Victoria Collins
MP for Harpenden and Berkhamsted · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“I declare an interest as a patron of the Hospice of St Francis. The assisted dying debate provided much-needed focus and cross-party commitment to improving palliative care so that all those in need can get support and solace, just like Judith’s husband, John, found at the Hospice of St Francis.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T3. Harpenden Thameslink services are facing Luton airport expansion, the Bedford Universal studios development and 9,000 more houses coming down the line from this Government, following a local plan. All the while, passengers such as Emma are facing expensive, cramped and unreliable services.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) eloquently highlighted that the scale and nature of planning applications does not necessarily imply they are not controversial or important; even small things have a massive impact on our communities.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The introduction of grey belt has effectively opened our green belt to developers. Ever higher top-down targets mean that, after St Albans had adopted a housing plan, the Government are adding 9,000 more houses. For Dacorum, on the other side of my constituency, there are another 6,000, again after a local plan had just been secured.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In fact, a survey of 62 councils found that more than 200,000 homes with planning permission still have not started, so committees are not the bottleneck. If the Government truly believe in power in every postcode, and if they are going to walk the walk instead of just talk the talk, people will feel it in their planning.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
658 held · 624 searchable for Victoria Collins. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Let me join others in expressing my gratitude for the work of many Members, especially in the other place—in particular, Baroness Owen and Baroness Kidron—but also across this House. There has been a great deal of cross-party work, including much constructive discussion on many elements of the Bill with the Minister. Today, though, I will refer specifically to Lords amendment 49B.”
House of Commons14 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The question of technical solutions is very important, but my challenge is this. I have spoken to representatives of some of the big tech companies who are pushing for that, and who are saying that it is hard for them to do it at scale but creatives can do it. Why can the tech companies not be leading on an opt-in system for creatives? Let me hand that back to the Minister.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Child mental health referrals have increased by 477% in just eight years, with nearly half of teenagers with problematic smartphone use reporting anxiety. One in four children aged 12 to 17 have received unwanted sexual images. We know that 82% of parents support Government intervention in this area, while a Liberal Democrat poll showed that seven in 10 people say the Government are not doing enough to protect children online.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By raising the age at which children can consent to have their data processed by social media services, we can take an important first step towards tackling those algorithms at source. This is a common-sense measure, bringing us in line with many of our European neighbours. The evidence before us is compelling and demands our attention. When I recently carried out a safer screens tour of schools across Harpenden and Berkhamsted to hear exactly what young people think about the issue, I heard that they are trapped in cycles of harmful content that they never sought out. Students spoke of brain rot and described algorithms that pushed them towards extreme content, despite their efforts to block it. The evidence is not just anecdotal; it is overwhelming.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill before us represents a rare opportunity to shape how technology serves people, which I firmly believe is good for both society and business. However, I stand here with mixed emotions: pride in the cross-party work we have accomplished, including with the other place; hope for the progress we can still achieve; but also disappointment that we must fight so hard for protections that should be self-evident. New clause 1 seeks to raise the age of consent for social media data processing from 13 to 16 years old. We Liberal Democrats are very clear where we stand on this. Young minds were not designed to withstand the psychological assault of today’s social media algorithms.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for your patience regarding my earlier intervention. I am very passionate about all elements of the Bill. On Second Reading, I said: “Data is the new gold” —[ Official Report , 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 302.] —a gold that could be harnessed to have a profound impact on people’s daily lives, and I stand by that. With exponential advances in innovation almost daily, this has never been truer, so we must get this right. I rise today to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name specifically, and to address two urgent challenges: protecting children in our digital world and safeguarding the rights of our creative industry in the age of artificial intelligence.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is not about stifling innovation; it is about ensuring that innovation respects established rights and is good for everyone. Currently, AI companies are scraping creative works at an industrial scale. A single AI model may be trained on thousands of copyrighted works without permission or compensation. The UK company Polaron is a fantastic example, creating AI technology to help engineers to characterise materials, quantify microstructural variation and optimise microstructural designs faster than ever before. Why do I bring up Polaron? It is training an AI model built from scratch without using copyright materials.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We must protect the foundational rights of our creators in this new technological landscape, which is why I have tabled new clause 2. The UK’s creative industries contribute £126 billion annually to our economy and employ more than 2.3 million people—they are vital to our economy and our cultural identity. These are the artists, musicians, writers and creators who inspire us, define us and proudly carry British creativity on to the global stage. Yet today, creative professionals across the UK watch with mounting alarm as AI models trained on their life’s work generate imitations without permission, payment or even acknowledgment. New clause 2 would ensure that operators of web crawlers and AI models comply with existing UK copyright law, regardless of where they are based.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our call for action is supported by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 5rights, Healthcare Professionals for Safer Screens, Girlguiding, Mumsnet and the Online Safety Act network. This is our chance to protect our children. The time to act is not 18 months down the line, as the Conservatives suggest, but now. I urge Members to support new clause 1 and take the crucial steps towards creating a digital world where children can truly thrive. To protect our children, I have also tabled amendment 45 to clause 80, which seeks to ensure that automated decision-making systems cannot be used to make impactful decisions about children without robust safeguards. The Bill must place a child’s best interests at the heart of any such system, especially where education or healthcare are concerned.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So many of us adults can relate to the feeling of being drawn into endless scrolling on our devices—I will not look around the Chamber too much. Imagine how much more difficult it is for developing minds. This is a cross-party problem, and it should not be political, but we need action now. Let me be absolutely clear: this change is not about restricting young people’s digital access or opposing technology and innovation; it is about requiring platforms to design their services with children’s safety as the default, not as an afterthought. For years we have watched as our children’s wellbeing has been compromised by big tech companies and their profits.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is exactly what is at the heart of this matter—the data that drives that addictiveness and commercialises our children’s attention is not the way forward. Many amazing organisations have gathered evidence in this area, and it is abundantly clear that the overuse of children’s data increases their risk of harm. It powers toxic algorithms that trap children in cycles of harmful content, recommender systems that connect them with predators, and discriminatory AI systems that are used to make decisions about them that carry lifelong consequences. Health Professionals for Safer Screens—a coalition of child psychiatrists, paediatricians and GPs— is pleading for immediate legislative action. This is not a partisan issue.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By supporting new clause 4, we would ensure that the development of AI happens in the open, allowing for proper compensation, attribution and accountability. That is how we will build responsible AI that serves everyone, not just the tech companies. On the point of transparency, I will touch briefly on a couple of other amendments. We must go further in algorithmic decision making. That is why I have tabled amendment 46, which would ensure that individuals receive personalised explanations in plain language when an automated decision system affects them. We cannot allow generic justifications to stand in for accountability.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By supporting new clause 2, we could establish the UK as a base for trustworthy technology while protecting our creative industries. Finally, I will touch on new clause 4, which would address the critical gap in our approach to AI regulation: the lack of transparency regarding training data. Right now, creators have no way of knowing if their work has been used to train AI models. Transparency is the foundation of trust. Without it, we risk not only exploiting creators, but undermining public confidence in these powerful new technologies. The principle is simple: if an AI system is trained using someone’s creative work, they deserve to know about it and to have a say in how it is used. That is not just fair to creators, but essential for building an AI ecosystem that the public trust.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have a thriving innovation sector in the UK, so those companies are not going anywhere—they want to work with the UK. We actually have a system now that has a fantastic creative industry and we have innovation and business coming in. There are many ways to incentivise that. I talk a lot about money, skills and infrastructure—that is what these innovative companies are looking for. We can make sure the guardrails are right so that it works for everyone. By ensuring that operators of web crawlers and AI models comply with existing UK copyright law, we are simply upholding established rights in a new technological context. The UK led the world in establishing trustworthy financial and legal services, creating one of the largest economies by taking a long-term view, and we can do the same with technology.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have the evidence and the solutions, and the time for action is now. Let us choose a future in which technology empowers, rather than exploits—one that is good for society and for business. I urge all Members to support our amendments, which would put people and the wellbeing of future generations first.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That has been my challenge to the tech companies, which I absolutely support in innovating and driving this—but if they are saying that it would be easy for creatives to do this, why is it not easy for big tech companies with power and resources to lead the way? Amendments 41 to 44 would ensure that the decisions made about people, whether through data profiling, automated systems or algorithms, are fair. They would clarify that meaningful human involvement in automated decision making must be real, competent and capable of changing the outcome, not just a box-ticking exercise. The amendments before us offer a clear choice to protect our children and creators or to continue to delay while harm grows—the choice to build a future in which technology either builds trust or destroys it.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would just like to clarify that we have thought long and hard about this Bill, along with many organisations and charities, to get it right.”
House of Commons7 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend talks about overwhelmed sewage works. The Markyate sewage works in my constituency has now had 3,000 hours of non-stop overflow, including sewage, which enters our precious chalk streams. Does she agree that that is why it is so important that we have blue flag status to increase the responsibility and accountability of water companies, which should not take our chalk streams for granted?”
House of Commons23 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On my safer screens tour, to discuss online safety for children, students themselves are calling for action. They talk about brain rot and the subtle but dangerous impact on their mental health, their self-esteem, their world outlook and their time. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Liberal Democrats that, given this public health crisis and the massive profits made by social media giants such as Musk, we should look to seek revenues from a digital service tax, rather than cutting benefits from disabled people and struggling families?”
House of Commons26 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Tragically, Ed was just 24 years old when he decided to take his own life, and that is why the family have joined us today in the Gallery. What urgent action are the Government taking to improve mental healthcare and suicide prevention for young people like Ed?”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We welcome investment in improving patient outcomes. That is why we welcome this investment by BioNTech UK, which has previously worked on immunotherapies, oncology, infectious diseases, vaccines—including covid vaccines—and AI-driven drug discovery, and is now funding the expansion of its research and development and AI activity. We, of course, support funding in research and development, especially in healthcare and the life sciences. How will the Government monitor BioNTech’s use of this funding to ensure it delivers high-quality jobs and innovation for the UK and the UK economy?”
House of Commons24 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Up and down this country, people are facing the daily reality of cancer and infectious diseases. It is no different in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, where Catherine has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer and Jennie with breast cancer. They are the tip of the iceberg, with many people awaiting diagnosis. Not only are many patients awaiting diagnosis; even afterwards, many patients are awaiting treatment. The NHS target following an urgent cancer referral is for treatment to start within 62 days for 85% of patients. At West Hertfordshire teaching hospitals NHS trust in my area, however, 43.5% of cancer patients were not treated within the 62-day window last August. Urgent treatment following a cancer diagnosis is vital for improving patient outcomes.”
House of Commons24 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are many similar examples, but Quantum Care in Hertfordshire, a not-for-profit social care business, says that its costs will rise by £1.7 million in national insurance contributions alone, which will also have an impact on council and social services. That is certainly not solving our health and social care problem.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 70, page 78, leave out lines 15 to 19. This amendment would remove subsections (2)(b) and (c) from the Bill which would create a new lawful ground for processing personal data by way of inserting a new Article into the UK GDPR.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They respond directly to concerns raised on Second Reading. Moreover, they echo the concerns of new civil society organisations, including—”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 70 introduces “recognised legitimate interests” as a new basis for processing personal data. Although the Liberal Democrats recognise the potential of the benefits of data, we have serious concerns that clause 70, as it stands, grants excessive and unchecked power to the Secretary of State, risking the erosion of fundamental rights. Our key message is that trust and innovation go hand in hand. For us to advance and share the benefits of innovation, we must foster trust. In the name of constructive opposition, I will talk about the several amendments that we have tabled—amendments 49, 50, 53, new clause 5 and new clause 22, which was also tabled by colleagues in the other place. These amendments are crucial to ensure vital safeguards, ensure proper parliamentary oversight and demand greater transparency.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I shall talk about amendments 49, 53 and 50, which would remove the core of clause 70 that allows the direct establishment of “recognised legitimate interests”. Clause 70 risks bypassing essential parliamentary scrutiny, a point underscored by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, which expressed concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight. The amendments are essential to ensure that the Data (Use and Access) Bill fosters innovation responsibly without sacrificing fundamental data protection. I urge Government to look over the proposals, which would help improve the adoption and inclusion of growing technology and its benefits. I would also welcome any proposals to improve this scrutiny when we reach Report.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They will help to maintain trust and ensure that we have safeguards in line with recognised legitimate interests. If we are to accept clause 70, the Government must again assure us that robust checks and balances are truly in place.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 5 sets out that any future changes to data safeguards, including those related to recognised legitimate interests, automated decision making and special category data, must be subject to greater scrutiny in Parliament. It is essential that significant changes to our data protection go through that democratic process. New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining the purpose, scope and timeline of any additional variations to recognised legitimate interests, again supporting greater transparency and accountability. The new clauses are there to help improve public trust around data and improve the adoption and inclusion of the growing range of technology and its benefits. They are for the Government to look at when thinking about how we ensure that we bring people along with us.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is also for them, and to ensure that we unlock those healthcare benefits by ensuring that more data is used, that I caution against clause 77. The clause introduces exemptions from providing information to data subjects where that would require “disproportionate effort”. However, it is hard to see how that can improve transparency. That failure to be transparent risks that loss of public trust—a message I will repeat again and again. I urge Ministers to listen to those concerns and to remove clause 77 to ensure that we have genuine public trust and crucial data protection standards, as already discussed today.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The National Data Guardian has specifically warned that weakening transparency obligations could negatively impact people’s trust in how our health and social care data is used for research, potentially impairing important data initiatives. Those concerns are also shared by the British Medical Association. While we still face a crisis in the provision of health and social care, I strongly welcome all possibilities to unlock innovation to achieve healthcare benefits, as already discussed today. I welcome that innovation for my constituent Catherine in Harpenden, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which is often overlooked in women; for Andy and Sarah in Redbourn, who lost their daughter at a painfully young age to a brain tumour; and for the families and others across Harpenden and Berkhamsted who are awaiting diagnosis and treatment.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 77 strongly risks bypassing individual data rights by watering down transparency of the processing of personal data for reasons such as research, archiving in the public interest or statistical purposes. Although we welcome efforts to modernise data law, modernisation should not come at the cost of transparency—a cornerstone of public trust. Clause 77 risks seriously watering down rights regarding how our data is collected and processed. Organisations such as Justice, the British Medical Association and the National Data Guardian share our concerns that this clause erodes transparency regarding the use of patient information.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 80, page 95, line 19, at end insert— “(3) To qualify as meaningful human involvement, a review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.” This amendment would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful a review must be carried out by a competent person.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 51 directly addresses the ambiguity around meaningful human involvement in automated decision making. Clause 80 raises significant concerns around the future of automated decision making. Although the Liberal Democrats recognise the potential of data to drive innovation, we must remember that, behind those automated decisions, are people’s lives. Amendment 51 directly addresses that ambiguity and seeks to ensure that any human review is “performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.” That would help to clarify the crucial definition of “meaningful”.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for those points. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but it is important to highlight that that person needs to have the necessary competence, training and authority around those decisions, so that that meaningful human involvement is very clear.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 23 mandates that the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Information Commissioner, must produce a clear definition of meaningful human involvement within six months or justify why a definition is not required. Again, that is to ensure that the term “meaningful human involvement” is not just a hollow gesture. I welcome the Minister ’s remarks clarifying the issue, but it is crucial, if we are to get automated decision making right, that these things are defined and clear for everyone involved.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed, innovation is often better promoted by guidelines. The new clauses represent our commitment to ensuring that clause 80 truly modernises our data laws without sacrificing the fundamental safeguards that protect everyone, including the people behind those decisions. I thank the Minister for his consideration.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These measures would help to promote transparency and enable public scrutiny, which is something that this House and its Members are here to do, either through legislation or for our constituents on a daily basis. It is important that we ask questions about these increasingly influential technologies. Finally, new clause 26 would reinforce the right to an explanation by requiring data controllers to provide, on request, clear explanations of high-risk AI decisions. We need to ensure that meaningful human involvement remains central. The new clauses are not intended to stifle innovation, but to ensure that the evolution of data use is guided by principles of fairness, transparency and accountability. We must ensure that data truly is the new gold for everyone, and that individuals’ rights and protections are not devalued in the process.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 1 directly tackles the concerns about transparency and the right to an explanation—a principle that the Liberal Democrats firmly believe in. New clause 4 proposes the creation of a publicly accessible register of AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector. New clause 7 seeks to empower individuals by granting them the right to request comprehensive information on decisions based wholly or partly on automated processes that have a legal or similarly significant effect on them. This aligns with the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to ensuring accountability and redress. New clause 24 proposes the establishment of a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make or materially influence decisions.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Furthermore, the considerable powers granted to the Secretary of State to amend or set aside the safeguards through secondary legislation create a concerning lack of parliamentary oversight. It is with these reservations in mind, and as a constructive Opposition, that we tabled these new clauses. New clause 1 would place a clear requirement on public sector organisations regarding the use of algorithmic automated decision making. It would demand public notice of their use and the provision of meaningful and personalised explanations to affected individuals about how and why a decision was made. I have already raised some cases that the provision would impact, and I am sure we all have similar cases in our inboxes.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Another case involves HMRC, with a constituent being taxed on pension income he is not actually receiving—it was only after hours of support from my team and the Department that we were able to turn his case around. The point is that it will be very difficult for people to fix errors that result from automated decision making if there is not enough transparency. We have to get that balance right. The Secretary of State’s power to define crucial terms such as “meaningful human involvement” and “similarly significant effect” creates uncertainty and the potential for watering down protections. Clause 80 seeks to update the safeguards around automated decision making, but organisations such as Justice and the Open Rights Group have real worries that it weakens those vital safeguards by broadening the scope for purely automated decisions.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I like to think that the Liberal Democrats are aligned on automated decision making and AI being an exciting opportunity for this country, but it is a fundamental shift. It is our job as a constructive Opposition to put forward proposals for consideration, so that there is proper scrutiny and ideas to ensure we take the public with us. All our proposals are made in that light. Behind these decisions are real people’s lives. I have a family in Wheathampstead who are desperate for a social home to fit their family life. I have someone from Tring—I will call him John—who says he has been systematically failed since high school. His universal credit claim was closed because he did not upload the correct documents, and he feels that a lack of human understanding of why he was unable to do so was a barrier to getting the help he needed.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I just want to clarify that the new clause is about the age of data consent, not access to social media. I will cover that in my speech, but I want to ensure that is clear.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the Government’s proposal last week to introduce a cross-Government safer screens taskforce to look at research into the multifaceted impact of social media on children’s wellbeing. This is not an overnight phenomenon. Last year marked 20 years since Facebook was created and 18 years since the smartphone was launched. We now face mounting calls from young people, parents and teachers. Now is the time for greater action on the gaps left by the Online Safety Act. I urge the Government to recognise the urgent need for decisive action and to support new clause 21. This is a pivotal opportunity to strengthen protections for young people online and to cultivate a digital world where they can thrive, not merely navigate potential harms.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Furthermore, new clause 21 underscores the fundamental principle that the responsibility for managing content and features must remain firmly with the social media companies. We call for the establishment of robust digital standards to ensure that platforms prioritise child safety and privacy as their default setting, rather than as an optional extra. Our duty to protect children online, however, cannot end with new clause 21. We call on the Government to take further action, such as explicitly recognising and treating children’s use of social media as a critical public health issue, thoroughly examining international best practice, identifying innovative solutions to the challenges we face, and developing evidence-based policies that will demonstrably improve online safety for children.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 21 is not about banning children under the age of 16 from accessing social media. It is important that the responsibility lies with the social media companies to ensure that online spaces are age-appropriate, and to manage content and features. This new clause is a targeted and proportionate measure to require online services to change fundamentally how they handle children’s data. This crucial change will necessitate restricting the pervasive and often harmful influence of algorithms to make the platforms inherently less addictive and ultimately foster a more child-friendly digital environment. It is imperative that digital technology is designed with the best interests of our children and young people at heart, ensuring that their rights and privacy are upheld—not as an afterthought, but with safety by design and by default.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The digital world is now the fabric of our lives and the lives of young people—it is where they learn, connect and seek entertainment—and yet, as the digital landscape expands, so do the risks they face. As 5Rights highlights, “the enormous potential of technology can only be realised when it is designed with children in mind”. Parliament now has an opportunity, perhaps even an obligation, to help shape that technology. It is disappointing that the safer phones Bill was watered down, so we have tabled new clause 21 as a crucial step to strengthen protections for young people in the digital age. It seeks to bring UK data law in line with many of our European neighbours, by raising the minimum age at which internet companies can collect, process and store a user’s data without explicit parental consent to 16.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Together, young women and men alike have talked about the impact on their body image, bullying and the amount of time sucked up by social media—time they want to spend doing other things. There is mounting evidence of the negative effects of our children’s exposure to an unsafe online environment. Every day, we hear the concerns of parents, the anxieties of teachers and, crucially, the voices of young people themselves, all crying out for action to ensure their safety online and calling for stronger regulation of their online experience. I realise that the Online Safety Act is moving forward, but it will not go far enough. This is a matter of profound importance for the wellbeing of our nation’s children and young people.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I start with the young people at the heart of this. We have indeed debated this time and again, and it is important that we keep that going. I have been on a Safe Screens tour, speaking to young people across Harpenden and Berkhamsted—from Ashlyns school in Berkhamsted to St George’s school in Harpenden, and beyond. Girl guides have spoken to me of their concerns about online bullying and harmful content. When I visited local schools on my Safe Screens tour, young men told me that social media has shown them extreme content that they do not want to see, and despite their efforts to block or ban it, the algorithm brings it back. Young women have told me of their worries about the growing misogyny in online content.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 90 and 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 92 Codes of practice for the processing of personal data Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗