liberal Democrat colleagues pushed for the Bill’s scope to be extended so that the sporting events framework could be applicable to all major domestic events. That amendment received great support from the industry, with bodies including the England and Wales Cricket Board, Formula 1, the Lawn Tennis Association, the Football Association, the London Marathon and the Rugby Football Union signing our letter to push for this amendment, which was voted through. I was pleased that the Minister accepted that amended scope on Second Reading. However, I am concerned that these Government amendments will not deliver it. I understand the Government’s intention—not every premier league match should receive the specific benefit of this Bill—but Government amendment 28 will remove “national interest” from the sporting events framework. That will significantly change the intended scope that the Liberal Democrats pushed through in the other place. This matters in particular for women’s sports and emerging sports, where a national profile has to be built before they can attract international attention. I am seeking clarification: can the Minister confirm that major national events such as Wimbledon will remain covered by the provisions in this Bill?