Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I rise in support of much of what the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) has said. He has done a service to this Chamber, and Parliament more generally, by highlighting the threats that AI will bring.

Perhaps I can set the scene by reminding Members present that it took 25 years for Parliament and successive Governments to recognise that the internet must be regulated. That is extraordinary. When I was in the IT industry back in the ’80s and ’90s, I became aware of the concept of the internet—before it was widely spoken about—and even then I knew the harm it might do.

In 2000, at the beginning of the new millennium, I was privileged to be able to speak at the Spalding Gentlemen’s Society, with which I do not imagine you are familiar, Ms McVey, but suffice to say it is a learned society of the old school—it now does admit women, you will be pleased to know. It has a lecture programme on all manner of things, and I was pleased to be invited to give the first lecture of the millennium. Then, I warned of what the internet might do. Most of the audience, by the way, disbelieved what I said. It was a very civilised meeting—it was not raucous in any way—but they could not quite come to terms with what I predicted.

What I predicted then has come to pass. What has occurred is the distortion of public discourse, the enabling of widespread fraud and the provision of the means for every imaginable form of harm, from hardcore pornography being available to children, to internet gambling addiction, suicide sites and much more. Now, the prospect of AI will make all that still more chilling. As the recognition of what is real and what is invented is increasingly blurred, it will become more and more difficult for people to navigate the inevitable vicissitudes that pervade every life.

Imagine a future where the once secure certainty of what really exists is so undermined that people can no longer believe what they are told and have no place to go to establish that certainty—the basis on which we all gauge reality and are able to live reasonably productive lives. I see wellbeing being affected by that detrimentally; unless the Government take very urgent and extremely serious action, that will happen far more quickly than anyone here envisages.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the primary obligations of any Government is to keep their citizens and the people living in their country safe from all avoidable harms? AI is a major potential cause of harm, and it is avoidable. Does he agree that the Government cannot wait 25 years to catch up?

[Sir John Hayes]

I absolutely agree. That is why I began by describing what has occurred over the last quarter of a century and the misunderstanding—a pervasive one that affected all political parties and Governments of all kinds—that a dangerous fascination with novelty was more important than the certainty that I have just outlined.

The hon. Member for Poole is right to issue a clarion call for action. Let me go into a little more detail. He is right, for example, that we have allowed a handful of multinational corporates, which have displayed a carelessness to the effects of what they do, to wield immense power—more power than national Governments. It is increasingly difficult for Governments to pull levers that affect these people, because they exist beyond the purview of this House or of any Government Minister. They have shown by their example that carelessness, and only when they have been prevented from doing harm have they ceased to do so.

I am delighted that the Government are now taking steps to prevent children from accessing social media and mobile telephones; I would like to go much further, actually, and I hope the Government will. I called for the ban on phones in schools, along with many other Members of this House, a long time ago. But AI makes all that more serious, because the AI available through that technology, which has the ability to distort the very nature of reality, will be immensely difficult to control. And yet we must try to do so. Legislation is not always the only means of doing that but, as the hon. Gentleman set out, it certainly must play a part.

Umberto Eco described the internet as the “empire of imbeciles”. Over time, it has become impossible to distinguish experts from idiots, and every bar-room bigot now has an audience of millions. Most people had a sense of proportion; my parents were working-class people who left school at 14, but they had a very good sense of what really mattered. Now we have elevated trivia to an extraordinary degree and, as a result, that sense of proportion, which was once taken as read, can no longer be guaranteed.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

On the point about proportionality, a lot of concerns about AI have rightly been raised in the debate, but let me sound a more positive note about public services. In my constituency, North Kerrier integrated neighbourhood team, which covers one of the most deprived regions in the UK, is using Brave AI to identify frailer and more vulnerable patients earlier and thereby prevent avoidable hospital admissions. Given the opportunities of AI, and the risks the right hon. Gentleman is talking about in great detail, does he agree, particularly in relation to healthcare, that the right approach is proportionate regulation, so that we do not stifle innovation, but maintain public trust and safety?

[Sir John Hayes]

I know from my dealings with the hon. Gentleman that he is a good and effective Member of Parliament who takes a very responsible view of these things, but we must not let the virtues that he describes blind us to the vices. That is what happened with the internet. When I made that speech back in 2000, when people said, “But I can reunite with my family in Australia.” I replied, “Well, if they really wanted to unite with you, they wouldn’t have gone to Australia in the first place.” I remember Friends Reunited—as though we want to get in touch with people we were at primary school with. They look so different; that is frightening in itself. Why would we want to revisit our ancient history?

But that is all an aside. I think the hon. Gentleman is right, and of course it is true that there will be the advantages that he describes, particularly in the research field. My fear is that they will obscure, in the eyes of those who have the power to make a difference, the points that the hon. Member for Poole made. I hope that does not apply to this Minister, who I am sure is far more clear-sighted than that suggests.

Parliament and the Government need to act quickly and decisively to deal with the points that the hon. Member for Poole made and that I have attempted, imperfectly, to amplify. It is critically important to understand that although innovation may matter, ethics matter more; that science and technology are morally neutral and have no implicit ethic; and that what really counts is not what is new, but what is true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

The hon. Member raises a really important point, and it is part of a broader picture. My understanding is that something like only half of all schools have an appropriate AI policy. Simply saying to students, “Don’t use AI”, having an unorganised approach to it, or just taking a company’s word for it without a broader set of guidance and frameworks for deployment is not supporting our children and young people. Saying, “Just don’t use AI”, when we know children and young people are using it, is not fair to them, and will do a disservice to our economy in the future.

Our children and young people need to understand how AI works, as well as the risks of cognitive offloading and the negative impacts on social interaction from inappropriate use. I also want to see us encouraging international discussion in the OECD and the United Nations about taxation—taxation of permanent establishment, capital gains and the cost of human labour compared with tokens. That does not need to have an immediate impact; we could set a threshold of employment impact to trigger a token tax, for example. However, we cannot run away from this debate, especially given how much services dominate our economy.

Secondly, we have to engage with concerns about the safety of frontier models. As I said many months ago alongside the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, just regulating applications after harm has been done is unacceptable. Grok should not have been able to produce 3 million non-consensual nudified images in the first place. New York, California, Illinois and the EU have moved towards approaches requiring mandatory assessment of frontier models, and we should too. We should place the AI Security Institute on a statutory footing as a first step, and we should use our presidency of the G20 next year to reinvigorate global attempts at co-ordination, which started with the Bletchley conference but have effectively stalled since. We can work with EU countries to do that as well as with nations from India to Brazil.

Thirdly, and finally, although AI can release huge productivity gains, we have to recognise that unscrupulous and inappropriate use is already imposing huge costs too.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am interested in the right hon. Lady’s comment on productivity, because it is one of the prevailing macroeconomic challenges facing this Government and previous Governments, as the stalling of productivity has been a problem across western economies for a while. It is true that AI might help, but it could also harm. Equipping people with skills is critical to building productivity, and dependence on AI may actually undermine people’s confidence and their skills over time.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree. That phenomenon of so-called cognitive offloading and the lack of scaffolding in skills is a genuine concern. Equally, we see how rapidly and accurately AI can assess tumour scans, for example, working with human beings to deliver the highest possible quality of healthcare. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) about the potential there. We need to have a sensible approach to this issue.

I also want to mention some additional harms. We are now seeing ubiquitous slop on the internet, AI-enabled fraud and cyber-attacks, and the impact of AI summaries on local media use as well, so I want to see the CMA using its powers for competition-focused action on strategic market status services. I want the Government to adopt a maximalist approach to the “Watch this Space” White Paper, and I want us to stop treating bots as separate, because AI is increasingly going to be integral to our interface with the internet, as well as to so much else, so we need to adopt a safety-by-design approach to online regulation, and that needs to recognise the increasing ubiquity of AI.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; this is, of course, not a left versus right argument. For example, the antitrust regime in the United States exists precisely to prevent the concentration of power. Indeed, all the companies in the list we heard earlier were American. We did not mention ByteDance or Huawei, which we could easily have done. As the right hon. Member for Oxford East said, sovereign capability is obviously important, too.

On labour markets, there is also a risk—actually, the hon. Member for Poole did not do this, but I thought that he was going to keep saying, “Universal basic income, universal basic income.” He did not, but a lot of people do. Universal basic income is a policy prescription that those people calling for it tended to believe in years earlier, before they had even heard of AI, and now it fits this scenario. I do not know what the outcomes and therefore the mitigations of AI will need to be, but we must keep an open mind.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I had better press on, because we have a number of colleagues to get through.

Regarding generative AI and its effect on information integrity, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to earlier, we should bear in mind that so far the massive growth in fraud, misinformation and disinformation has all been done with cheapfakes. People talk about deepfakes, but it is done with rubbish, which can still take in large numbers of people. Just imagine what happens when such fakes become convincing. For example, there is the email that says, “I am stranded in Bermuda”, or whatever it is, “and I need you to send me £100 overnight.” Imagine when that scam actually involves a video of someone’s child saying it to them.

However, we soon realise that those things seem relatively benign when people start talking about agentic AI and super-intelligence, whereby machines take control of a situation, which some people have described as being ultimately an existential threat to humanity.

I do not know what all the answers are, but I think that as politicians—as the House of Commons—we need to ensure that our organisational architecture is equipped to consider all these questions as they evolve. However, I do not think that our Select Committee structure today is equipped in that way. For example, I do not think that having a Science, Intelligence and Technology Committee, which obviously covers technology, is a suitable way to address all these matters, and I also do not think that it is appropriate to expect every other Select Committee to develop such expertise themselves. Somehow, we need to meld the two structures. We must have some form of super-Select Committee—a support team, or something like that—to work with all the other teams or Committees across the piece.

I will finish by mentioning two specific things that we can do right now, because there is a ticking bomb with AI, specifically regarding children. In education now, if someone asks the typical year 9 pupil, “How many of your friends use AI to help them do their homework?”, that child would just laugh and say, “All of them.” The idea that we have some sort of issue where we have to encourage children to use AI is just nonsense. It is also crazy to suppose that we can just say to them, “Don’t do it,” and they will comply. Every child in the country learns computing in primary school. We need to make sure that the curriculum evolves so that children get to understand how the thing works, how it generates its content, why it might hallucinate, why it tries to flatter the questioner and why we cannot fully rely on it.

There is a real danger. Cognitive offloading is a fancy term, but it basically means relying on a machine to do the work for us. One way we can mitigate that effect with schoolchildren is ensure that when they do their exams at the end of the year, they do them with a piece of paper and a pen in exam conditions. I am afraid there is a move across exam boards to make more exams digital. Of course, they will say that the computers are not attached to the internet and children cannot do this, that and the other, but pen and paper is the safest thing. Of course, there should be exceptions for children with a special educational need or disability that means they need to use a keyboard, and exceptions for computer science, but in general, children at school doing their public exams should do them on pen and paper. That will make sure it happens lower down the school as well. It will also ensure that children continue to write. This sounds like a stupid thing to say, but people already ask, “Why is my child learning to write with a pen, because by the time they grow up nobody will be doing that?”

Finally, we are about to make the same mistake with chatbots as we did with social media. I am talking about anthropomorphism, where a computer program develops a personality of its own and develops relationships with people. I welcome the development of an age-appropriate design code for chatbots, but it is not enough. The regulatory regime we have in this country, with Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, relies on there being evidence of harm. The evidence will not come before the harm. We need to change that system and adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to protecting children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I hear what the Minister says, but there are no specific laws governing the standards of AI, there is no dedicated regulator to deal with AI development, and there are no sanctions on companies that knowingly use AI for malevolent purposes. Those things are all needed now.

[Mr Frith]

The Government’s principle is to regulate at the time of deployment or at use. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but it is important that we strike the right balance between innovation and regulation. Of course, as I will come on to discuss in more detail, where there have been examples of harm we must call that out and call in those who caused them.

The Government have already committed to ambitious plans to transform services. For a radiologist, that means access to the best tools for detecting cancer—tools that can save lives and cut waiting lists in our NHS. The public sector is where it is perhaps most crucial that the Government ensure that we embed frameworks, standards and guidance to ensure that AI is deployed in a way that is fair, transparent and accountable. We are doing so with the data and AI ethics framework, the AI playbook, and transparency standards that ensure the public can understand how systems are used.

We are also supporting UK firms that provide third-party AI-assurance ecosystems, demonstrating that AI systems are safe and reliable as well as creating new jobs. That is critical not just for risk management but for building businesses, building confidence in those deploying AI, and building trust in the systems we use. To the points that were made about the job market, AI has the potential to enhance job roles and the performance of each of us at work, but it is necessary and reasonable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole pointed out, to distinguish the jobs that are most at risk—those least likely to be enhanced and most likely to be replaced. That is a very reasonable proposition. We recognise that one of the primary areas where people will interact with AI is in the labour market.

To zone in on labour markets, and the issue of young people and entry-level jobs, an estimated 12.8% of all people aged 16 to 24 in the UK are not in education, employment or training. That goes well beyond data-entry or access-level jobs, or a potential shift of culture in relation to entry-level jobs. To date, there is little conclusive evidence that AI is reducing employment. However, the International Monetary Fund estimates that around 70% of UK workers are in exposed occupations. Around half of those exposed workers are in high complementary roles, where AI will enhance rather than replace their work.

The Government are committed to supporting the worker experience through the AI transition, and have a proud record of advancing workers’ rights. To that end, earlier this year the Government established the AI and the future of work unit, bringing together expertise from across Departments and industry to monitor how AI is affecting jobs, wages and opportunity in real time. We are putting in place the institutions, data and cross-Government co-ordination needed to ensure that AI transforms the labour market, that workers are supported and that opportunities are widely shared across society.

We are also investing in people, because the opportunities of AI will be realised only if the workforce are equipped to harness them. That is why we have launched one of the most ambitious skills programmes anywhere in the world. Our AI skills boost programme is already delivering results. In an answer given to the House last week, I referred to the early careers funding and work on curriculum reforms to come, such as an AI-inclusive GCSE in computing.

This is about ensuring that workers at every stage of their career, and whether in small businesses, large firms or public services, have the tools that they need to thrive in an AI-enabled economy. AI will have—is having—seismic impacts on our working lives and productivity, and we must embrace the democracy this gives us. We must democratise access to AI to ensure that communities across the country reap the benefits. Central to that effort is ensuring that support is delivered to the graduates and young people entering the world of work for the first time. Much has been made of the rising level of NEETs. Programmes such as TechLocal are creating new jobs, traineeships and professional training, while scholarships and fellowships are supporting the next generation of researchers and innovators.

Nobody is waiting 25 years to tackle the threats, however. AI harms are very real, and we do not sit idly by when it comes to tackling them. We are not standing still. The AI Security Institute is conducting world-leading research to understand the capabilities and impacts of advanced AI. In response to the generation of vile and degrading non-consensual sexual deepfakes on Grok earlier this year, the Prime Minister himself, and the Government, stood up to Grok and X and won that fight. We have criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and legislated to require platforms to remove them. Separately, we have banned nudification apps and criminalised AI tools designed to create sexual abuse material, as well as learning the importance of sovereignty when considering the recent switching off of the latest Anthropic AI tool.

I was asked a specific question about the social media ban. I was a proud early adopter of the policy and I am pleased to say that it remains the Government’s intention to update the House before recess.

The UK is proactively responding to the AI revolution—we are shaping it. AI has extraordinary potential to improve healthcare, accelerate scientific discovery, personalise education, strengthen public services and drive economic growth. We will harness the opportunities across every region and community to shape UK society for the better for all.

Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I was clear yesterday, in response to the news that my hon. and learned Friend refers to, that their continued detention is unjustified and appalling. He has been a doughty advocate for his constituents in this matter. I will continue to meet him directly and with them on all these questions. The behaviour of Iran does not relate solely to British nationals, although they must of course be our focus in this Chamber; it is part of a much wider pattern of detentions which appear to have absolutely no justification of any kind. It is a pattern that extends far beyond Europe as well. We condemn it. It is completely erosive of any trust in Iran, and I have made that point clearly and repeatedly to the Iranian authorities.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

In referring the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I commend the Minister for visiting Lebanon in April, and for his continuing dialogue with the very good new ambassador here and our ambassador there. He will know that the Lebanese people deserve to be free from fear, persistent uncertainty, perpetual hostility and permanent doubt. The only way for that to happen, as he said, is to support the Lebanese Government and armed forces. We do so already, but to endorse the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), will the Minister look at what further steps can be taken to communicate that support within Lebanon? The worry people have, which I think is shared across the Chamber, is that, sadly and tragically, the Lebanese people will come to believe that Hezbollah is defending them. In fact, it is doing anything but; it is endangering them. What further steps can he take to reassure the Lebanese people of what he has told the House today?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, my Lincolnshire neighbour, for his kind words and attention to these matters. I take the challenge that there is a completely untrue narrative that is promoted. The idea that either Lebanese Hezbollah or Iran itself is a protector of Lebanon is patently and completely untrue. Iran’s influence in Lebanon over many years has been malign. It has undermined the sovereignty of the country and it has harmed the interests of its people. I take his challenge and will return to him on what more we can do both to make sure of our support and on the malign nature of Iranian influence within the country.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

To be clear about the current position, there was support from the US Administration for this treaty, which has not changed. There clearly has been a statement from the President of the United States more recently that is very significant, and, as I told the House, we are now discussing those concerns with the United States directly. We have a process going through Parliament in relation to the treaty. We will bring that back to Parliament at the appropriate time. We are pausing for discussions with our American counterparts.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Whatever Members across this House might say, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has done a service to us in raising this matter today, because this is a dodgy deal founded on a bogus basis, as I shall explain. When this was introduced to the House, we were told that the Government were doing so on the basis that they would be sanctioned internationally, and, in particular, they described the most proximate and potentially serious as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In the answer to a subsequent written question, I discovered that, far from that, the stance on article 298 remains unchanged from prior declarations of 2003 and 2020. That means we can opt out. There was no obligation and no necessity.

I use these words cautiously because I know and like the Minister and I know and like the Secretary of State for Defence, but it seems to me that this House was inadvertently misled in the original statement, as is proven by subsequent answers to written questions. Will the Minister clarify that urgently, because it is a very serious parliamentary matter and a matter of national significance?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Member is a Lincolnshire colleague, so I do not like to disagree with him, including on the value of the weekend trip taken by the hon. Member for Clacton. On the question of article 298, I can hear the strength of views across the House. As I understand it, this is a particularly complex and contentious area of law. I hear the House’s desire for further clarification from the Government, and I am sure that the relevant Minister will be very happy to write—

British Indian Ocean Territory

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think it demonstrates their disdain and contempt for the British people, quite frankly. It is pretty obvious that as the Prime Minister and various other Ministers travel the globe, they go around waving the white flag of surrender. [Interruption.] Government Members can sit there chuntering, but the British public can see exactly what is going on with them: they are weak, feeble and giving away the public’s money.

Had the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering about the start of the negotiations, but this deal is on him, the Labour Government, their lefty friends and their international law agreements. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister would like to listen; he might learn a few things today. Had the Prime Minister and his dear friend the Attorney General—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member would like to contribute to the debate, and will put her name down to speak. If not, I suggest that she sits and listens.

Had the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, and the real Foreign Secretary, Jonathan Powell—along with those who are or were Foreign Secretary in name only—got their way, the Mauritian flag would already be flying over the Chagos archipelago, and hundreds of millions of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money would already be lining the coffers of a foreign Government.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I invite my right hon. Friend to challenge the Minister to deal with the issue of the treaty of Pelindaba, which I think came into force in 2009. It was designed to prevent African nuclear proliferation. If we breach that treaty by means of this deal, it would open up an opportunity for all kinds of hostile powers, including China, to site nuclear weapons in Africa. Do the Government realise that? I know that my right hon. Friend certainly does.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, it is the Opposition who have been raising the issue that this deal gives succour and strength to Britain’s enemies. All the people who are working against us—China, Russia and Iran—will accelerate their plotting with their Mauritian friends on how to undermine the operationalisation of the military base on Diego Garcia, and on how to exert their influence in the Indo-Pacific at the expense of all our interests.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I give way on this issue to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).

[Sir John Hayes]

On that point, the Minister will be aware that the matter was debated at length in the Lords. Indeed, one of the amendments that we are considering deals precisely with the entitlements of the Chagossians. They were not involved in the negotiations at any stage, and they have made that clear. Why on earth would the Minister reject the Lords amendment, which simply says that they should have a defining say in their own future?

[Stephen Doughty]

With respect—Madam Deputy Speaker, you can correct me if I am wrong—it is a decision in relation to the engagement of financial privilege and the Standing Orders that means that those amendments are not for debate and will be disagreed with. That has been made clear by the Chair.

Working with Mauritius, we have also agreed the parameters for the operation of a Chagossian trust fund. On 12 December, the Mauritian Government approved legislation to establish the trust fund. That confirms, again, in response to many reasonable opinions expressed both in the other place and by those on the Opposition Benches—

[Sir John Hayes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chair made it clear at the outset that the amendments that deal with matters of finance were inappropriate to be considered here, for obvious reasons. I understood, however, that the amendments that we were debating, including those that reference the Chagossians, do not concern finance in particular. Can you clarify the matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Time is tight, and interventions should be taken with caution. I call Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am immensely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as Bills that metamorphosise during their passage and are improved through scrutiny. However, that depends on Ministers listening and learning. The amendments before us from the House of Lords are measured and reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments, but attempts to save the Government from their worst instincts. They provide greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight and more checks and balances, yet they are rejected by the Government.

I will not speak, in the brief time available, about the cost of the deal, although it is wholly unpalatable that we should give away a treasured possession and then rent it back from a foreign place. I will not speak about the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West’s remarks. That former Labour security Minister, who sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee with me, said:

“surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.”

That is wholly unwise.

I will speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, who were uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard, and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be wholly unethical.

This is unwise, unpalatable, unwelcome, unethical, and fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something that is woeful. I implore the Government to accept the amendments. More than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest, and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos islanders.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If it were possible, one could almost feel sorry for the Minister. This is the Minister who, during previous stages of the Bill, batted away every criticism by telling us, “Oh, but the Americans support this deal.” He gleefully told us that they were our strongest and most important ally, and if they were enthusiastic and supportive of the Bill, what was the problem? Today, the emperor has no clothes.

The President of the United States has talked about the great stupidity of this deal. He describes a country giving away its own sovereignty as

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

Today the Minister has been forced into some indelicate gymnastics, as he tries to deal with the fact that the peg on which he hung all his defences has snapped out of place.

The Minister’s gymnastics have been equally on display when it comes to dealing with his party’s manifesto. Contrary to what he says, it is very clear that when the manifesto declares that Labour will always

“defend… sovereignty and right to self-determination”,

it is referring not only to Gibraltar and the Falklands, but to all British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It says

“including the Falklands and Gibraltar”,

but not “exclusively the Falklands and Gibraltar”.

International Day of Democracy

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for that support for local councillors and the hard work that they do every single day working with communities. It is important that we support and empower them to deliver for communities. In fact, that is a vital part of restoring confidence in our democracy.

It is a pleasure to see members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, who are leading a wide-ranging discussion on the future of our electoral system. I know many of us across the House are concerned about the division that our electoral system has seen. It is right that we have a robust discussion about that. In recent polling for More in Common, 62% of voters stated that our political and social institutions are worth preserving and improving in spite of the headwinds that we face. This is the country that I know: one that faces the challenges before us and acts to meet the moment. We can address the frustration and disillusionment that last weekend saw people marching in my constituency, while making our democracy richer and more inclusive.

Today let us mark International Day of Democracy by recognising the threats that face us and the opportunities that change can bring. I look forward to hearing from all the speakers gathered here today and from the Minister, what such change can and should look like.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they need to bob to catch my eye—I can see they are already doing that. Let us try to get everyone in by limiting the length of speeches. I will not set a limit; I will leave that to Members’ discretion. I call Liz Saville Roberts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am going to call people for the wind-ups just before 10.30 am. You can see what time it is, so let us try to get everyone in—be powerful and pithy, please.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) not just on securing the debate, but on a powerful speech, and especially on her tribute to how our Parliament is evolving. It is vital to recognise that we have agency in this place and that there is cause for hope.

Not only is it customary to open a speech in that way, but it speaks to something that is core to our democracy: that civility matters. We make progress as a society and as a country through considered debate and by contesting ideas. We value the opinions of those on all sides of the political divide. The process of building consensus is invariably a strength and not a weakness.

People who represent different political views or parties can be, and often are, our friends. I consider everyone who serves in the House of Commons to be a colleague. Many will be my political opponents, but they will never be my enemies. That may seem self-evident in a mature democracy such as the United Kingdom, but we live in a time when democracy needs renewal and reaffirmation.

We can take nothing for granted, and the comments of Elon Musk on Saturday demonstrate why. At a rally that was purportedly about the uniting the kingdom, Musk told the crowd that

“violence is coming to you”

and that Parliament should be dissolved, on the basis that he did not like the result of the last election very much.

Since 1929, we have run fully democratic elections in our country, with universal suffrage for men and women. Our democracy has endured and grown stronger through the horrors of war with the Nazis, global financial crises and a pandemic. We are not going to be cowed by a foreign billionaire who does not live in this country and cannot even pretend to understand it.

We must not overstate the political abilities of this man. A couple of days ago, Musk announced that his AI tool, Grok, would once again be sent for reprogramming because it inconveniently shared facts that contradicted its master’s argument. If he cannot win an argument with his own AI tool, he is not going to win an argument with the British people.

We should have confidence in our democracy but never be complacent about its future. We live in a world of mass information, where private companies that design social media algorithms hold more power to shape political debate than the editors of newspapers or the producers of broadcast news. The debate online has coarsened, which is precisely why our conduct in Parliament matters more than ever: we have to set an example. At times, it may feel quaint that we refer to each other in this place as hon. Members, but there is honour in debate, disagreement and democracy.

There is no doubt that we live in fragile times. Putin has brought war to Europe, and I am speaking on the morning that the United Nations commission of inquiry has concluded that Israel’s leadership has committed four of the five acts of genocide defined under the 1948 genocide convention.

The times we live in make it all the more important to look back at how democracy became a beacon of hope after we emerged from the second world war, the darkest chapter in our history. The response then to suffering was not to turn inward, to stigmatise or to attack others—it was the opposite. Signed by 50 nations in June 1945, the UN charter’s purpose was to reaffirm

“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women”.

It went on to say that all signatories must

“practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”.

This country was at the vanguard of defending democracy even in our darkest hour. If a previous generation could succeed in championing democracy then, we can and must do it now.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Tom Morrison. Pithy please, Tom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Morrison]

I absolutely agree. The Government must invest more in our democracy at home to ensure that the country stays on the right path, with sustained economic growth, thriving global partnerships and a place on the world stage that is as influential as it is admired.

The Government must increase the aid budget, as it is not only a lifeline for millions but a strategic priority that strengthens our democratic allies and makes future allies around the globe. We cannot and must not ignore this soft power. I am proud to sit on the board of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which, for more than 30 years, has worked tirelessly on programmes that have supported so many democratic nations to grow and prosper. These are huge success stories for our nation. These are huge moments that place us as a key player on the world stage, and we should not take them for granted.

I will conclude by returning to my opening remarks. We are at a crucial moment both at home and abroad, with the rise of extremism, the polarisation of debate and misinformation being fuelled by the growing influence of social media. We, as liberals and democrats, must take a stand. If we do not, I truly worry what will happen next.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Lizzi Collinge. There are two after you, Lizzi, so bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When we think of the International Day of Democracy, it is relevant and appropriate to reflect on what the essence of a functioning democracy is. When we distil it down, the essence of a functioning democracy is that those who are governed elect those who govern them, and that those who make the laws for any people are elected by the people over whom those laws have control. That is the very essence of a functioning democracy.

We might talk about things around the world, but we need to stop, pause and ask ourselves, “Is that operating in this United Kingdom?” I have to say that in the part of the United Kingdom that I come from—Northern Ireland—that fundamental has been shredded. It is not allowed to operate because not in one, not in 30, but in 300 areas of law, the laws that govern Northern Ireland are made not in Stormont or Westminster, or by anyone elected from anywhere in Northern Ireland. They are made by a foreign Parliament—indeed, by the Parliament of 27 other nations. Why? Because of the iniquitous Windsor framework.

Annexe 2, which I invite people to look at, lists hundreds upon hundreds of laws that are made in the European Parliament—not here—but enforced on Northern Ireland. Those laws touch upon the fundamentals of many of our lives. They govern the trade of Northern Ireland; they govern the manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, and how we package those goods, their contents, and how they are labelled; they govern the environment; and they even govern rights under article 2 of the Windsor framework, and culminate in the imposition of a partitioning border in this United Kingdom.

So, before we get too excited about the lack of democracy elsewhere in the world, let us take the mote out of our own eye and work towards restoring that most fundamental principle: that wherever someone lives, they should be able to elect those who make the laws that govern them. It is a shame of the past Government and of the current Government that they continue, sanguinely, to allow this situation to prevail.

I hear talk about young people. I just heard talk about, “Isn’t it great that young people will be able to vote?” I recently listened to a video from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). He said, “We want young people to feel they have the same chance as everyone else to make the laws to which they are subject.” How I wish that applied to not just the young but the old in Northern Ireland—the right to make the laws that govern us.

We present ourselves as a world-leading democracy, and yet are killing the legitimate expectation in Northern Ireland that people should be able to make the laws that govern them and not be subject to colony-like rule, because the essence of colonial rule is that people are governed by someone else’s laws, as they are not considered worthy of making their own laws, such that a foreign jurisdiction must make the laws for them.

That is the essential constitutional and democratic affront of the Windsor framework. Let us set about taking the mote out of the eye of the United Kingdom. Let us set about restoring fundamental democracy to Northern Ireland.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Jeevun Sandher. I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.28 am.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The truth is that today democracy is dying and we have to face that if we want to save it as it stands. We are living in a divided nation, where people are losing faith in democracy because they cannot afford a decent life, they do not see a way forward and they see others who can. A nation as divided as ours cannot stand and it will not endure unless we protect and save it.

We are divided by economics, by geography and online. We live in a nation where record numbers cannot afford a decent living. We live in different places in our country. Young people go to university and then never come back home. They live in major cities, living entirely different lives to those they have left behind. We occupy completely different spaces online. On average, we spend two and a half hours scrolling a day, hearing and listening to things that others do not, inhabiting completely different worlds.

If we want to address that, and want people to once again have faith in our democracy, we need both a policy answer and a political answer. On the policy side, people need to see that democracy can and does deliver for them. There is a cost of living crisis today. What delivering means is good jobs in every single place for people. It means places where people can cohere and come together in their local communities, as well as ending the pervading sense of loneliness that leads people to live their lives online, seeing more extreme content, engaging with it, living within it and being driven by it.

More than that, there is a political answer. How do we come together as one nation and one people? The answer is by living up to the greatest values of Britishness—unity, decency and determination. That is what has made this nation make the impossible seem only remarkable. It is how we saved democracy in Europe and saw it spread across the globe. It is how we came together during a pandemic. And beyond those great moments are the small, everyday ones that make life worth while—having a pint, queuing politely, a cup of tea. That is what it means to be British, cohering as one nation, together.

The radical right will say, “No, no, no—we can fix all our problems by attacking immigrants.” The radical left will say, “It is all about corporations.” It is for us to say that we stand as one British people for decency— not blaming, but cohering together. Unity, decency, determination: that is how we protect our democracy, that is how we save it and that is how we keep it for future generations.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much to everyone for being so disciplined with their speeches. We have had an excellent debate so far. Let us hope that continues. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

Yes, I did see that story, and it is absolutely shocking. Anyone who purports to care about free speech and accountability, then bans journalists from attending meetings for no good reason, does not respect that at all. We cannot pick and choose who provides that scrutiny. I have not spoken at length here about the media, but it performs a fundamental role. We have spoken today about the iniquitous role of some social media, and that has shown the transition in the way that people consume information about democracy. We must protect and support local government reporters, which the hon. Member mentioned, who are absolutely essential to the democratic process in this country. That is an important point.

I was just about to say that globally, records show declines in press freedom on every continent. Rule of law is slipping. One in five nations saw a deterioration in freedom of expression, economic equality and access to justice. Hong Kong activists face intimidation, even on British soil, with Chinese Communist party-linked bounties pinned to lamp posts, even in our own towns. In Iran, the Revolutionary Guard exports terror and targets women demanding freedom. In Russia, Vladimir Putin claimed an 87% “victory” in a sham election while jailing and killing rivals. These regimes do not simply repress at home; they meddle abroad, launder their money through London and seek to divide our alliances.

Crucially, Britain’s credibility must start at home. Many people feel that democracy is not working for them in this country. They feel detached and distanced from this place, and look to those who offer easy answers. Our politics is realigning, and our system of democracy must realign with it. That means real electoral reform; a system of proportional representation that reflects what people actually voted for. There is a real danger that at the next election the distorted first-past-the-post system, which both the Conservative and Labour parties have done so much to protect, will sweep them away. The time for change is now.

Democracy is something precious that we must all work to protect, but it is not certain, and it is not inevitable. Too many people who claim to cherish our democracy now spend time subverting it—deliberately or not—by undermining our judiciary, discrediting serious media outlets and attacking the integrity of election results that do not suit them. The Liberal Democrats’ answer is clear: we must restore Britain’s moral authority by defending rights robustly, here and abroad; champion a proportional electoral system, so that every vote counts and political monopolies cannot fester; enshrine the ministerial code in law; uphold the Human Rights Act 1998 against those who would dilute it; impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on those who persecute in Hong Kong, Georgia, Serbia and elsewhere; and fund development and diplomacy properly by reversing aid cuts that leave vacuums for autocrats to exploit.

Democracy is not merely a ballot box. It is a citizen in Tbilisi protesting without fear; a journalist in Belgrade exposing corruption without a midnight knock at the door; a student in Hong Kong refusing to be silenced by Beijing; a Ukrainian citizen voting for their future under Russian fire; and a voter in Lewes knowing that their vote will really count. Authoritarianism spreads when democracy grows timid, and we Liberal Democrats will not be timid. We will stand with the people of Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, with Hong Kong’s exiles and Ukraine’s heroic defenders, and with every community fighting to have their voice heard. Britain must be known as a country that does not just lecture on democracy, but lives it, defends it and invests in it.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore]

I am running out of time.

A world where rights are respected and states are well governed is a more peaceful world—one where Britain and our partners will be more secure and prosperous. We are working flat out to achieve that goal.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am delighted that the Minister has broken his vow of silence. I call Rachel Blake to sum up.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes important points. I had the pleasure of seeing many important water and sanitation projects in my previous career. We are concentrating on maintaining our impact by focusing on partnerships with Governments and multilaterals, and establishing the conditions that can secure additional domestic funding and private investment in those areas. He rightly makes the link between water and sanitation and health, and that will be considered as we approach future funding allocations.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

9. What changes were made to the draft agreement to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos islands to Mauritius between October 2024 and May 2025.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

10. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the treaty with Mauritius on the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago on the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The Foreign Secretary is an old friend and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is a Lincolnshire neighbour whom, in all his innocence, I regard with a degree of paternal care, so I ask this question more in sorrow than in anger. The assumption rooted in the Government’s statements is that unless we do a deal with Mauritius, the International Telecommunication Union could decide that Mauritius is sovereign and deny access to both the US and the UK. That is fundamentally untrue. The ITU has no competence in that regard and it is ignored by the US already, so will the Minister confirm that that argument is entirely bogus? This is not a deal. This is not diplomacy. It is a disgrace.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thoroughly reject that statement by the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that I have a lot of respect for him, but I am afraid that he is completely mistaken on this. The fact is that the courts were already making decisions that undermined our position, legally binding provisional measures could have come within weeks, affecting the operational ability of the base to function as it was, and we believe that an inevitable binding judgment would have followed. The deal has been done and this House is now scrutinising it. I have appeared before two Committees in recent weeks, and of course there will be further such scrutiny over the weeks ahead.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

That is why new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend, is so important. In other jurisdictions that have passed such laws, up to a third of people report that they have taken this step because they feel they are a burden on others. That is the truth of it—it is not always about pain—and that is the kind of autonomy that leads to disaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, which is about choice. In fact, the Bill is about choice: choice at the end of life and choice to have a dignified death. It is about a choice that is currently being denied to many in untreatable, excruciating pain at the end of their lives—a choice that the majority in this country would want for themselves.

New clause 10 is in that same spirit. It would offer practitioners a choice, by ensuring that there was no obligation on any person to provide assistance to a terminally ill adult seeking an assisted death. That includes those such as my constituent Aimee’s grandmother, who repeatedly asked her, “When will it end?” from the bed in her hospice, where, despite the best efforts of staff, they were medically unable to treat her constant pain and legally unable to make good on her wish to, in her own words, be helped to go.

The Bill allows doctors to choose not to participate in the assisted dying process if they so wish. The new clause would improve it by extending that provision to all registered medical practitioners, health professionals, social care professionals, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. It would also make it clear that no person is under any duty to act as a witness or a proxy in the process. It would further amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure that no one could be subjected to detriment by their employer for providing assistance to those seeking an assisted death or for choosing not to do so. That is a good thing: it respects people’s choices.

Some will not want to aid someone seeking an assisted death because of religious or other principled objections, but some, like my constituent Karen, will want to. Karen wrote to me setting out her father-in-law’s terminal diagnosis of a brain tumour, his fear of losing control of mental and bodily functions as his condition progressed and his hope that the Bill would pass in time for him to benefit from it.

Karen is not simply a relative of a terminally ill person; she spent years working in palliative care, watching people lose their independence and dignity as a result of their terminal illness, with patients asking her how they could end the suffering for both themselves and their families. She was heartbroken to witness their distress and pain over days, weeks or even months, knowing that nothing could be done for them. In their painful final stretches, some felt suicidal and some felt a burden. For that reason, I must oppose new clause 16, which would rule ineligible for assisted dying anyone who is substantially motivated by a number of factors, including feeling a burden, or suicidal ideation.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s objections to new clause 16, given that we have been assured throughout that the Bill would apply only to people who were terminally ill with six months to live. Is he really saying, therefore, that he does not want a new clause that would rule out from assisted death people who feel that they would be a burden on others, people with a mental disorder and people with a disability? His argument for choice is exactly the argument that in other jurisdictions has led to the expansion of assisted death to just those kinds of people.

[Tom Rutland]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it allows me to continue making an argument that will address those points. First, substantial motivation is vague, undefined and legally imprecise. This new clause is a blunt instrument and an attempt to shut the door on entire groups of people accessing an assisted death. How would one establish what a substantially motivating factor in any individual case is? No motivation exists in a vacuum, and feeling a burden can co-exist with physical deterioration and untreatable pain. Secondly, if suicidal ideation is to think about dying by taking one’s own life, would that not encompass everyone considering assisted dying?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

My decision to support the Bill on Second Reading was one of the hardest I have ever had to make. It required me to go into the very depths of myself and draw on my experience as a child in excruciating pain, as well as the extensive poignant experiences shared with me by my constituents. As I said then, my support was conditional on specific changes being made to the Bill in Committee. I am pleased to say that all those changes have been made. As a member of the Committee, I can tell the House that it was the most extraordinary cross-party deliberative process I have ever witnessed in my 20 years of analysing legislation as an academic and policy researcher working in disability law and policy. In Committee, I worked to strengthen the voices of disabled people, and their protection under the Bill. I moved motions to introduce clause 20 on independent advocates and clause 44, which would create a disability advisory board. These provisions are augmented today by amendments 75 and 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater).

Clause 20 would establish the role of independent advocate. They would advocate for qualifying persons who engage with the Bill, so that those persons can effectively understand their options around end of life care. This would empower disabled people to be treated with the dignity and respect that we deserve. These independent advocates would be required to undertake specialist training, and would be available regardless of whether the individual is ultimately found to be eligible to request an assisted death.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Tidball]

I will make progress, out of respect for all those on both sides of the House who wish to make a speech.

The clause flowed directly from evidence that we heard from oral witnesses, including leading disability scholars and disability policy experts. In conjunction with amendment 75, which is before us today, those with autism, along with a learning disability or a mental disorder as defined under the Mental Health Act 1983, would all qualify for the services of an independent advocate. Amendment 75, which defines a learning disability, would also apply to clause 7, which provides for specific, up-to-date training for registered practitioners on reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with a learning disability.

In Committee, I was grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and, to my delight, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) for these independent advocates, and for the Committee’s unanimous support for clause 44, which would set up the disability advisory board. That advisory board entrenches the voices of disabled people in the Bill, embedding a long-term and iterative structure for it to report on the Bill’s implementation and its impact on disabled people to the Secretary of State. Crucially, the board must consist of disabled people and representatives of disabled people’s organisations.

To build on those clauses, amendment 91 expands the duty to collect additional information about whether, immediately before death, the person seeking assistance had a disability as defined in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, other than the disability amounting to terminal illness as defined in the Bill. So often, control is taken away from disabled people in all sorts of circumstances. I passionately believe in inclusive healthcare for disabled people. Together, all those measures will create a solid foundation to enable disabled people to have a strong voice when advocating for themselves about their choices on end-of-life care and, importantly, a seat at the table in shaping the monitoring of the Bill and providing continued scrutiny and accountability.

To conclude, there were many moments in Committee when I reflected on how I would want to live a good death, but the most poignant was when Julie Thienpont described the death of her terminally ill husband, Guy, who sought an assisted death in Spain:

“Guy had always been a bit of an old cowboy, and he always said that he wanted to die with his boots on. I am proud to say that that is what he did. At the end, we were holding hands, and I said to him, ‘Don’t be afraid.’ He said, ‘I’m not afraid,’ and he winked at me just before he closed his eyes.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 258, Q334.]

May we all have the opportunity to choose a good death, wearing our cowboy boots with the love of our life by our side.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to amendments 26, 45 and 46, which stand in my name and the names of other Members. I am grateful for their support.

On amendment 26, hospice care is not a formulation of care, but a clinical setting where palliative care is delivered, so I trust that the House will accept my amendment in the interests of accuracy.

On amendment 45 and consequential amendment 46, the literature points to complex clinical decision making—which the subject of the Bill is—being safer if it happens in the context of multidisciplinary teams, as was advocated for by the professional bodies at the very start of the process. Such a context screens out unconscious bias and provides for clinical accountability with robust interdependency. It demands a deliberative process and it safeguards clinicians and patients with more secure outcomes. I have talked extensively to the professional bodies and clinicians, and I have read the academic evidence. In drawing on best practice, this amendment would provide such safeguards and ensure that the patient is at the heart of the process.

Members will know from the evidence given to the Bill Committee that the initial assessment is the most important part of the process, and clinicians and professional bodies do not understand why psychiatrists and social workers are being placed in a quasi-judicial role, rather than being used for their clinical and social expertise. The process makes the wrong assumptions. Without the amendments, there is a predication towards an assisted death, rather than the Bill recognising the insecure position that someone with a terminal illness finds themselves in and the safeguards that are required. There are many reasons for suicidality, and they should be explored.

In clinical practice, should someone determine that they want to end their life for whatever reason, a clinician would seek to ensure that the right professionals were involved in the care of the person, with exploration, diagnosis and, where necessary, therapeutic and pharmacological interventions.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will not. Dr Lade Smith, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, could not have been clearer, and academic research says the same: when someone is in receipt of a terminal diagnosis, there is frequently an episode of depressive disorder. Dr Price said in evidence:

“Those who had a wish to hasten death were 18 times more likely to also feel suicidal”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 275, Q359.]

They say that mental disorders are treatable. The spike in suicidal ideation and action is highest in the first few months following terminal diagnosis and then dissipates with time or intervention. Again, that is evidenced. People change their mind and no longer want to die.

As with other aspects of the Bill, poor care, poor pain management and poor symptom control—or the fear thereof—are reasons why people seek to end their life. That can be palliated. Colleagues must recognise the paucity of mental health provision given to somebody when they receive a terminal diagnosis. Often there is no psychological aftercare. People are failed, but that should not be a reason to die.

I ask for a panel, which would include a social worker, to assess the psychological needs of a patient. They are experts in detecting coercion, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, and understanding people at their most vulnerable with a fusion of complex emotions, anxiety and fear. Solutions can be found by them. There would also be a psychiatrist. Depression, anxiety and fear are natural responses to trauma, but they can be treated with the right interventions, if detected at the point that somebody expresses a wish to die, and a person can have a wish to live. The travesty of getting it wrong is unconscionable.

There would be a palliative care consultant who is registered on the GMC’s specialist register. They would understand the actions that could alleviate someone’s suffering. Evidence to the Bill Committee from Sue Ryder showed how poor provision led to someone considering an assisted death. Likewise, the president of the Association for Palliative Medicine, Dr Sarah Cox, said:

“We know that effective palliative care can change a terminally ill person’s point of view from wanting to die to wanting to live.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 70, Q84.]

That is evidence. It is a point I have heard from all leaders on the Commission on Palliative and End-of-Life Care. These are the specialists who know how to palliate the physical, psychological, social and spiritual problems of a patient, and they have techniques that many people have not had access to, because of poor provision.

The palliative care commission reported on Tuesday and I urge hon. Members to read its evidence-rich report, which draws on best practice. We reported that excellence in end-of-life provision is achievable, but that too many people are not getting access to it. Without that, I fear that the Bill only leads the patient down one route—to die. This is not a choice at all, but a path to an assisted death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point and I have seen her amendments on the subject, which are very sensible. We need to think about the way in which the panel process will actually unfold. If we believe that this is an important safeguard, as, I think, is a common view, we need to do everything we can to make sure that it is an effective one. Like the hon. Lady’s amendments, my amendment 47 seeks to remedy the problem by ensuring that the assisted dying commissioner notifies anyone they think may have relevant evidence to give so that they can give it. That evidence may, of course, not change the panel’s decision, but in some of the most troubling cases it will, and the opportunity for the panel to consider that evidence, when the stakes are so high, must surely be provided for.

I accept that what I am proposing is an infringement of the privacy of the person wishing to die—it is a fetter on their ability to choose to die without informing their family or friends as they may wish—but the Bill is all about balancing the rights of a person to die as they wish with, on the other hand, our duty to protect the vulnerable from abuse. That is exactly why the stages through which a person must go in order to be assisted to die are in this Bill, including obtaining the grant of a certificate from a panel. To be of value, as I say, that must surely add new protections to the other stages.

[Sir John Hayes]

We were assured that one of the key safeguards in the Bill’s original incarnation was a legal test. That process—had it been retained, of course—would have enabled the collection of evidence in the very way that my right hon. and learned Friend is describing. It is partly because the safeguards have been weakened that we have the dilemma that his amendments seek to deal with.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but I am not sure I entirely agree with him. I think some of the procedural problems I am describing would have existed even with the previous iteration of the Bill, but certainly they are there in its current iteration. At this Report stage, I am seeking to fix the problem that arises from the difficulty for the three qualified individuals who will constitute these panels to express a considered judgment. If we are to have added value in the panel stage of this process, we surely have to enable the panel to make good judgments. Good judgments come from the capacity to assess all the relevant evidence. The Bill, as it stands, makes it very hard for the panel to have access to all that evidence in every case, but perhaps especially in those cases where the additional safeguard is most needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

For reasons of timeliness, I will speak only to amendment 101, which relates to adults with Down syndrome or a learning disability, although the amendment is directly relevant to new clause 1, as the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke about. Amendment 101 would disallow medical practitioners from initiating a conversation about assisted dying with a person who has Down syndrome or a learning disability. I speak primarily from my experience, along with others, on the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome and what we have heard from members of that community: people with Down syndrome and their families, and professionals specialising in the condition.

Many strong and deeply heartfelt arguments have been put by colleagues, and indeed to all of us by constituents in favour of the Bill, including by families in the most difficult circumstances to imagine—actually, they are sometimes unimaginable circumstances. Nobody could question the conclusions they have come to individually as a result of their circumstances. Equally deeply held and heartfelt points are made to us by people from the other perspective, also informed by their sometimes unimaginable own or family circumstances.

Of the arguments put against the Bill, I am particularly drawn to those around coercion. However, it is important to remember that coercion is not entirely a black-and-white matter. At the sharpest end, there are cases where an individual will directly bring pressure to bear on another for their own ends, but there are many gradations below that, and pressure can be felt differently by different people. It may be felt especially by people who worry they are a burden on their family, on caregivers, on the national health service, or indeed more broadly on society. Once assisted dying is an available option, over and above the question of pressure from others, I worry about the effect of pressure from oneself.

The Bill stipulates in clause 36 that the Secretary of State will issue a code of practice to ensure that the practitioner establishes that there is a “clear and settled intention” for the person to end their own life, including assessing that that person has

“capacity to make such a decision”.

That will have material challenges of its own. However, with regard to amendment 101, I am talking about the initiation, suggesting or raising of the matter specifically with an individual who has a learning disability or Down syndrome.

[Sir John Hayes]

The critical point about my right hon. Friend’s amendment, and indeed about new clause 16, is that they would put that on the face of the Bill. He is right to say that codes of practice and statutory guidance can be of value, but it seems to me that what is on the face of the Bill will be of fundamental importance, particularly in respect of coercion.

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course. When we in this House are told that there will be secondary legislation, guidance or a code of practice, we can only ever take that on trust, and this subject is of such moment that what is on the face of the Bill is that much more important. Given the scale of the decisions that people could make as a result of this legislation, it is right that an additional layer of caution should be applied by legislators.

Obviously, it is important not to generalise—every single person is an individual—but it is the case that people with Down syndrome often exhibit distinct social characteristics, including great sociability, empathy, and a strong desire to please others and seek positive social feedback, while also being particularly sensitive to criticism or perceived failure, which can compound issues around communication and comprehension. We do not need to define what can result as coercion to worry about what might happen in that context.

Amendment 101 and new clause 1 are about initiating a conversation and ensuring that there are additional safeguards, and I urge the House to apply caution that is commensurate with the gravity of the path that could be embarked upon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

[Dr Mullan]

Not on that point.

We may wish to reflect on how we might change our approach to Bills like this one in the future, given the significant dissatisfaction that has been expressed with the manner in which it has been considered, even though it has been done in the ordinary way. But we are where we are.

As on Second Reading, this debate has been a balancing exercise. The promoter of the Bill and others have appropriately reminded us all of the very difficult and tragic experiences faced by the terminally ill and their families, but I respectfully say to the hon. Member for Spen Valley that we should be cautious in saying that opponents of the Bill are happy with the status quo, and I know that she would not have meant to suggest that.

[Dr Mullan]

My hon. Friend has added his concerns to those of others about the manner in which the debate has been conducted, but I reiterate that this has been done in the ordinary manner in terms of the Speaker’s discretion and the Standing Orders of the House.

Opponents of the Bill are concerned that it will lead to a different set of unacceptable circumstances for different people; it is not that they are happy with how things are at the moment. All MPs have talked about people they care deeply about and how to help them. Whether they referred to disabled people, young people or the terminally ill, MPs have been speaking out in support of or against amendments, out of concern and compassion.

I may be tempting fate in saying that we might find consensus on advertising restrictions, but outside of that, Members have undoubtedly expressed a variety of strong views on others’ amendments. It may be that Members vote consistently in line with whether they were originally for or against assisted dying, but other Members who are supportive of the Bill in principle are voting for restrictive amendments because they think that they are necessary. That is because this is a complex moral, legal and societal matter. I understand that Members are considering their votes with a degree of uncertainty.

There should be no shame at all in Members’ admitting that they will be daunted by the sheer number of potential changes to the Bill, not to mention the decisions from the Speaker on those we are going to vote on or the challenge of deciding how to vote on each of them, either today or on a future day.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Mullan]

No, I need to make progress. They will be daunted not least because, although we have international examples, we are considering a novel practice in this country in our particular circumstances.

Members who are generally supportive or opposed in principle may choose to abstain on a number of amendments on which they feel that they are unable to give a definitive view and are content to vote on the final outcome on Third Reading. That would be understandable. I know that Members have considered how they will vote very carefully, and that they will continue to do so, by taking into account their views and experiences, as well as those of their constituents, other Members whom they respect, and experts and campaigning organisations. We will all be directly accountable to our constituents at the next election for all our votes throughout this Parliament.

That brings me to the remarks that I said I would like to finish with on the responsibilities of the public and campaigners towards MPs as they consider our votes. As we are first and foremost public servants, the focus is quite rightly usually almost entirely on the responsibility of MPs to the public, but as with all meaningful relationships, this is, and should always be, a two-way street. I accept the very strong feelings and deeply personal experiences that are brought to bear for those people contacting their MPs, and nothing I say should be taken as diminishing the rights of campaigners to make their cases strongly and consistently, but I and others have experienced lobbying by campaigners whose passion for securing the outcome they want has led them to question the integrity, sincerity or understanding of those MPs seeking a different outcome to them.

Some high-profile campaigners have made unhelpful remarks. Although I am not religious, I was concerned to see the clumsy criticism of those whose objections to the Bill are thought to be centred in their religious beliefs, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

Persecution of Christians

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

That we live in a strange age is beyond doubt. The guilt-fuelled self-loathing that poisons so many tiny bourgeois minds extends beyond the disowning of where we have come from—our shared history—to being insecure about who we are. To deny the Judeo-Christian roots of western civilisation is to ignore the essence of the values, which by underpinning what we share make us capable of the judgments necessary to know what is right. Widespread insecurity about our Christian heritage neuters the response, by people who should know better, to the persecution of Christians.

The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) spoke about parliamentary questions; I asked one when 70 Christians were found beheaded in the Congo. The response I got was full of broadly drawn liberal platitudes about universality and multilateralism, and it said that the Government were saddened—not outraged, disgusted or determined to do something, but saddened. Well, that quiet sadness is an acquiescence of people who, in G. K. Chesterton’s words, exercise unquestioning tolerance. He said, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”

The truth is that throughout the world Christians face discrimination, largely in the name of the Islamisation of parts of the world that used to be Christian. The middle east is a classic example, where the number of Christians has fallen sharply over my lifetime and where Christians continue to be persecuted—in the birthplace of the son of God, bear in mind. In an age that falsely divides people into victims and victors, too often people in the west see Christians as victors even where they are being persecuted.

I simply ask the Minister: will he prioritise this issue? Will he put on a statutory footing the role of the person designated to defend minority religions? Will he make sure that the Government’s policy in respect of aid and foreign affairs addresses the persecution of Christians worldwide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this debate, which is as important as it is timely—I am pleased to be speaking today as we break for the Easter recess.

The right to practise one’s faith freely, without hindrance or discrimination, is fundamental. The Liberal Democrats have a proud history of liberal universalism. We believe that all people should be able to live their life free from fear, including fear of religious intolerance; that human rights are applicable everywhere; and that the universal declaration of human rights, which enshrines the freedoms of thought, conscience, faith and religious practice, has the same resonance now as it did when it was enshrined almost 80 years ago.

It is distressing, therefore, to see Christians across the world persecuted and, worse still, to know that for many the situation is deteriorating. Today, at least 318 million Christians live lives subject to high levels of persecution and discrimination—an increase of 12% on 2021. Moreover, the number of countries that Open Doors considers to be conducting extreme or very high levels of persecution against Christians tripled in the past decade from 23 nations to 60.

It is no coincidence that those statistics rise in parallel to increasing levels of conflict and instability around the world. Four of the top five nations in which Open Doors judges that the most extreme persecution of Christians takes place—Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Sudan—have suffered particularly acute civil strife and are highly fragile. When nations collapse into violence, it is often minority groups, whether ethnic or religious, who suffer first and most. Sudan, where the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe is taking place and where more than 25 million people are in need of food support, is home to more than 2 million Christians who have been swept up in the brutal conflict. More than 150 churches have been destroyed—some deliberately targeted—and there are accounts of Christian leaders who have been murdered.

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course that is true, but it is not the whole story because the persecution of Christians predates much of that. For example, in the middle east, the Ottoman empire gave licence for persecution on exactly the grounds I described: aggressive Islamism perpetuated by the Ottomans led to the persecution of Christians, particularly in Palestine, Bethlehem and similar places. Conflict matters, but it is not all that matters.

[Monica Harding]

In conflict, religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted.

British investment, through international development spending, peacebuilding and deconfliction, reduces the risk of religious intolerance. I am deeply concerned that, as with so many vital areas encompassed by official development assistance, British efforts to safeguard freedom of religion or belief will suffer because of the Government’s decision to slash development spending to the lowest level this century. Previous aid cuts fell hard on programmes focused on those issues. When ODA was reduced from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5% in 2021, the Institute of Development Studies found that some programmes protecting freedom of religion in south Asia saw their budgets plunge by 50%.

The burdens are borne most of all by women and girls, who disproportionately face the horrors of religious intolerance whenever it appears. As evidence given by the APPG to the International Development Committee in 2021 attests, religious intolerance often goes hand in hand with the repression of women and girls. We tend to see that most clearly when it results in girls losing access to education. That deprivation is most acute when applied to women from religious minorities, for whom, as the APPG said,

“their gender acts as a further marginalising layer of identity”.

Freedom of belief and gender equality are both cherished objectives of the Government’s development policy, yet cuts to aid spending will result in setbacks on both fronts.

I am also disturbed by the growing trend of authoritarian states using the digital weapons at their disposal to control and repress minority religious populations, including Christians. We see that in China, a country home to almost 70 million Christians—the single largest Christian minority population anywhere in the world—which has taken to deploying surveillance cameras inside and outside houses of worship capable of identifying believers. China also uses biometric data as a tool to monitor and therefore control faith groups. It is particularly concerning that the extent of that repression, and the potential for it to become still greater, has increased in tandem with technological development, and I urge the Government to monitor that closely.

Britain must play a role in safeguarding religious minorities and Christian communities across the world. In the past, the UK has helped to play a convening role, bringing together Governments, non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations—for instance, through the declaration of humanity, which opposes religious interpretations that are used to justify conflict-related sexual violence and other crimes.

As the UK makes the moral and strategic error of cutting development spending, it is critical that we do all we can to preserve our diplomatic capabilities. I am glad that the Prime Minister has appointed a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and I welcome the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) to his role. However, to be maximally effective, that role must have dedicated support from within the FCDO, so can the Minister share what FCDO resources are available to support the work of the envoy? In view of the darkening situation for Christians around the world, is the Minister willing to reassess the Government’s decision not to legislate in this Session to put the envoy on a statutory footing?

Persecution based on faith should have no place in today’s world. The worsening global outlook for tolerance is an indictment of increasing levels of violence, conflict and extremism, and it is an invitation to redouble our efforts, through diplomacy and development, to protect religious minorities—Christians and others. This is the worst time for the Government to make such deep cuts to our international aid budget, which supports projects that protect religious minorities. I urge the Government to row back on those plans; to return to the challenge of carrying the beacon for human rights, including Christian rights, in these most deadly times; and to match today’s rhetoric with action.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I commend the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for raising this vital issue in the House today, as we approach the most holy period in the Christian calendar, to remind us of the appalling persecution of Christians throughout the world. I will not mention every country, as so many have been mentioned today, which highlights that it is dangerous to be a Christian in parts of our planet, and we in this country must stand up against that kind of persecution and oppression.

I commend all Members who have contributed to this wonderful debate, but I draw particular attention to some of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), which were replicated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger). I am looking at the crown above the door to this Chamber. There is a cross on that crown, which tells us that our constitution, our liberties, our freedoms and our British way of life are founded on Christian values. Whichever political party we represent, it is vital that we defend those traditions.

We are here today to discuss a deep moral urgency. This is not an abstract issue; it is about the very real suffering of people—men, women and children—who are targeted, attacked, imprisoned and even murdered simply for their faith. Christians have faced oppression for centuries. At home, that persecution has found new ways of expressing itself, but abroad it is still very much the same—murder, state-sanctioned discrimination and violent oppression. Today, around the world, Christians are being oppressed on a staggering scale.

First, in the light of the Government’s efforts to begin removing sanctions against Syria and their stated desire to work with the interim Government of that country, it is imperative that we ask the Minister what assurances the UK Government have received that this new approach to Syria will not come at the expense of religious minorities. How will progress be monitored? What can be done to ensure that a codified constitution in Syria represents everybody equally, especially Christians? What discussions has the United Kingdom had with our partners in Washington and Europe to ensure that any future settlement does not come at the expense of those vulnerable communities in Syria? Crucially, what steps are the Government taking to support displaced Christian families and to ensure accountability for the reported atrocities we have been hearing so much about?

In recent months, we have observed what appears to be a growing alignment between the Government of the United Kingdom and China, a country where religious oppression has become ever more brazen. The Government have announced an audit of UK-China relations. Will Christian persecution be a key part of that audit? Have individual cases—for example, the recent arrest of Bishop Shao Zhumin, who was detained for refusing to pay a fine related to a mass that the Government of China deemed illegal—been raised at the highest levels? How are the UK Government ensuring that their diplomatic efforts with the People’s Republic of China include pressing for greater protections for religious minorities—especially, of course, for Christians?

Having read this year’s Open Doors “World Watch List” report, which many Members rightly highlighted, I am sure that I speak for all Members across the House when I say that, while we welcome its publication, its revelations are no less troubling than those of the previous year. Sadly, there seems to be very little progress. In south Asia, Christian communities continue to endure grave challenges and are under increasing social pressures. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws continue to be disproportionately weaponised against Christians, with widespread reports of abductions, forced conversions and systematic discrimination in day-to-day life. In Bangladesh, rising hostility and subtle everyday forms of persecution, particularly in rural areas, have created an environment of fear and exclusion.

What representations have the Government made to those Commonwealth countries? How is British aid being used to safeguard religious minorities and promote genuine freedom of belief? What more can the Commonwealth of Nations, as an organisation, do to promote religious freedom, and will the Minister use the Government’s influence to ensure that the Commonwealth acts where it can across Commonwealth nations in this respect?

Nigeria is another Commonwealth nation that many Members highlighted. The situation there grows more dire by the day. Christian villages are being attacked, with churches burned to the ground and priests kidnapped and executed. Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa undermine the rights of anyone who does not subscribe to their extremist ideologies. Have the Government sought assurances from the Nigerian Government on protecting Christian communities, especially in vulnerable regions of that country, and what support is being given to enhance the security and resilience of these communities against such threats?

[Sir John Hayes]

To be blunt, we have a lot of influence in Nigeria, so I would go as far as to say, “No trade and no aid until their Government act on this.”

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to get tough with countries that behave in this way, and we have to uphold the freedoms of these people. That is part of our heritage, and we should ensure that the rest of the world receives our support where minorities are threatened and persecuted. I could go on with examples—from countries ravaged by war to those where legislative oppression cloaks persecution in legality. We could all do so, but the suffering of Christians is global and unrelenting, and our response must be equally tireless and resolute.

The last Government introduced the position of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief: Fiona Bruce, a wonderful person whom we very much miss. I am delighted that the current Government have renewed that commitment by appointing the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), but will the Minister outline what progress has been made since the new envoy’s appointment? How is the envoy working across all Departments and with international partners to protect Christians at risk, and will the Minister enshrine the appointment as a permanent part of how we do things by making it law, as Fiona Bruce attempted, so that we always have someone who fulfils that very important role? What more can we do to support and amplify the envoy’s position to ensure it delivers meaningful change?

Let me be clear that this is not a partisan issue. It is about standing up for the fundamental right to freedom of religion. It is about defending those who are suffering simply for their faith. We cannot—we must not—remain silent. Britain has a proud history of standing up for the religiously persecuted. We must remember that if we do not defend religious freedom abroad, we weaken it at home. A world in which Christians are persecuted with impunity is a world in which faith is no longer safe. Our message today must be clear: we will not stand idly by. We will not allow the persecution of Christians to be ignored any longer.

I end with a passage from the Gospel of St Matthew that feels all too relevant today:

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves...you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.”

Let those words remind us of our duty. The question is: what will His Majesty’s Government do to defend the freedom of religion and the rights of Christians, and to prevent, condemn and stop persecution around the world?

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Leigh Ingham]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I completely agree. I am particularly passionate about getting more women into politics. It is something I will constantly bang on about. A number of women have said to me, “I don’t want to put myself in that position.” In fact, when I was considering standing for this place, it was one of the things I was most nervous about. I am not a huge user of social media platforms, and have never really put my life out there in that way, so I was incredibly nervous about standing for a political role, because I did not want to expose myself or my family in that way. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.

In the old days, we had coffee shops and pubs in which to disagree over politics, but the rise of social media has meant that, today, people often get their information online, and have political conversations online. A quiet conversation in a pub or a coffee shop does not reach thousands of people within seconds. Social media has meant that the very nature of political discourse has changed, because the medium has changed.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here in the early part of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so moved by what the hon. Lady says. The truth is that the discourse she describes has been brutalised. Complex ideas have been made simple—or at least apparently simple—and malignance has been given licence, exactly as she said. My advice to any new Member of this House is: do not get involved. I am not involved in social media at all, but I have an immense profile in my constituency, because I occupy the real world, not the virtual world. Real-world contact with people is always more valued and more valuable.

[Leigh Ingham]

I agree with the right hon. Member. I host a lot of community coffee mornings in my constituency, in which we discuss complex ideas, rather than three-word solutions to very complex problems.

Social media is here to stay. The next thing we do must be to regulate it appropriately. It is our duty as Members of this House to ensure that our constituents still have an avenue through which to share their opinions. I agree with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley about disagreeing with people—it is an incredibly important feature of our democracy—but we must enforce guidelines that protect users from harmful content, misinformation and abuse. Ultimately, we must restore faith in our political process. By improving the discourse, we can improve our democracy. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s plans to tackle this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

It is an honour to contribute to this debate on such a critical issue. As the former head of policy for the British Computer Society, this was one of my passion projects. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for bravely bringing this debate to the House, as it affects us all.

As MPs, we have a duty not only to preserve democracy, but to strengthen it. We must safeguard the integrity of public discourse, yet increasingly the conversation is manipulated by a handful of powerful billionaires, unaccountable corporate giants and malicious actors—foreign and domestic—all counting on us to dither and retreat from the scale of the challenge.

Public trust in digital platforms is eroding as the people behind the algorithms that drive the platforms wield unprecedented power and influence over millions without any of the checks and balances by which the rest of our democratic institutions have been shaped for generations. The people behind algorithms that are designed to manipulate or exploit are rewarding sensationalism and division over truth, nuance and meaningful discussion, and doing so with impunity.

[Sir John Hayes]

The very distinction between fact and fiction is being eroded, and I fear that young people’s consciousness of that is being so damaged that we will be unable to navigate the journey to truth that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is about the great internet giants, but it is also about the keyboard warriors. Umberto Eco described the internet as the “empire of imbeciles”; the trouble now is that people cannot tell the difference between imbeciles and experts.

[Dan Aldridge]

There is rightly a lot of conversation about children in this space, but we often forget that people generally are having huge problems. Just last weekend I was knocking on doors, and grown men were saying they did not believe anything they read online. They did not believe anything I said. There was no justification. It is a real difficulty, so I absolutely take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is important to talk about the people behind the algorithms.