Role of Big Tech in Society

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this important debate and for raising the very real issues of the impact of big tech on democracy.

Big tech has in many cases become synonymous with US tech, but that is not something that we should accept. The UK’s technology ecosystem is worth nearly £1 trillion. It is the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world and the most valuable in Europe. The UK has a long history of technological innovation, from the industrial revolution to the creation of the world wide web. That legacy is still very much alive today, but we must continue to foster it.

The shortage of STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—skills in the UK has been a concern for the past two decades, along with scale-up funding. Start-ups in the UK repeatedly say that their main challenge is finding funding to scale up, and that that is hindering the UK’s chance of having a thriving technological ecosystem with as large an impact as that of America. If we look at our pensions, for example, foreign pension funds invest 16 times more into UK start-ups than our own pension funds do. Overseas funds recognise the talent that we create, so why don’t we? Why are we allowing our brilliant British start-ups to be sold abroad?

Backing British technology has never been so important, as we have heard in the debate, because big technology exists in every corner of our society. Even the Government run their computer systems on overseas cloud providers. As alluded to, the NHS data system is run by Palantir. The online systems used every day by workers across the UK’s economy are run by big tech companies, neither owned nor run from the UK. That is a question of not only economic security but, increasingly, national security.

We cannot ignore the risks posed by overreliance on foreign technologies. That became apparent when the US Government switched off, across the globe, access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5. While Fable 5 may only have been a feature for a day, a worrying precedent has been set for the US’s role in turning off international access to its big tech. What if that tech had been powering public services, such as our NHS records, when it was suddenly cut off? This must be a wake-up call.

Our reliance on the technology that fuels our economy and underpins our services shows how desperately we need a digital sovereignty strategy to support British tech. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to take the risk, which is why we tabled and voted in favour of a digital sovereignty strategy during proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. We would have required the Government to establish a digital sovereignty strategy that placed British tech procurement at its centre. In an increasingly unstable world, the case for British digital resilience, technology and sovereign capability has never been stronger, but the Labour Government voted the proposed strategy down. I ask the Minister to explain what his alternative strategy is.

Unfortunately, we cannot talk about big tech’s role in society without also thinking about the online harms. The world is increasingly moving towards the regulation of social media, and the Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government finally took on that issue, but the fine print really matters. The burden of safety must be on big tech, not on parents. The Liberal Democrats are clear that we must implement film-style age ratings based on harm, addictiveness and mental health impact. That is supported by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and over 40 charities.

Social media companies must also play a stronger role in tackling misinformation. The UK Government must introduce stricter regulations for social media companies to ensure that they challenge harmful misinformation and reduce its spread across their platforms. Social media companies must issue fact-checked corrections to scientifically inaccurate posts and ensure that those are seen by everyone who shared or saw the original inaccurate posts. They must also change their algorithms to de-promote misinformation and fake news.

I recently witnessed the devastating and real-life impact of unregulated dis and misinformation in Epsom and Ewell when riots took place there in April. In analysing the social media around those riots, the Council for Countering Online Disinformation found that 62 right wing UK accounts produced 70% of the misinformation. It also found that 42 video posts containing misinformation reached 4.2 million views, accounting for nearly 25% of misinformation views, despite accounting for less than 1% of all Epsom misinformation posts. That false information reached at least 21.8 million views between 11 April and 23 April. It was also promoted by X’s algorithm and, alarmingly, it continued to sit in X’s trending tab for at least two consecutive days after it had been clarified by the police that the events in question never took place.

Social media is not the only cause of online harms. Despite their transformative potential, evidence shows that AI and bots are also a cause of harm online. NBC News reported that 57.4% of search requests online are now initiated by bots, compared with 42.6% coming from humans—a terrifying reality where bots are outpacing and outnumbering humans online. At the same time, 70% of people are unable to correctly identify real and fake AI-generated content online. Those online harms have been driven by big tech, and current legislation does not actively prevent them.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content online. We would also introduce a digital Bill of Rights to protect everyone’s rights online, including the right to privacy, free expression and participation. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically. That is why we would establish a cross-sector AI regulator that combines flexible, ethical oversight and technical expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with the rapid advances in technology.

The AI legislation promised in Labour’s manifesto and the 2024 King’s Speech has not yet materialised. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she has five minutes to sum up the debate, and she is on six and a bit. Can she swiftly get to her last sentence?

[Helen Maguire]

Absolutely. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed to cost Britain its technological future or the safety of our children. The Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government on the positive role that British big tech can have, while holding the Government to account. Getting that right is not politics; it is essential for Britain’s future.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

This week, I was proud to see our Labour Government announce a ban on under-16s accessing social media, which many of us have campaigned for since we were elected to this place. Many of my constituents across Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, especially teachers and parents, have told me that they want that to happen, but the complexity in implementing the ban shows how hard it is to use rearguard action to regulate a technology that should have had more attention over a decade ago. While social media has many positives, the damage it is able to do to our democracy and our young people has been driven by many of the same tech bros who are now telling us that they need a regulation-free environment to develop AI.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

In my view, this Bill does not explicitly reference misinformation or disinformation threats. I have just met with the Council for Countering Online Disinformation, and in that meeting I learned that X’s algorithm amplified misinformation and disinformation online about the riots that took place in Epsom. Does the hon. Member agree that it is really important that we add strong safeguards against misinformation and disinformation into the Bill?

[Melanie Ward]

I certainly agree. Misinformation and disinformation are a huge challenge to our democracy and our country. We know that many enemy nations, such as Russia and Iran, are seeking to exploit loopholes, and I believe the Government have to take further action on that, for sure.

We should not wait to find out whether AI has the potential to damage our critical national infrastructure; we know that in some cases it does, and we should be prepared for it. “Catastrophic risk” includes harm to critical infrastructure, national security or a severe, large-scale harm to human life. Governments should have the power to prevent those risks from coming to pass. It is our No. 1 duty to keep our citizens safe. In a speech in April, the Secretary of State argued in favour of greater AI sovereignty in the UK, and kill switches would provide exactly that—sovereign control over the most dangerous risks posed by artificial intelligence.

New clause 12 includes proportionality and accountability, and the costs of implementing kill switches on data centres would be minimal, particularly in comparison with the financial losses associated with major cyber-attacks; we have heard more about that from many of my hon. Friends in this debate. It would ensure that there is parliamentary reporting within seven days of any direction from the Secretary of State and a debate in this House at the earliest opportunity. Any operator served with direction would have an immediate right to receive a High Court review.

We are elected to this House first and foremost to keep our nation safe. AI developers are moving at a pace far, far faster than Governments, and they are racing towards superintelligence. It is crucial that if—or, more likely, when—that is achieved, we have the right safeguards in place to avoid catastrophic outcomes. That is a crucial part of our national resilience and an issue that I and others who are present today continue to speak about, because it badly needs more attention.

New clause 12 does not seek to stymie the development of AI systems that could bring radical benefits to our society. Instead, it provides the Government with a suitable mechanism to stay ahead and in control of real threats to our critical national infrastructure. That is why I support the new clause and hope that the Government will do the same. If not, I ask the Minister to set out how the Government plan to ensure that we have these powers, which are so clearly needed.

Online Harm: Child Protection

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

We have all learned that if an online service is free, we are the product. That is the business model used by the social media giants. They track what we watch, what we click, what we like and what we fear. They then build detailed profiles of our behaviour and they turn that behaviour into data and advertising revenue.

These platforms do not just host content; they actively shape what we see. They promote material, target adverts and keep users online for as long as possible because the longer we stay, the more money they make, and that is where the problem lies. The algorithms used by social media giants are designed for engagement, not wellbeing. They feed on outrage, division and shock to keep us scrolling. Users are pushed towards more extreme content, not because it is true and not because it is healthy, but because it is profitable. We can see the consequences in the real world.

Young people in particular are vulnerable to these pipelines of harmful content. Misogynistic and extremist figures, including Andrew Tate, rise to prominence through social media ecosystems that reward provocation and repetition. What starts as healthy curiosity or pushing the boundaries in young people can quickly lead to radicalisation. Given the serious harms caused by under-regulated social media, we have a responsibility to act quickly in a defined timeline to protect children and young people.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Last week, the chief executive officer of Meta took the stand in Los Angeles as part of a landmark trial examining Instagram’s impact on the mental health of young users. This highlights the confusion about who is responsible for what in the online space. We know that we need Government legislation, but we also need clarity on what social media companies are responsible for. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that we establish a clear framework and proper accountability so responsibilities are understood and the right people are held to account for any failings?

[Susan Murray]

I absolutely agree; it is important that it is clear who is accountable for the harms that occur. That is why I urge the Government to work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce age ratings for social media. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) so clearly laid out, ratings help parents and carers to keep children safe. We already accept them in other areas of life—not every film is suitable for every age group, so we rate them; not every game is suitable for every child, so we rate them. Social media should be no different.

If a platform, unasked, can expose a child to violent content, misogyny, self-harm content or extremist propaganda, it must not be treated as if it were harmless by default. This is not about banning social media or saying it has no value. It can be a brilliant tool for learning, as we have heard. It can help people stay in touch with friends and family, as we have heard. It can open up access to information, support and communities that people might not otherwise find. Yet those benefits do not cancel out the harms. We are not trying to get rid of social media, but we must take a sensible approach to ensure that multibillion-pound companies do not push products that maximise profits while our children pay the price. We regulate risk in other areas. We cannot be beholden to tech giants; we have a responsibility to regulate here.

Community Theatre

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether that was really a question or an advert. It would seem that all the world’s a stage, and all the MPs merely players. It is good that everybody appreciates the cultural institutions in their constituencies and that we all try our best to support them when we can.

The Park & Dare is the theatre in my patch with a beautiful 19th-century building. One of the most exciting nights that I have ever had was seeing Joan Armatrading perform there. When a performer of global standing comes to a local community theatre, that is really important. I think Paul Young is playing at the Forum theatre in a few weeks’ time; the audience then will no doubt be living in the “Love of the Common People”.

We have all used the term “community theatre” in the debate, but it does not really exist. According to the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, roughly 50% of the 1,100 theatres in the UK are community theatres, so we are talking about 500 or so of them. All those theatres are on a spectrum, however, that ranges from the tiny venue that seats only 100 people and is entirely run by the community on an almost-voluntary basis to much bigger venues, such as Nottingham Playhouse, that are run by the local authority but are still very much part of the local community.

Actually, I would argue that no theatre is really a theatre unless it is a community theatre, even many of the big theatres that we see in London’s west end, which are such an enormous attraction for people around the world. Incidentally, if anybody in the United States of America is watching this debate, the productions in our west end theatres are much better value than Broadway theatres, and their productions are of much better quality too.

Whatever kind of theatre we are talking about, in the words of Peter Brook, every theatre is in essence an “empty space”, and it is only when somebody walks across it that it becomes a theatre. To do that, however, it has to have a story to tell, it has to have people to tell that story and it has to have an audience. All of that is what turns a theatre into a community. The theatre industry in the UK generates something like £2.39 billion in gross added value, employs 205,000 workers and has a turnover of £4.4 billion a year. We already support it in many of the ways that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has asked us to support it, so I am quite pleased that she asked those questions rather than more difficult ones.

The higher rate of theatre tax relief that comes into force on 1 April is a significant investment in the theatre industry across the whole UK. It will be set at 40% for non-touring productions and 45% for touring productions and ones that involve music. Arts Council England is going through the next round of looking at its national portfolio investment programme, which will provide something like £100 million a year to 195 theatres across the UK.

People might think that a lot of that is going to the big theatres, which might not qualify as a community theatre, but that is stuff and nonsense—sorry, that is the name of a theatre in Dorset. The Stuff and Nonsense theatre is one of Arts Council England’s national portfolio organisations, as are the Nottingham Playhouse, Z-arts in Manchester, the Little Bulb theatre in Mendip and Scratchworks theatre in Exeter. Interestingly enough, the programme does not just fund theatre buildings; it also funds the Writing Squad in Stockport, which is bringing on new writing talent in the north of England, because that is absolutely essential to making sure that there are new plays coming along.

I love J. B. Priestley, and one day I will tell the embarrassing story of when I was in a production of “Time and the Conways” many years ago, but we cannot endlessly put on the classics. Much as many of the classics are really important—I have seen productions of “Richard II”, “Edward II” and “Hamlet” in the last few weeks—we none the less need live, modern stories that reflect people’s lived experiences.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

On the point of funding, Leatherhead theatre is a grade II listed building leased by a small local charity. It faces ongoing maintenance challenges, but its ownership model makes covering those costs extremely difficult. The £85 million creative foundations fund is welcome, but past experience suggests that not owning the building or having a long-term lease could preclude access to such funding. Would the Minister look into ensuring that funding is accessible to all community theatres regardless of ownership to ensure that they continue enriching our communities?

[Chris Bryant]

I like the way that the hon. Lady casually dismisses the £85 million of capital investment—it took quite a lot of work to secure that money. One of the first things that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I were lobbied about when we came into government last July was the state of many of the cultural institutions—theatres, museums, galleries and so on—that have been run by local authorities and are in dire capital need. Many of the organisations that we are talking about will be covered by that. If she wants to write to me about the specifics of that case, I will look into it. We had to decide where our priorities should lie. There are other avenues that other organisations can go down, but we wanted to make sure that there was a solid amount of money available in a single year: £85 million for capital projects in 2025-26 for the kind of theatres that many of us will be talking about that are, or have been, local authority-run.

The other intervention that the Department is engaged in is the Theatres Trust, which provides a great deal of unbiased advice to a variety of different theatres about their funding mechanism, their legal structures, their governance and what they can do about energy costs—a whole series of different things. I am very grateful to the Theatres Trust team, who play an important role in making sure that the whole sector works.

It is clearly easy for us to celebrate the big shows that I have already mentioned in the west end, such as Tom Hiddleston in “Much Ado About Nothing”. Those productions get lots of coverage and are very successful commercially, but we cannot have a successful commercial UK theatre industry without a successful subsidised UK theatre industry. We need that whole mix. An actress such as Glenda Jackson, who ended up winning two Oscars and was nominated for two more, and who was a great star of stage and screen making her way partly in theatre and partly in the movies, started in rep in Hoylake and West Kirby. We must remember that it is that whole mix, even in the changing environment of modern theatre, which has very few repertory theatres in the classic sense, that we really have to sustain.

I have already referred to the £85 million creative foundations fund, but I should also refer, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove rightly did, to local government. The new plan for neighbourhoods that is being developed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is precisely designed to look at how we can make sure our local neighbourhoods flourish. A key aspect of that must be the creative industries and our cultural institutions. People take so much pride in having a local theatre, a local music venue or whatever else it may be. We lose those organisations at our peril, although there are enormous challenges.