Labour Party MP for Edinburgh South West since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
477
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
4
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Labour
£500
1 of 4 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Edinburgh South West | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
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.
| Date | Category | Entry | Declared value | Sitting for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Gifts, UK sources | East Coast Trains Ltd (Lumo) - £500.00 | £500 | Labour | Register record | |
| date registered | 8. Miscellaneous | Kirk Session Member (trustee) of Fairmilehead Parish Church (Church of Scotland), Frogston Road, Edinburgh. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
| 8. Miscellaneous | I am currently on an unpaid career break from my position as Chair of Urban Water Management at Heriot-Watt University. | — | Labour | Register record | |
| 8. Miscellaneous | University and College Union Member (Heriot-Watt University Branch) | — | Labour | Register record |
The Minister listed some of the drivers of the problem, one of which, as many Members mentioned, is transport links, particularly for people in rural communities. As she will remember, the Transport Committee recommended that to help solve the problem, the Government should look seriously at Scotland and institute free bus travel for young people in England. Will the Government look at that again?
Sir Roger, you will not be surprised to hear that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for the way in which he introduced the debate. I want to start with a couple of anecdotes. Over the weekend, a mum messaged me to say that her daughter was getting bullied at school. She lives in Currie in my constituency. I do not know the details yet—I asked her to email me them—but I can almost guarantee that social media will be involved in some shape or form, because so far, every bullying case that we have dealt with in my office has had a link to social media in some way. A couple of Sundays ago, I was at St Mungo’s church in Balerno, and a mum was talking to me about her kids and their use of phones. It was a time to reflect, because we have come a long way since the 2024 election. Kids starting any state school in Edinburgh next year will not have access to their mobile phones in school—hopefully, by that time, they will not have social media on their phones anyway. However, we have to accept that it has been a bumpy ride getting this far; there have been a few steps forward and an occasional step backwards. None the less, all progress is progress. In the time since I was elected, I have spoken to many, many people in my constituency. The vast majority of them were parents, but those parents included GPs, teachers and, in one case, a paediatrician. They all agreed that they were concerned about the harm caused both by smartphones in school and the use of social <span id="280WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="280WH"></span>media. We have had around 600 emails from people, the vast majority supporting some sort of ban. I have also spoken to young people in schools, at Scout meetings and so on, about a ban. All that led me to support a ban in full—the fullest possible ban, actually. However, I then met the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Molly Rose Foundation, and they were very clear about some of the cliff-edge aspects, which other hon. Members have spoken about. I must say that on the day the announcement was made that we were proceeding with a ban, I felt uncertain because of those conversations with the NSPCC and others about what a ban would mean. It was only once I saw that they were supporting it, at least tentatively, that I felt able to support it that day. I welcome the Brianna Ghey Legacy Project also supporting a ban, and I thank Brianna’s fantastic mum, Esther, for all the work she is doing. I acknowledge the many good points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on some of the impacts that a ban could have, but there are also more trivial impacts, such as those in Scotland. For example, the Scottish Government understand what young people are thinking by collecting data online via an organisation called Young Scot—everybody in Scotland knows about that organisation—but it will now be much harder to do so without having access to people on social media for that perfectly legitimate reason. I want to recognise that any ban must only be part of a much broader effort to ensure that young people are as safe as possible online. We know that bans are already in place overseas, but they are not perfect. No matter what restrictions the Government put in place, some children will continue to use restricted platforms, while some services will inevitably fall outside the scope of any ban. Of course, exactly the same arguments were made when the Government put an age limit on accessing pornography and other harmful content online, but we all agreed that putting friction between young people and pornographic websites was entirely legitimate. While I have reservations about this ban and whether it should be complete, I accept that any friction between young people and harmful social media content is a good thing.
Like so many problems in the world, the solution can be found in Scotland. Young people in Scotland can use a Young Scot card to verify that they are 16, but I understand my hon. Friend’s point. It is critical that, alongside robust age-assurance measures, online platforms be required to be as safe as possible for all users, both young people and adults. A ban cannot be used as an excuse by companies not to comply with their responsibilities, and important questions remain about the scope of the ban and the regulation of high-risk <span id="281WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="281WH"></span>features. In July, I welcomed the Government’s further commitment to require infinite scrolling features to be switched off by default. However, there is more work to be done on location-sharing features for under-16s, as well as further regulation of AI chatbots. I accept and understand the point that for some people, such as those who are struggling with mental health problems, health problems or perhaps their sexuality, going to social media may be a source of really good information. However, I am also concerned that young people who go to social media for advice on those really sensitive issues might end up interacting with people whose motivations are not good, and I think we have to be very mindful of that.
I absolutely agree. Of course, the vast majority of people who go online to seek help in that way do find it, but there is a small minority of often very vulnerable young people who we should all be concerned about, and we have a duty to protect them. Both the Mental Health Foundation and the NSPCC identified AI chatbots as a clear ongoing risk to child safety. I am a member of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group, and I pay tribute to the important work that it carries out. I was therefore deeply concerned by the recent report from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which found that ChatGPT will provide vulnerable people with restrictive diet plans or advice on how to hide eating disorders from their families within 20 minutes of a conversation starting. Tests found that simple prompts such as, “This is for a presentation,” or, “It’s help for a friend,” allowed users to circumvent the very weak barriers in place inside ChatGPT. Clearly, the Government should act on this issue. Even more concerning was the finding that little progress has been made in addressing eating disorder-related content on AI interfaces since a similar study was conducted in 2023—almost three years ago. Alongside numerous other examples, this demonstrates that online services cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. We have to ensure we can trust Ofcom to regulate in this area—we are not quite there yet. This cannot be acceptable. Advice on sustaining eating disorders, as well as advice on suicide, self-harm or other substance abuse should not be readily available to young people. To create a safer environment, the Government must continue to take action to push online and AI services into effective regulation. Self-regulation will not work. Time and again platforms have demonstrated that they will not place our children’s safety before their profit. While I welcome the proposed plan, I hope that it is not an end point but a starting point for a conversation about how best to ensure that the online world is as safe as possible for everyone who wishes to use it.<span id="282WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="282WH"></span> I want to go back to the cliff-edge point that was made earlier. I am really concerned that when this ban goes live people will suddenly lose access to services they have relied on. It would be good to hear how the Government will manage the transition so that it is not a cliff edge but a soft entry into what will hopefully be a safer world.
Surely any legislation should prioritise the safety of children rather than privacy?
I am just trying to get the sequencing right in my head. The Government are going to put regulations before Parliament before the end of the year. We all welcome that. Will it include Ofcom’s thinking about individual platforms, or do we have to wait for that? If we have to wait, when will we hear from Ofcom on that point?
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for the way in which she introduced the debate. Sheffield University was the first place I visited outside Scotland; I think the Red Deer pub, which is right next to the university, was the first English pub I ever went into. Before I was elected to this place, I worked in the university sector for 20 years in Scotland. Our universities are among Scotland’s biggest assets. Across the sector, there is incredible innovation. Each year, our universities attract the very best staff and students from across the world. I always say that any country serious about its economy should be serious about its universities. It is great to see our Prime Minister putting universities at the heart of the triple helix model that he talks about so often. In a debate in Westminster Hall 18 months ago, I quoted the then president of NUS Scotland, who warned that Scotland’s education system was “crumbling”. At that time, I hoped our words would prompt the Scottish Government into action. Sadly, they did not, and Scotland’s sector has lurched from crisis to crisis. Undergraduate university education in Scotland is free, but the sector is grossly underfunded. Broadly speaking, funding per undergraduate student in Scotland is well over £2,000 less per student compared with universities in England. That means less money for facilities and staff wages. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of UCU and have an ongoing connection with Heriot-Watt University. Because of the huge stresses on the sector, there is industrial action at, I think, six universities in Scotland right now. Industrial <span id="140WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="140WH"></span>action at one university might suggest a local issue, but when it is happening across the country it suggests that the Government need to step up and do something about it. In my constituency, both Edinburgh Napier University and Heriot-Watt are internationally recognised institutions. They are home to dedicated staff, ambitious students and world-leading research, but both face serious challenges. In the past year, there has been talk of compulsory redundancies and course reductions. There are similar issues at Edinburgh University, which is outside my constituency, but quite a lot of staff and students are based in Edinburgh South West. This situation cannot continue. We need the Scottish Government to bring together universities, staff, students and trade unions to agree a way forward. I want to talk briefly about immigration. During my time at Heriot-Watt, I worked alongside fantastic academics from around the world. Next door to my office, on one side I had Professor Adebayo Adeloye from Nigeria, and on the other I had Benny Suryanto, who came from Indonesia. Our students are lucky that these people choose to come to the UK. I felt lucky that students came from around the world to spend time in Edinburgh and enjoy its education and the opportunities that provides. I am concerned that the Government are making it harder for both staff and students to come here. If we are serious about growing our economy, we have to recognise the benefits that universities provide, both nationally and locally in our towns and cities. It would be great to hear what is happening inside the Government to support universities and ensure that they can thrive. In Scotland, their funding is largely a matter for the Scottish Government, but I think the UK Government could do more to support the immigration status of students and staff.
I know I do not look it, but when I went to university, Margaret Thatcher was still our Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredible that funding for students’ day-to-day living costs was better then than it is today.?
The hon. Member is diagnosing the problem excellently and detailing all the issues. I do not want to go back too far, but we have to think about the role the Lib Dems played in the coalition Government and the decision to go back on their pledge not to raise fees but instead raise them to £9,000. The Budget this afternoon is not just about spending money; it is also about raising money to pay for policies. A range of policies—
It would be good to hear how the money would be raised to meet all those obligations.
Held . Recorded result: Lab Gain. Majority 6,217. 45,664 votes cast from an electorate of 73,784. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scott Arthur | Labour | 18,663 | 40.9% |
| Joanna Cherry | Scottish National Party | 12,446 | 27.3% |
| Sue Webber | Conservative | 5,558 | 12.2% |
| Dan Heap | Scottish Green Party | 3,450 | 7.6% |
| Bruce Wilson | Liberal Democrat | 3,014 | 6.6% |
| Ian Harper | Reform UK | 2,087 | 4.6% |
| Richard Lucas | Scottish Family Party | 265 | 0.6% |
| Marc Wilkinson | Independent | 181 | 0.4% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| Edinburgh South WestElected 1 time | – present |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Rare Cancers Bill | – |
| Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill | – present |
| Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill | – |
| Transport Committee | – present |
Website
X (formerly Twitter)
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .